Pastor Qualifications.

Just read it without your presuppositions. I have defended it here often, and there are many others more capable of me. The bottom line of dispensationalism is that God said what he meant and he expects us to believe it. He didn't say one things when he meant another. Everything else flows from there. It is first and foremost a hermeneutical discussion.

 

This aptly describes your post. You are very confused. I don't really have time or interest in having the discussion, but let me make a couple of points.

Dispensationalism is far from the most popular doctrine today. But even if it were, ti wouldn't matter. Truth is not up for a vote. The question is not how many believe it, but do the Scriptures teach it. On that score, dispensationalism is easily defensible.

Let me deal with one paragraph (the only one that mentions Scripture).

there will be a future temple as prophesied by Ezekiel and Haggai, as well as others. Whether that's the third or fourth depends on how you count. The Bible actually treats it all as one temple (cf. Hag 2).

The "ifs" are tied to residence, not inheritance. Deut 30 among a host of other passages promises restoration after exile.

The promises of land are repeated much later than Joshua, almost one thousand years later. So they couldn't have been fulfilled by Joshua. Furthermoer, you would have a hard time showing that Joshua fulfills the land promises.

You also mention the 10 commandments. We are not under law. Jesus said that plainly. That doesn't mean murder is okay. Murder is condemend outside the Law.

These are key distinctions that are easy to miss, but many people do.

In the end, as I say, when the exegesis of the text is actually done (as opposed to what you did above), dispensationalism stands just fine.

 

No, it's not.

You first say the Bible and then the NT. That's strange to me. I think all Scripture is inspired, not just the NT.

No, that's not obvious.

No, he says that the present age of the church "agrees" with the prophets. When you read the prophets and the NT, you see that they agree perfectly ... that there would be an age of Gentile salvation, followed by a restoration of the booth of David. Again, just read the text.

The church is a temple of God, but that's not the OT prophecy.

Yes, the church. But that's not the OT temple. Paul didn't emphasize because he was writing to the church. Paul doesn't contradict the OT however.

Nope, he told us about it in the OT.

Yep, has nothing to do with the temple.

Yes, in heaven. That's not what the OT is talking about however.

You are confusing issues by failing to actually exegete the Scripture. You are placing God in a position of contradicting himself. I don't think that is a proper method to go about study of the Word. Start with who is being written to and what is being talked about.

Having been through all this multiple times, and having read the published defeneses, which are far more coherent than these internet defenses, trust me when I say the issue is hermeneutical and then exegetical. We don't agree on how to handle Scripture and so we disagree on the outcome of exegesis.

You haven't even addressed one relevant issue here. Your basic approach is "The OT doesn't mean anything." I disagree.

 

So when God says to the post-exilic temple rebuilders that "The latter glory of this house [the temple] will be greater than the former glory," (2:9) it means that there will be a later temple that will surpass the glory of Solomon's temple in its silver and gold (v. 8) and in the fact that all nations bring silver and gold to furnish the temple (v. 7)? If so, then why do you say there is no biblical prophecy of a rebuilt temple? If not, then why doesn't the OT mean what it says?

Paul said that the church was a mystery in the OT (Eph 3). That doesn't make it a plan B, but it was a mystery unrevealed.

First, this contradicts your above claim. If the OT means what it says, then the OT promises made to a particular people have to be fulfilled in the way that they were made to the people to whom they were made. You can't switch and say God promised it to Israel but fulfills is to someone else.

Second, I don't know of much, if anything that fits the claim you make. I have seen many people try to make this point, but when we actually look at the OT text and the NT text, virtually all those claims have fallen apart. So perhaps you have some new ones that have not previously been brought up, but so far, it hasn't worked.

 

Wow … It’s like you are vomiting up a concordance here

There are several issues here:
1. Do you really think that no dispensationalist has ever thought of these verses? That we are somehow stunned by them?
2. Are there any legitimate explanations of these verses from the dispensationalist perspective? Of course there are.

I don’t have time now to go verse by verse. I would encourage you to study, not merely to repeat what others have said. When you look at these passages for what they mean, you will easily see that they don’t demand your interpretation, and in fact, your interpretation depends on starting with your presupposition. Since I don’t start with your presupposition, I have no problem reading these verses as they were originally intended. I don’t have to find some secret hidden meaning in them. The apostles never contradicted the OT, and if you study these passages you will see that.

You say it seems easy enough, and it is. But you are missing it.

 

Wow! A person joins asks some interesting questions, doesn't insult anyone, yet he is destined to being banned? Why?

 

Question 1: I'm assuming DR standards for "Doctor" or "Doctor of Religion." Sure, most of the pastors that I have known have never earned such degrees let alone a bachelor's degree.

Question 2: No way. A pastor must take care of his family if he is to be a pastor of a church flock.

Question 3: Possibly. It depends on the person. Some of the best pastors that I have known in my life have served some time and learned many lessons and illustrations to share with others.

Question 4: Again, it depends on the individual. I (and the congregation) would need to wait for the discernment of the Spirit.

Good Questions,
J5K

 

I have William Cox's book also. Very informative. John Newport in his book The Lion and the Lamb gives some info similar to Cox.

 

The 19th century saw the development of a number of cults including Jehovah's Witness', Mormons, Christian Science, and Seventh Day Adventism, among others.

In fairness I must say that the theology of Seventh Day Adventism is moving toward orthodoxy.

 

So is it your contention that I and other dispensationalists have no real concern about God's people?

You see, that is the very type of argument that should be avoided. To insinuate that because someone concludes differently than you do about a matter they dont' care about God's people is wrong.

I could say, "I am glad that men like Charles Ryrie and Chafer, and Showers actually believed the Bible and thought it should be taught to God's people everywhere." But I won't say that because it isn't a good argument. Your's isn't either.

 

How so??????

 

There are some of us who believe that dispensationalism is based on the word of Darby/Scofield not the Bible! It is a historical fact that classic dispensationalism started with Darby and was popularized in this country by the Scofield Bible.

Fortunately hyper dispensationalism is limited and progressive dispensationalism is making inroads into classic dispensationalism. Even progressive dispensationalism has its problems but it is a move in the right direction.

Now a word for pilgrim2009: Sadly brother you are spinning your wheels! Been there, done that!

 

But that doesn't mean your belief is true. You must separate fact from belief. I can believe that you are an 80 year old crippled woman who lives in Zambia, but that won't make it right.

Again, the question is, "What does the Bible teach?" On that grounds, dispensationalism acquits itself very well.

No, that's not a historical fact. It is true that Darby was instrumental in systematizing it, but the principles of dispensationalism existed long before that.

Again, the issue is hermeneutical. You and your side are willing to do things with the words of Scripture that I cannot in good conscience do. But to pretend that dispensationalism has no basis at all in Scripture is simply wrong. Dispensationalism may be wrong in parts, or in the whole, but there are sound scriptural arguments for it.

BTW, you say you been there/done that in spinning your wheels. If you recall those conversations, the key came down to the way in which we handle the words of Scripture. We disagreed on that, and you were unwilling to defend your position anymore against some of the serious flaws it had. That is certainly fine, and we both have better things to do. But you can't pretend like you actually gave a valid defense of some of the severe exegetical and hermeneutical problems that were brought up.

 

1 Corinthians 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;

Hmmm. I didn't know that Paul used the Scofield Bible. Do you know which edition it was?