Pastor Qualifications.

You have, inadvertently I am sure, aptly stated the problem with dispensationalism.

Hyper or ultra dispensationalists have dug themselves so deeply into a hole that they will never get out.

Classic dispensationalists are still digging because their faulty system demands it but the truth still evades them as it must.

Progressive dispensationalists are at least making an attempt to get out of the hole classic dispensationalism put them.

Cheers!:wavey:

 

Amy, who gets the inheritance? The children. The physical kindom is not the unbelievers, they exist in it but it is not theirs.

Just as a passanger can sit in your car but the car is not theirs. However it is your childrens through inheritance. Or in the same manner, back in the middle ages. The kingdom belonged to those of the royal house as an inheritance but it did not belong to the people who dwelt in it. Only the children of the King had ownership and thus authority in that kingdom.

There are two basic forms of inheritance spoken of in in the New Testament. 1. is the eternal inheritance:

2. and physical one:

Inheritance is something given to another for an possession. They are given authority over it because it is theirs, and this is so as the owner gave it to them for their inheritance.

 

My 'points' in Post #78 were of historical accuracy, not those of 'theology' here, as I simply don't have the time to devote to any great detail into this, at the moment.

Ed

 

is any of this even on topic?
and the qualifications of a pastor are............

 

He must be able to stay on topic. :laugh:

 

Mose killed a man in Egypt,

David had one killed to get his wife.

Whomever God "calls", is "qualified" to "lead".

ALL have sinned.

 

Did you notice how yet again you dealt with absolutely no Scripture? Isn't that telling? This has been the constant tack you have taken. You throw out a few verses as proof texts, then when they are answered, you don't respond to the text or the theology. You stoop to personal comments. This is why it's not productive.

 

You have ever right to be because the dispensational eschatology when considered in total is very confusing and I believe totally wrong. When the believer dies he goes into the presence of GOD. The glory of that presence is described in Revelation Chapters 4 and 5. At a time of HIS choosing GOD will bring all things to fruition. All the dead will be raised in a general resurrection followed by the general judgment [John 5:28, 29], the Great White Throne Judgment [Revelation 20:10-15] also described metaphorically in Matthew 25:31-46 as the judgment of the sheep and the goats. The sheep as always are the true believers, the goats the unbelievers.

At the judgment the believer will only hear: "Enter thou into the joy of the LORD" since their judgment has been taken by Jesus Christ. Revelation 21 & 22 give some indication of the joy that awaits the believer in the New Heavens and New Earth where they will dwell eternally in the presence of the Triune GOD.

Read brother Jim's post and my post quoting Anthony Hoekema about the binding of Satan. It is difficult for us to understand the binding of Satan when we see the evil in the world at this present time. However, both the post by Jim and by Hoekema give the real purpose of the binding of Satan: that the Gospel could be preached to all the nations. There are several passages of Scripture in the Gospels where the binding of Satan is indicated [Matthew 12:24-29]. Hebrews 2:14 also speaks of the affect of Jesus Christ's death on Satan.

Of course we have no idea of the evil in the Gentile world prior to the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

However, even dispensationalists must admit that evil exist in the so-called millennial kingdom since there are mortals, saved and unsaved, present and Jesus Christ rules with a "rod of iron".

 

The problem with the idea that the 1,000 years is not literal is that the bible says this: "till the thousand years should be fullfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." A few verses later: "and when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of prison." Notice that this thousand years come to an end.

The language there suggests that this is a definite period of time that expires.

 

You are disingenuous as usual. I threw out no Scripture in the referenced post. However, there is one passage of Scripture which if interpreted literally , which the dispensationalists insist is their hermeneutic, rather than allegorically as they do is the death knell of Dispensationalism. That passage of Scripture is John 5:28, 29 which clearly teaches a general resurrection and a general judgment. You, however, reject that Scripture preferring to use a very obscure passage of Scripture from Daniel to justify much of your erroneous doctrine.

Incidentally, in the context of the post you reference Scripture is not necessary. It is simply a logical truth.

