Featured literalist?

First, I referred to Levitical Services.

Secondly, could you show me where this...


Hebrews 8:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


...precludes fulfillment of the description of the Levitical Services in Prophecy?

For example:


Zechariah 14:16-21

King James Version (KJV)

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness Unto The Lord; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.


If we negate this part of Prophecy, do we also negate...


Zechariah 14

King James Version (KJV)

1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.


...?

Then you know nothing of Dispensationalists.

The issue at hand is a matter of delving into past Prophecy.

Do we tear out parts of Ezekiel? Say they are fulfilled?

Maybe, maybe not. Nothing to stop the Rapture from occurring and the Tribulation beginning.

But we aren't talking about the Eternal State, we are talking about the Millennial Kingdom. And Prophecy does place a Temple in that Kingdom.

Sorry to be so brief, but have to get going, and want to see what your contribution to the other thread was, lol.


God bless.

 

Do you not see how Rev 20:7-9 casts light on Zech. 14?
No? I thought not.

 

I see how Revelation, which by the way, is appropriately titled...casts light on all Prophecy.

What does that have to do with spiritualizing the death out of the Book?

How does that justify a view that nothing is literal?

As I said before, there is a difference between a spiritualized, a literal, and a hyper literal view. Of the three, only a literal view which accounts for figurative speech concludes in a balanced view. It is the only way to have a consistent view which corresponds in all points.

Is Satan literally a dragon? No. But he is a literal entity, not some spiritualized representation of evil. Learn the literal teaching in the text, and you will not be confused about Eschatological issues.


God bless.

 

Sad! Very Sad!

It is totally disingenuous for you to call yourself pre-mil. Historic or Covenant premillennialism is consistent with the Biblical teaching regarding the Church of Jesus Christ. The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 got it correct when they said:

GOD has only one people, period!

The doctrine of pre-trib-dispensationalism that the Church is a "Parenthesis", or intercalation as Chafer insists, in GOD's program for an earthly people, Israel. is a terrible, unBiblical doctrine. It is an affront to Jesus Christ and should be to everyone who has been redeemed by the death of Jesus Christ!

Just a simple observation after more than 10 years on this forum: It is pre-trib-dispensationalism that smacks of the papacy. They doubt the salvation of anyone who questions the false doctrine of pre-trib-dispensationalism. Obviously they cannot be forthcoming about such doubt lest they face banishment from this BB to the outer darkness but the doubt is always there!

 

Not sure why a belief that God will actually fulfill His promises should be considered sad, or...very sad.

On the contrary, because God is consistent and keeps His promises, that is something we should rejoice about.

Do you now recognize the Millennial Kingdom?

That is new, isn't it?

In the eternal perspective most recognize that God has only One People, but, that does not nullify the fact that Israel was the People of God as a Nation, and that we see her His people despite their unbelief (in the Wilderness, for example).

Now either everyone in Israel throughout her history up until this very day is saved, or, we distinguish between the temporal provision of Covenant Relationship which is quite evident in the better portion of the Old Testament with the Eternal Provision that began when he New Covenant was established.

Consider:


John 10:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.


While ultimately there will be one fold, and one people, under the Covenant of Law there was a division of Jew and Gentile.

Israel was in relationship with God, Gentiles were not a part of that people. They could proselytize, but just as Jews do not shed their heritage when saved, and Gentiles do not become members of Israel when they are saved, those proselytes were never made members of Israel in that process.

The only one who I have seen raise that issue would be you and your buddies.

Perhaps you should first find someone that actually embraces that view before going on a tirade against someone.

All of this is simply fabrication. Quote someone who presents these views.

You are the popish among us, as you seek to restrict understanding, keep a stranglehold on both eh Word of God and those who would learn of it, and condemn anyone who does not embrace your view.

And here is a simple observation of my own: you speak about me behind my back. If you have a comment about me, please address it to me, that I might be able to confront mine accuser, lol.

And I will give you a little advice...

...if you speak the truth no door will be shut unto you.

You cast aspersion on both other members as well as this forum itself, and you do not have the right to do so.


God bless.

 

First, I have NEVER questioned, nor will I ever question the salvation of ANY who post on this board that clearly stated they are believers.

Perhaps it would be good to contrast the history of the post-mil/a-mil views and that of pre-mil and dispensation. No doubt in that history you will find two things. One, that the post and a mil views are completely entangled with the papacy. Two, there is not a single credible historian that does not recognize that fact.

What I did was openly question how a person who desires and does take the rendering of Scriptures as literal in all other doctrins (unless plainly shown to be metaphorical or allegory) yet take the opposite thinking when it comes to eschatology.

For the record, I am a modified dispensational, pre-trib rapture, pre-mil return of Christ believer.

I do not regard or esteem Darby.

The basic dispensation thinking was from the beginning of the church. It is that thinking in which I embrace, not some "Johnny" come later person name Darby.

Did God reveal all that He planned at the beginning of Genesis 1? Nope.

Did God reveal all that He was and planned on Mt. Sinai as the people stood looking at the mountain? Nope.

