Pre-Trib Rapture and the Early Church Fathers.

And the physical promises were fulfilled about 3,200 years ago.

 

Jesus never used parables to teach doctrine; He always used parables to illustrate the doctrine that He had already taught. That is how parables are used, and why they are used.
That is how a preacher is supposed to use an illustration. It illustrates the point he is making. It would be wrong for him to make an illustration and then teach from the illustration. He ought to be teaching the truth from the Word and God and then illustrate it.
Jesus put forth truths, and then used parables for his disciples' understanding.

 

No problem with that. Remember, Christ was a Jew.

Type and physical fulfillment of what?
People like Pink go way overboard in types and allegorical teaching. One can make a type out of almost anything. Read some Charismatic teaching to get some good examples.

Example.
The walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
The walls of my girl friend's heart came tumbling down.
Therefore I knew it was the will of God to marry her (in spite of the fact she may have been unsaved).
--He might have been reading the book of Joshua at that time and that story "spoke" to him. Good example, of allegory and spiritualization though, especially in the application department.

He is not the complete fulfillment of ALL the covenants.
He is not a fulfillment of the Noahic Covenant. When the Lord takes away the rainbow and destroys the earth with fire, and makes a new earth and a new heaven, then it will be fulfilled.

The covenants were given to Israel. We live in a dispensation of grace. All relevant and unfulfilled promises or covenants relate primarily to Israel. Christ is coming for Israel in the Tribulation. Israel will be saved as a nation. The Lord will set up his kingdom and fulfill his covenant with Israel.
God gave to Israel the covenants.
I am not the one who must keep the Sabbath, be circumcised, etc. But Israel must, as long as Israel is Israel.

Look it up in your concordance. I specifically said: "These are the only references in the NT where the word "covenants" is used. They are. Note the word "covenants" is plural. The word in the singular may be found. But the word in the plural is found only in those three references. Prove me wrong if you wish.

I am not going to explain that now. It is irrelevant. I took a lot of time and effort showing that wasn't the primary meaning. The primary meaning was our relationship with Christ, so there is no need to dwell on this point.

NO. He is contrasting the law, which is given at Sinai; to freedom of the Law, which we have in Christ. It is an allegory, and he plainly states that it is.

Abraham was justified by faith. We are made righteous by faith, as Abraham was.

First, I do not believe in the esoteric, invisible, universal, undefinable, unassembled assembly called the "universal church."
It is a contradiction of terms. Ekklesia means assembly.
This is an assembly that cannot assemble. It has no reason to assemble; no purpose to assemble, no pastor, no deacons, no statement of faith, no unity, nothing! It is meaningless.
It is not taught in the Scriptures. So you can't sell me on such a meaningless term. Ekklesia means assembly all the time.

The Gentile believers and the Jewish believers were no one Christ, and Paul takes great efforts to explain that. There is nothing that separates them. It doesn't matter where you go, whether you go on a mission field, or to any church across this nation, believers are one in Christ--rich or poor, black or white, there is nothing to separate them. We are one in Christ.
Before that time we were separated from Christ. Yes, that is the application. But that is not the intended historical interpretation. Paul's use of the covenant does not apply to me. The two groups were separated by many things and Paul lists them all. All those things were now done away with.
What Paul lists are the things that separated the Gentiles from the Jews.

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
--All of those are abolished. Now all are reconciled to God. There is no longer any division.

 

Citing patristic age sources to support Dispensationalism is wishful thinking. As others have commented, Historic Premillennialism (Chialism) was popular with the Patristic Fathers, but in cannot be confused with Dispensationalism. The fact is that Dispensationalism did not come on the scene until Darby, and it did not hit critical mass until C.I. Scofield.

As for the reliability of the Patristic Fathers, one needs to tread carefully. They were all over the place doctrinally. I especially like reading them to see how they dealt with various heresies like Arianism, Donatism, and Montanism et. al. Even my favorite Patristic Father, Athanasius, bought into baptismal regeneration.

 

There were many before Darby.
Isaac Watts was one of many.
Check his work here:
http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

 

Sure there is continuation. Read the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 ff which is repeated verbatim in Hebrews 8:8. Then try understanding what Hebrews is telling us about the New Covenant.

And for ever is reduced to 1000 years!:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Genesis 3:15 tells us: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If Jesus Christ does not fulfill that promise then we are all still in our sins! But thank God HE did!

 

That is laughable, putting it politely. So we can just through Matthew 13 away because i know dispensationalists would never use the parable of the wheat and the tares to explain their doctrine!:laugh::laugh:

 

Can we throw the four Gospels away also. Apparently the hypers only use the prison epistles of Paul so they really don't have much do they.

 

Does that include Ishmael? And then there are all these folks:

Genesis 25:1-4
1. Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3. And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4. And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

And that doesn't include the children of Abraham's concubines!

 

It's "pretty clear" that the Roman Emperor Constantine wanted a peaceful, tranquil Empire and he didn't want any talk of
Antichrists, a greater future Kingdom ruled by God on Earth, or any mention of lawlessness and the need for a removal of Christians from the earth.
These plain truths were suppressed by the Holy Roman "Catholic" Church. It just so happens that these "forgotten truths" are reemerging in these last days.
It is unfortunate that so many Protestants, and even "Baptists", have bought-into the 1 1/2 millennia old "Catholic" heresies.

Refer to 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

 

Do you ever have opportunity to preach or teach OR?
Do you give the illustration first and then take the doctrine from the illustration?
Or do you teach the truth of the Word of God and illustrate the truth with an illustration?
Which method do you use?

EX.
I HAD A DREAM!!!!!
Let me tell you the doctrine it teaches.
I didn't know you were Ellen G. White in disguise. :laugh:

 

NO, as ALL the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, bu the truth is also that there is progressive revelation going on, and that for us under the new covenant, your main meat to feed upon will be the epistles of all the NT...

 

God disagrees with you.

2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

Absolutely, OR. It is. That is how the little old lady found God's will for her life as she opened her Bible to one passage after another.

First she found the verse: Judas went out and hanged himself.

Then she turned to: Go, and do thou likewise.

Then she found: What thou doest, do quickly.

Indeed all Scripture is profitable. Did she find the will of God for her life? Was it profitable for her? Are you properly or "rightly dividing the word of truth"?
The answer is no.
I have already demonstrated to you that your method of interpretation is very much akin to that of Ellen G. White's. You may not like the comparison. But that kind of hermeneutic is wrong. Doctrine does not come from parables, rather parables illustrate doctrine already taught.

 

How do you define progressive revelation?
Did David have more of God's revelation than Enos?
Did John the Baptist have more of God's revelation than David?
Did Peter have more of God's revelation than John the Baptist?
Did the Apostle Paul possibly have more of God's revelation than Peter?

Is it not possible, that because we have all books of the Bible easily available to us in printed form, have more revelation than any of the apostles did?
Revelation is progressive.
We also build on the doctrine of godly men who have gone on before us, such as those who were able to formulate the doctrine of the trinity in words easy for us to understand.