Darby and Scofield were wrong. Chafer is wrong. Ryrie is wrong. Walvoord is wrong. Dispensationalism is wrong. You are wrong. God has only one people, His elect, those for whom Jesus Christ died, those who constitute His bride, the Church. And Jesus Christ came for only one purpose: to redeem through His death those given to Him by the Father, His bride, the Church.

 

You correctly state a definite period of time expires. The thousand years represents a definite period of time of length known only to God, the time between the ascension and the general resurrection and judgment. A similar use of a definite number that indicates a number known only to God is when God told Elijah that He had seven thousand men in the Northern Kingdom that had not bowed the knee to Baal.

 

Another sad personal attack, leading off a post with no interaction with Scripture.

But I did. I have dealt with the Scriptures showing what they teach, and you wont' deal with the Scripture.

Actually, we did deal with that verse long ago and it was seen that the verse does not and cannot teach what you say because it creates problems in other verses. That was a place where you got backed into a corner and ended up just slinging mud again.

Well, we base our beliefs on the Scriptures. They are the foundation of truth, not logic. So yes, we should reference Scripture.

You are an old lady in Zambia who can't here.

(Said only to remind us that the mere saying of things won't make them true. They actually have to be demonstrated to be true by reasoning and support, which is absent.)

The Bible seems to indicate that there are Jews and Gentiles, one body in Christ. However, there is a future for the Jewish nation if God's word is true. Again,this is matter of several issues. 1) The hermeneutical problem and how we handle Scripture -- I cannot in good conscience treat the words of Scripture like you do; 2) the authority of the OT -- I hold to the accuracy and authority fo the OT and you want to diminish it. I cannot in good conscience do that; 3) the clarity of the NT as continuing revelation, building on what was previously said rather than changing it or contradicting it. I don't think the NT changes or contradicts the OT. I don't think you have any other option.But again, I must note that you are not dealing with Scripture. And that's a major problem.

 

So if God wanted to say it was literally one thousand years, how would he do it?

Should we look at all uses of "thousand" in the Bible as something other than a thousand? How do we know?

 

I was simply stating the truth. You have a clever way of twisting words that hide the truth.

That is not true. Dispensationalists cannot deal with John 5: 28, 29 and there is no passage of Scripture that can refute it.

John F. MacArthur in his book Charismatic Chaos [page 94] writes on the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture as follows [emphasis mine.]:

The Reformers used the expression scriptura scripturam interpretatur, or ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ By this they meant that obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones. If the Bible is God's Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of the Bible can contradict any other part. One divine Author, the Holy Spirit, inspired the whole Bible, so it has one marvelous, supernatural unity. The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly, or possibly both of them. The Holy Spirit does not disagree with himself. And the passages with obvious meanings should interpret the more arcane [obscure] ones. One should never build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text. When I teach a passage of Scripture, I often guide the congregation to different parts of the Bible to show how the passage under study fits into the total context of Scripture. In his fine book God Has Spoken, J. I. Packer said:

‘The Bible appears like a symphony orchestra, with the Holy Ghost as its Toscanini; each instrumentalist has been brought willingly, spontaneously, creatively, to play his notes just as the great conductor desired, though none of them could ever hear the music as a whole.... The point of each part only becomes fully clear when seen in relation to all the rest.’

Peter said much the same thing when he wrote, ‘As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you .... made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating’ [1 Peter 1:10-11]. Even the Bible writers did not always know the full meaning of what they wrote. Today, because the New Testament is complete, we can see how the Bible connects into one glorious comprehensible whole.

MacArthur is correct. Obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones and the passages with obvious meanings should interpret the more arcane [obscure] ones. Unfortunately MacArthur being a dispensationalist does not follow his own advice. There is no Scripture that more clearly defines the resurrection than John 5:28, 29 and you know it regardless of what you say.

No you don't! Dispensationalism is based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture [perhaps inspired by a so called revelation to one Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland] propagated by Darby and Scofield.

The Bible doesn't just seem to indicate that there is one body in Jesus Christ, it specifically teaches that fact, just as clearly as it teaches a general resurrection and a general judgment [John 5:28, 29]. You might try reading again Ephesians 2:11-22 or Galatians Chapter 3.

