1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dispensationalism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by ascund, Sep 20, 2005.

  1. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Chemnitz

    Hahahahahahaha!

    How does wild beasts apply to the Church
    How does the Church fulfill the promises of abundant food?
    How can you vindicate an 100 year old being called a child?
    How is the wolf, bear, calf, lamb, serpent being tame fulfilled in the Church?

    Silliness does not make good theology
    Lloyd
     
  2. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Chemnitz

    Hahahahahahaha!

    More silliness. Have you no comprehension of the contractual clauses of the NT?

    Each clause is a specific fulfillment of the all that the Mosaic law could not provide. The distinctions never clouded the Gen 3:15 Promise given through Abraham to the world.

    You fail progressive revelation!
    Lloyd
     
  3. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    Until you can disprove the writings of Paul as Christ and the Church as the fulfillment of all prophecy, then there is no point in continuing. Christ himself stated that the law and the prophets all proclaim him and that he is the fulfillment of all. By wanting to include a physical nation as a necesity, you yourself have called Jesus a liar.
     
  4. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Chemnitz


    I love this bullet. You don’t even realize that your ranting includes “YES” and “NO” statements in the same post.

    Here you decry the distinction as if it is not valid. But in your bullet #5 you criticize DT for overlooking the unity. You can’t have both ways and yet criticize DT.

    DT holds to the both / and approach. You hold to the either / or approach and cannot adopt both/and thinking without declaring yourself to be a dispensationalist.


    Goodness! Think about what you write before you mindlessly cut and paste.
    Lloyd
     
  5. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Chemnitz


    Do you deny a judgment of rewards?
    Do you deny a judgment of the nations?
    Do you deny a judgment against sins?
    Do you deny a judgment of eternal damnation?

    All these are biblical. What would you have us do – think that there is but one future judgment? If so, pull out your Sharpie and cut up God’s Word.

    Lloyd
     
  6. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Chemnitz

    A run and dodge tactic. You are so pious that you won't (can't) even prove what you propose as refutation.


    The very writings you blissfully appeal to prove you wrong. Paul spends 3 whole chapters charting the future return of national Israel. All of this has nothing to do with the Church supplanting national Israel. We Gentiles receive the privilege of being grafted into national Israel's root stock.

    Jesus Himself gave witness to the return of national Israel. It is you who runs from biblical truths.

    Lloyd
     
  7. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    " love this bullet. You don’t even realize that your ranting includes “YES” and “NO” statements in the same post.
    Here you decry the distinction as if it is not valid. But in your bullet #5 you criticize DT for overlooking the unity. You can’t have both ways and yet criticize DT.
    DT holds to the both / and approach. You hold to the either / or approach and cannot adopt both/and thinking without declaring yourself to be a dispensationalist.
    Goodness! Think about what you write before you mindlessly cut and paste."

    Actually, I have, I don't think you understood what was said in either bullet point.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your argumentative technique here is a bit off. Asking us to "disprove" something that has no foundation is illegitimate. You must first demonstrate that Paul said that "Christ and the church" are the "fulfillment of all prophecy." That, in and of itself, would be a feat never before accomplished. Color me skeptical if I don't think the Baptist Board will break new ground on that one.

    The most you can say is that "some promises" may be fulfilled in Christ and the church. But your own list of promises above show many that have no relevance to the church itself.

    AGain, just bad argumentation on several fronts. First, you condemn your own argument. The OT promised a physical nation. You have come and changed many of the promises of the OT, in effect making them false promises. Therefore, you have just called God a liar. ... Now, do you really want to use that argument? It just doesn't work.

    Your own list above, when you read it, shows the fallacy of your point. You see all these promises and to whom they were made, and then say that they really don't apply to whom they were made, but to another group to whom they were not made. That makes no sense, exegetically.

    Secondly, you would have to show that Christ really said what you claim. I will be willing to bet that you can't do that. There is much more to it than you are letting on. Christ himself foretold of his coming kingdom on earth. There is no reason to doubt that.

    In short, this is just more bad argumentation.
     
