Featured The Days Are Coming When There Will Be A New Covenant With Israel & Judah

I believe Dr. Bob himself implied that Bullinger's hyper-dispensationalism is heretical!

And be honest DHK, the Bible speaks of "various little covenants" but not several little dispensations. A new Christian starting with Genesis and reading through Scripture would finish believing that God deals with people through Covenants and he/she would be correct.

 

I don't know what Bullinger teaches, and frankly don't care. I do know that a good percentage of the posters here on BB are dispensationalists. If you are going to relegate us all to the classification of heretics you are wrong, and have been warned, not only by me, but by Dr. Bob. No one said anything about believing in "Hyper-dispensationalism." I referred to John MacArthur in my last post for someone who believed in a reasonable view of dispensationalism. Is he also a "heretic" to you?
As Dr. Bob said: Be careful when you throw that "heresy" word around!

Again, dispensationalism is just another way of viewing the Bible as opposed to covenantalism.

 

We are all saved the same way; Jews and Gentiles alike. If the Jews were not different (a separate people from the Gentiles), why would Paul even take the time to pray for them (Rom.8:1-4; 10:1-3)?

Just like the age-old argument--scripture doesn't speak of the trinity either, but it teaches the concept.
You won't find the words: Christology, Pneumatology, or even theology either. I hope you believe in those topics. But you do find the word "dispensation" in the Bible. At least it is present there.

Now you have a problem with your post OR. Your statement is:
"You say so but that is not correct. Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture."
--You have stated this as a statistic and as a fact. Statistics is a science, and science has limitations. This absolutism cannot be scientifically proven as stated. Do you have the means and ability to provide the evidence that absolutely no one for 1800 years never believed in the pre-trib rapture? Did you interview every Christian before Darby to make sure? Of course you didn't. So you can't go out on such a ridiculous ledge and make outlandish statements like that, just because you have never read of anyone that believed in it. Maybe you haven't read enough books.

Scripture speaks of many things. The fact that you just agreed it speaks of dispensations is quite an admission! :tongue3:

I didn't say they were ignorant of scripture just as I wouldn't say that the Presbyterians that believe in infant baptism are ignorant of scripture. But that doesn't make them right. I would rather trust what the Bible says.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

What does the Bible teach? That is the most important question to answer.
Your answer is different than mine. Does that give either one of us the right to belittle the other?

Because it is. I already told you that the word "week" simply means "seven(s)"
Let me ask you: What is the "Year of Jubilee?"
When does it occur, how often, and why?
Let me answer for you. It occurs on the fiftieth year, the year after a week of years.

No, it is a literal interpretation--"seventy sevens"

I am sure it doesn't. I have given mine already in various places on the board.

 

You are taking the typical dispensational attitude when your beliefs are challenged. You know very well that I have never said anything other than that the classic dispensationalism doctrine is erroneous and that the progressive dispensational doctrine is an improvement because their doctrine of the Church is approaching that of Covenant doctrine.

I have called beameup a heretic because he, in typical hyper-dispensational fashion, insists that there is one gospel taught by the Apostle Paul that is only for the Gentiles and another gospel specifically for the Jews taught by Jesus Christ and Peter.

The Apostle Paul himself said the following about those who would preach another Gospel.

Galatians 1:8, 9
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

That Paul preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that that same Gospel is preached to both Jew and Gentile is shown by the following Scripture:

Romans 1:16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Acts 28:30, 31
30. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31. Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Now if you believe, as beameup does, that Paul preached a different Gospel than the Gospel of Jesus Christ and by Jesus Christ then you have a problem.

I know there are many dispensationalists on this BB and I also realize that they are generally hypersensitive to any criticism of their doctrine.

 

I don't agree with Beamup in his theology. He has his extremes. But that does not give you license to put us all in the same camp. This statement is unjustified and false.

There have been enough threads on dispensationalism for you to know it is a false statement. You don't need to go on repeating falsehoods. Go and search this forum for threads on dispensationalism and see where others have proved you wrong. This statement is all-inclusive of all dispensationalists. If you want to relegate your remarks to just ultra dispensationalists or the type of theology that Beamup believes then find a better way to express yourself. But this is unacceptable.

 

DHK, have you denied being a dispy in the past? For some reason I thought you had.

 

No, I have always been dispensational in my theology.

 

I have put no other dispensationalist in the same camp as beameup except "ituttut" and he is a hyper-dispensationalist like beameup. They both insist that there are two Gospels. The Apostle Paul said let such be accursed as I posted earlier.

Dispensationalism in its current classic form was started by Darby. No one has proven different. If so then show where a pre-trib rapture of the Church existed before Darby.

 

More on Dispensationalism.

 

More on Dispensationalism.

 

OR, if you're going to post information from people who haven't undertaken a study of dispensationalism themselves, who choose to borrow information from other researchers to "explain it," all without discussing its merits or failings in your own words, it tends to me to be an indication you yourself have engaged in study of it in order to understand or debate it.

Therefore, I'd suggest you kindly refrain from posting about it until you actually learn what it teaches and can discuss it with one of us dispensationalists with aplomb. Thank you in advance. God bless.

PS: I guess this answers my query the other day as to whether you really did not understand it, or worse, you did and chose to misrepresent it. Nice to know it is not a deliberate spinning of facts.