Did God reveal his whole plan for the gentile nations to Israel of the OT? Nope.

So, there is a progressive revealing in which God reiterates His covenant and augments the covenant from Adam through Christ. God is not limited to the number of Covenants He provides.

As a believer, I am made a child of the very God of heaven, part of His own chosen, just as Abraham was told that he and his descendants would be God's own chosen. God will never disown me. God will never disown those He chose for his own. Is that not basic Calvinistic thinking?

Not EVERY promise in the Book is mine, in contrast to what a popular SS children's chorus would state. Did God replace His people Israel with the church contrary to prophecies in the OT? Nope

I take the statements of Prophecy at face value as given to the people prophesied. When applied to Israel they are to the Jews. When appointed to other nations, they are specified as to that or those gentile groupings.

So, as a Calvinistic thinker, I reject covenant theology (though I must state that NEW covenant theology is getting it more correct), and any view that would distort the hope of Christ's return to rule with the saints in judgment and justice upon this earth during a literal 1000 years as the Apostles taught.

 

You have several threads where you imply or call them papists and it is obvious what you think of Roman Catholics! I have presented an article on another tread where you bash those who disagree with the pre-trig-doctrine of you and Darby, the originator of pre-trib-dispensationalism, showing the Roman Catholic origination of this false doctrine as a counter to the Reformation!

Darby is equivalent to the pope when it comes to those who advocate the false doctrine of pre-trib-dispensationalism.

 

Surely, you do know that the doctrine of both the post -mil and a-mil are held by Papists and has been that which it taught from the early departure of the church from "sound doctrine" and beginning of political driven Popes. Don't you ???

I have shown how the Papist influence continued in the Anglican, the Episcopal, the Pilgrim, and the Luthern churches. This is historically accurate whether everyone sees it or not. Therefore, the eschatology of the Papist was propagated in those groups. That is just historically accurate and to state such is being accurate.

Obviously, you have a problem knowing the history behind what you credit Darby for, and I suggest that you spend some time in that area.

I am not certain how you align anything Darby or his peers would write or teach as "counter Reformation." The reformation took place centuries before they were even born.

The RCC didn't "counter (the) Reformation) by inventing anything other than torture devices, ways to be deceitful both politically and religiously, and ways of gaining greater riches and influences by buying and selling indulgences.

So, what ever you are attempting to "show" by bringing up "counter Reformation" is just vapor.

Wouldn't it be good if you step back, look again at the historical accuracy, and then post?

Darby did not start Pre-millennial doctrine - it was from the time of the Apostles.

Darby did not start the pre-tribulational rapture dispensation views - he took them, enlarged upon them, and published them as a systematic way of looking at the Scriptures.

I did not learn from Darby, nor do I accept all that Darby taught that I have read.

You on the other hand ... What do you hold in likeness to????

 

I have never denied that historic or Covenant premillennialism was a valid interpretation of Scripture. These people, like Gill, Spurgeon, and Ladd, had the Biblical view pf the Church.

Historic or Covenant pre-millennialism does not lead to the doctrine of the Church as a "parenthesis" or intercalation in GOD's program for the Nation Israel. It is dishonest to attempt to justify the doctrine of pre_trib_dispensationalism by the views of some early Church Fathers. The pre_trib_dispensational_doctrine that the Church is simply an interruption until Israel comes to terms with GOD is simply egregiously false doctrine, and that is a fact.

You correctly state Darby's role, at least as i understand Dr. Thomas Ice on Darby.!!!!!! You need to educate an unnamed moderator regarding Darby.

Sadly, however, Darby's contribution was a seventh dispensation which, by seemingly special revelation, he gleaned from Isaiah 32. Darby is apparently the "grandfather" of the "snatching away of the Church" at least in non RCC denominations. It is this "false doctrine" that leads to the concept of the Church, for which Jesus Christ shed HIS blood on the Roman Cross, as simply a "Parenthesis" in GOD's program for national Israel!

You should know by now agedman. We have debated many times. I follow the WORD of GOD!

 

The above portion of the BF&M was written by both cals and non cals and used specific language that both sides would accept. For on side to claim its language as solely supporting their own position is in error.

 

The Pre-Tribulation position is not a false doctrine, but a position which many who embrace believe is the only logical position.

A-millennialism has to remove Scripture in order to support itself, which is contrary to Scripture itself.

The Post Tribulation view is riddled with inconsistencies which cannot be reconciled, such as having the Church glorified at Christ's Return which leaves no physical believers left to populate the earth to fulfill the rebellion taught in Revelation 20.

The Mid Tribulation view would be preferable to the above, because we do see a Rapture in the middle of the Tribulation (the Two Witnesses), but lacks any further support.

After ten years I would think that one would have formulated better arguments for their views, rather than being forced to falsely charge others with following Darby.


God bless.

 

We do not hold to a wooden literalism, as we must take into account the style of writting employed by each writer in each passage, but should strive for the plain and intended meaning of the text!

For if we hold that all references in the NT regarding isreal really means the church, that would not be taking a literal meaning!