  9. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings all

    Covenant theologians typically hold that the national promises are unconditional but must be interpreted allegorically. Dispensational theologians hold that all promises are unconditional and to be fulfilled literally.

    CT looks to human obedience. DT looks to God’s faithfulness.
    . . 1. No conditions were given in the original establishment of God’s covenant with Abraham. None were given years later (Gen 17:1-2, 22:16-18).
    . . 2. When the covenant was formally established, only God went through the slain animal pieces.
    . . 3. God established the Abrahamic covenant after Abraham asked about whether he would know that he would inherit the land (Gen 15:8).
    . . 4. The Covenant was still in effect even after grievous sins. God confirmed the covenant with Isaac (Gen 26:1-4), Jacob (Gen 28:13-15), Moses (Ex. 2:24; 6:2-8).
    . . 5. Even after Israel sins of several centuries, David regarded the Abrahamic Covenant in effect (I Chro 16:15-18). Why would David exhort his people to be mindful of the Abrahamic Covenant if it were no longer in effect?
    . . 6. Moses promises that even though Israel would be idolatrous and scattered, God would not fail Israel or forget His promises (Dt. 4:25-31).
    . . 7. God’s Spirit indicated that the Abrahamic Covenant was in effect and that it had something to do with Israel’s deliverance from its enemies (Luke 1:67-75).
    . . 8. Even after Israel rejected Messiah Jesus, Peter regarded them as children of the Abrahamic Covenant (Acts 3:12-15, 25-26)
    . . 9. The Book of Hebrews indicates that God doubly emphasized the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant was His unchangeable purpose (Heb 6:13-18).
    . . 10. The Abrahamic Covenant included a universal promise of blessing to all families of the earth. Jesus came and salvation was provided in spite of the centuries of disobedience.

    The allegorical blunder is much harder to prove. How can the Church fulfill these promises according to historical-grammatical rules of interpretation?

    Ok. That was a rhetorical question. The allegorical method can only rant and rave. Covenant theology simply cannot answer the biblical evidences. If Chemnitz is an example, simply count the Bible references.

    Lloyd
     
  10. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings

    The Guarantee of Israel’s Permanent Existence As A Nation is a blight to covenantal theology. In light of the unconditional nature, the Abrahamic Covenant has at least a twofold effect upon Israel. First, it guarantees Israel permanent existence as a nation. A covenant cannot be everlasting if one party of the covenant ceases to exist. Several passages promise that it spite of Israel’s terrible sins, it never will be totally destroyed as a nation.

    Deut 4:25-31. Here, the two occurrences of the English word destroy comes from two different Hebrew words. In verse 26, the word destroy (‘abad) is understood in context to mean overthrow or remove from the land. In verse 26, the word destroy (shachath) is understood in context to mean not destroy as in not putting it out of existence.

    The Guarantee of Israel’s Permanent Ownership of the Land
    The second aspect of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant is that it guarantees Israel permanent ownership of the Promised Land. God promised Canaan to Abraham and the people of Israel forever (Gen 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:18-21; 17:8; I Chr 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-11). This does not mean that Israel had to live in the land in order to maintain ownership.

    The prophets foretold of a total, permanent restoration of Israel.

    Ezekiel had many such prophesies.
    Run Chemnitz Run!
    You have no Bible response to Bible
    Lloyd
     
  11. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings

    Evidences For The Future Fulfillment Of The New Covenant With National Israel

    The evidences for a literal future fulfillment are as follows:

    First, Ezek 36:16-20 shows that God would fulfill His promises with the same people who profaned His holy name among the Gentiles. Since Israel has not yet received all of those promises, they must happen with national Israel in the future.

    Second, God’s declaration does not depend on Israel’s obedience and so they cannot forfeit their relationship to the Covenant.

    Third, some promises were purely spiritual and some were material and national in nature. The Church today partakes of the spiritual blessings but not the material and national promises. These promises must be fulfilled sometime in the future.