 

The following is extracted from a long article by Dr. Ice who I believe is a dispensationalist. Other than that I present it without comment!

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

 

OR,
It is nice to see that you can quote people and still not have a basic understanding of dispensationalism. This comes from your lack of interaction with various posters on the board, as noted, as well as your biased presuppositions.
BTW, do you always believe what you hear or read for that fact.
Just because your sources "say so," doesn't make it true.
To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible.
To say: There was no dispensational belief before Darby is a universal negative, a statement impossible to prove. It is logical fallacy. You can't prove the statements you make. You can't come up with such documentation. It is impossible.
OTOH, a dispensationalist, to prove you wrong, only has to find one person in 1800 years of history that believed in dispenationalism and that would prove everything you have said to be false, wouldn't it?

 

I hold to Dispy theology in regards to isreal/Church, Future days though!

Point was and is that while Dispy views are biblical, Hyper Dispy ones are not!

same way that Hyper Calvinism is wrong, even though I hold to Calvinistic Sotierology view!

 

ing to say a classic Covenant theology A Mil position, and insist that is only right position, yet early Church fathers taught pre Mil views also!
Would be like hold

 

Dr. Thomas Ice is himself a dispensationalist and coauthored Charting the End Times with LeHaye so any problems you have with his article you can take up with him!

***********************************************************
.

Again you can debate that with Dr. Ice.

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice...Darbyandth.pdf

So you see that dispensationalist Dr. Ice is in general agreement with me. Sadly, according to Dr. Ice, John Nelson Darby is rejecting the promise of Jesus Christ when He said:

Matthew 16:18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**************************************************************

You can verify the following by searching this thread!

So you see you misrepresent what I say!

***********************************************************

That is absolutely nonsense. The Apostle Paul used the word dispensation 4 times as I noted in the above quote I repeated.

1Corinthians 9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

That does not establish the doctrine of Darby!

 

But early Church Fathers did not teach a pre-trib Rapture! Early Church Fathers did not believe as Darby apparently did:

 

I am debating you, not him.

The cat got your tongue? Or has Dr. Ice taken the place of your Bible?
What's the problem OR? Can't speak for yourself anymore?
Here is my statement once again:

"To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible."
It has nothing to do with Dr. Ice, nor with anyone else.
It is impossible for you to state: "There was no dispensationalism before Darby, or that Darby was the founder of it."
Pure garbage. The statement is not a proveable statement. You have no documentation, evidence, nor ever will have. Can you interview every person between Darby and the Apostles to very if this is true or not? NO! Therefore it is a false statement; one that cannot be proven.

People shouldn't say things they cannot verify should they?

No I didn't. If you are now saying there were earlier dispensationalists, while at the same time saying Darby is the founder and the first one, then you are contradicting yourself at the very least, and possibly lying. Which is it?

And so?

No, what establishes dispensationalism is that well known fact that God deals with different people in different ages in different ways. That is not a hard concept to accept or believe or understand. It is stated quite well in the Bible itself, which I assume you believe.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

 

You really are not debating, you are taunting hoping you can find an excuse to ban me.

You asked for the basis of my beliefs regarding Darby and dispensationalism. I insist that you cannot present Scripture showing a pre=trib Rapture of the Church and you have not and cannot, neither can any other who believes dispensational doctrine. Furthermore, you cannot present Scripture showing that the Church for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" an interruption in God's plan for Israel.

I present an analysis of Darby's life that led to his development of dispensationalism by a prominent dispensationalist and you try to insult me asking

***************************************************

The statement above is pure garbage. In my last post I presented a quote from a previous post showing that I conceded that there were writers prior to Darby who indicated there were different dispensations. I present it again hoping you will be courteous enough to admit you are misrepresenting what I say:

****************************************************

The above quote proves that statement to be true.

*******************************************************

I did not say there were earlier dispensationalists. I said well you can read what I said above. Paul mentioned one dispensation but he was no dispensationalist.

************************************************************

The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?[/QUOTE]

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

The initial expression in time of the Covenant of Grace was Genesis 3:15; it is sometimes called tha Adamic Covenant but that is a poor name.

Then there was the Covenant with all people after the Flood sometimes called the Noahic Covenant.

After that there was the Covenant with Abraham and the promise that through the seed of Abraham, whom Paul identifies as Jesus Christ, all families would be blessed.

Following this there is the Covenant with the children of Israel, and the giving of the Ten Commandments, called the Mosaic Covenant.

The next covenant is called the Palestinian Covenant.

After that there is the covenant with the Israelites through King David.

Finally the promise of the New Covenant which, when instituted through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, would fulfill the promise of Genesis 3:15.

Matthew 26:28. for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Luke 22:20. And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
1 Co 11:25. In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

We see above that the writers of three of the Gospels and the apostle Paul testify that Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah. However, we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which you quoted above, the following wonderful testimony of the fulfilling of the New Covenant. I have taken the liberty of underlining the quote from the Prophet Jeremiah {31:31-34}.

Hebrews 8:1-13, KJV
1.Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2. A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
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.


Hebrews 9:11-15
11. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12. and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
14. how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15. And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

So you see DHK God deals with people through Covenants, not dispensations. GOD is GOOD is HE not!