I suspect that I hold a higher view of Scripture than you do. I also believe that I hold a higher view of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ, than you do: That he did not fail in His mission as dispensationalism implies.

You continue with the mantra: "you are not dealing with Scripture. And that's a major problem." and that is pure nonsense. You deal with John 5:28, 29, which you falsely claim to have done, then talk about dealing with Scripture.

 

Context! Context! Context!

 

OR, I have been nothing but honest and ingenuous. When I didn’t have a good explanation, I have said so. I have never pretended to know more than I do. I have never twisted words. You have caused me to go back and study more and read more. And ironically, have confirmed to me that your position can’t answer the questions. It can’t put the whole Bible together.

Of course there is no passage of Scripture that can refute it. We don’t need to refute it. We believe it. We simply believe it means something different than what you say, and we have shown some passages that create severe (and I would say insurmountable problems for you.)

Actually, there are. Other passages talk about multiple resurrections. So when you have that talk of multiple resurrections, the passages that speak of one resurrection are more obscure. Why would Christ in some places talk of multiple resurrections and other places talk about one? Somehow you have to put those together. I find your means exegetically unsatisfying because it involves explaining easier passages in light of harder ones.
Let me try an example to illustrate: Someone says, “What are you doing this week?” You say, “ I am going to go to work.” So Monday you go to work. Tuesday, you go to work. They say, “What are you doing? You said you were only going to work once.” You say, “No, I go to work every day. That was just a general statement of what would happen.”
Now, obviously all analogies fall apart, but clearly the point can be seen that a general statement must be interpreted by more specific statements. So the general statement of John 5:28,29 must be interpreted by the more specific statements. I think that is where you are missing the boat here. Your focus on John 5:28,29 causes you to essentially ignore the more clear passages.

That may be, but we still base it on Scripture. Personally, the more I interact with you (personality aside) the less convinced I am that you have any answers to the pertinent questions. I mean no disrespect at all, but I am not even sure you know what the questions are. Seriously. You parade the same old stuff out here thread after thread and never seem to have any answers for the questions. It’s like you are cutting and pasting from someone you trust, but you don’t really understand what is being said. Perhaps I am wrong.

I agree. “Seems to indicate” was a figure of speech. Jews and Gentiles are one body in Christ, the Bible plainly declares that. It also plainly declares who the body of Christ is—the church.

Perhaps. Not sure how you would measure that. I simply believe that what God said he would do, he will actually do. If your view is higher, then fine.

Perhaps. But I don’t think Jesus failed in his mission. I don’t think dispensationalism implies that, at least not the dispensationalism I hold to. A sovereign God, from the foundation of the world, decreed the rejection of the Messiah so that he could bring his church into existence and save Gentiles just as he promised, and then he will come again and restore Israel just as he promised. I think God will do everything he promised, just as he promised. If you think something different, then fine.

Go back through this thread, and count the number of posts where you have substantively dealt with Scripture itself. Not just mentioned a verse, or made a snide remark about someone else’s comments.

It is not a false claim. I actually dealt with it, at length. You may not like the way I dealt with it, but it is dishonest to say that I haven’t. You see, you treat words in weird ways. A word like “false” has a meaning. Here you use it wrongly. I dealt with the passage. For you to say I didn’t is plainly dishonest. You could legitimately say I falsely dealt with the passage, or I unconvincingly dealt with the passage. But to say that I falsely claim to have dealt with the passage is just dishonest. This conversation deserves more.

Now back to the passage, I won’t rehearse it all here, because I have done so in other places that can be searched. However, the NT clearly defines stages of resurrection. Secondly, “hour” in John (and the NT) does not refer only to an exact moment but to a period of time.

The problem here appears that you are unwilling to graciously disagree with other brothers in good faith. I find that distasteful. Why are you like this? What is stuck in your craw that causes you to respond this way? Every time you start up a new conversation I hope it has changed. Maybe next time.

 

That wasn't an answer to the question I asked. If God wanted to communicate a literal thousand years in Rev 20, how would he say it? What words would he use to make that clear?

 

BTW, OR, did you listen to Schreiner's message on Rev 20? You should. It isn't long. You won't agree, but you will hear some very serious problems addressed.