    Fourth, after the Church came into existence and began to partake of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant, Paul declared that Israel would experience the fulfillment of the New Covenant (Rom 11:25-29).
    . .In Rom 11:1 he specifically identified national Israel.
    . .In Rom 11:14 he declared that the Israel to which he referred was his flesh.
    . .In Rom 11:11-14, 25 he contrasted Israel with the Gentiles.
    . .This shows that Israel had not forfeited its promised relationship to the New Covenant in spite of rebellion and dispersion. The Church has not replaced literal Israel.


    Covenant Theology is revealed to be the dull witted theology.
    Lloyd
     
  12. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, Lloyd you have only revealed my unpreparedness for a long and drawn out debate. Your insulting attitude aside, I would like to continue the debate but I will have to ask to continue it later after pulling my thoughts together to form a well thought out argument. Can't say when it will be as I am rather busy but until then.
     
  13. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Chemnitz

    Would love to enter a formal debate with you over this. The insulting attitude is directed at a system that does not measure up to God's Word. This would be akin to my zeal for smashing the Christ-denying Arminian system of death and despair.

    I do not intentionally insult you except as you get caught through your embracing of the error that is demolished.

    I ask you to note the post just above this as I reference to "Covenant Theology is revealed to be the dull witted theology." I try not to equate you personally with your views of eschatology.

    It is a hard line to see sometimes.
    Lloyd
     
  14. Monergist

    Monergist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm gonna make a couple of assumptions here:

    1. A theologian holding to dull-witted theology would be a dull-witted theologian, and

    2. A theologian not holding to dull-witted theology would be a sharp-witted theologian.

    With that in mind, I present to all concerned here this useful reference guide.

    A Helpful Reference Guide of Dull-Witted Theologians

    John Calvin
    Jonathan Edwards
    John Owen
    BB Warfield
    J Gresham Machen
    Cornelius Van Til
    Greg Bahnsen
    JI Packer
    AA Hodge
    Charles Hodge
    Robert Dabney
    Louis Berkhof
    The entire Westminster Assembly
    Just about every other notable conservative Protestant Theologian of the past 500 years.

    A Helpful Reference Guide of Sharp-Witted Theologians
    Hal Lindsey
    Jerry Falwell
    Tim Lahaye...

    [ September 20, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Monergist ]
     
  15. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Monergist

    You are getting up to speed! Keep up the good work! Avoid those who elevate noble but God-denigrating deterministic theology above God's Word.

    Stick to a theology that holds God's sovereignty and human free will in the proper "both/and" balance.
    Lloyd
     
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    189
    I'm not at all sure what you're saying here and not sure what any of it has to do with the topic in hand - are you trying to derail your own thread? :confused:
     
  17. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Matt

    Although the thread is a general guideline, are we limited to precisely this topic? :confused:

    Not so. Furthermore, would this question be pertinent for a thread all by itself. I say, "no." However, if you think it is this important, then you have the right to start a new thread. Go for it!

    Otherwise, you tactic was a good one if all you are trying to do is get to FOUR THOUSAND posts.

    Lloyd
     
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    189
    Alright then, I'll answer your questions:-

    Not an insult.

    I'd put it at more near 7%. Still not good though.

    Are you talking about the US or UK? Both, last time I looked (Roe-v-Wade and the Abortion Act 1967) have legalised abortion. Again, not good.

    I take it you're referring to the Civil Partnerships Act which recognises same-sex relationships? Again, not good, but Massachusetts and Canada (either on a provincial or federal level) are doing the same, California is bound to follow in due course, and many European countries have already done the same. Again, not good.

    Nope, no more than anywhere or anyone else. I'm not even sure that God still acts in such a nationalistic, Old Testament kind of way under the New Covenant - as a dispensationalist (to get it back on topic!), do you think He does?
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think we need insulting comments from either side. There are legitimate issues of debate that we can discuss without getting personal and calling each other Bible deniers.
     
  20. ascund

    ascund New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Matt

    To get back on topic - God even yet acts with respect to national Israel. They are the "apple of His eye" (Deut 32:10, Zech 2:8).

    Have you not yet noted the historic ramifications of nations who mess with national Israel? No nation that has opposed Israel fares well.

    The New Covenant was originally given to Israel (Jer 31) and repeated as the basis for the New Testament (Heb 8).

    Don't mess with Israel!
    Lloyd
     
Loading...