The origins of the modern demonic uprising of Islam....from Greely Colorado

[kyredneck]

But K - you did initiate this current disagreement with provocative statements about dispensationalism.

HankD

Yea, the truth is often 'provocative'.

 

[kyredneck]

....and didn't say I wouldn't participate, just no desire to initiate the thread. There's only been like a kazillion such on the BB already.

 

[HankD]

Yea, the truth is often 'provocative'.

Is that why you won't participate in another thread concerning this matter?

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

But K - you did initiate this current disagreement with provocative statements about dispensationalism.

HankD

If he did that in a car he'd be arrested!

 

[Iconoclast]

This is a complete misunderstanding of Dispensationalism, and a false accusation. The system by no means makes the church less than OT Israel.

It is this kind of silliness and mis-characterization that prevents me from ever taking part in a discussion about the subject here on the BB, even though I teach a course in Dispensational Theology.

Sorry JOJ....but it is you who are mistaken. The system revolves around Israel. It makes a distinction between a heavenly people and an earthly people.
It virtually disregards eph 2...... I will start a thread on it. You can join in or not as you please.
Unless you teach radically different from Dwight Pentecosts, Things to Come....or Walvoord, or C.I. Scofield.....It remains to be seen how you avoid the obvious implications of what is stated.

Many of us were first taught this system{dispensationalism} to begin with.
If you see where we post in error feel free to offer correction by all means.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry JOJ....but it is you who are mistaken. The system revolves around Israel. It makes a distinction between a heavenly people and an earthly people.
It virtually disregards eph 2...... I will start a thread on it. You can join in or not as you please.
Unless you teach radically different from Dwight Pentecosts, Things to Come....or Walvoord, or C.I. Scofield.....It remains to be seen how you avoid the obvious implications of what is stated.

Many of us were first taught this system{dispensationalism} to begin with.
If you see where we post in error feel free to offer correction by all means.

I stand by my statement until you can produce quotes to the contrary from the authors you quoted. And I teach Ryrie.

What is primary in Dispensationalism is neither the church nor Israel, but the glory of God through Jesus Christ.

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."
(Eph. 3:21)

 

[kyredneck]

If he did that in a car he'd be arrested!

??? To my knowledge none of their speech gagging bills have yet to be passed. But give it time, they only need a couple more seats on SCOTUS to succeed in circumventing our right to free speech.

 

[kyredneck]

Is that why you won't participate in another thread concerning this matter?

HankD

??? http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...om-greely-colorado.101271/page-2#post-2254578

 

[HankD]

Sorry JOJ....but it is you who are mistaken. The system revolves around Israel. It makes a distinction between a heavenly people and an earthly people.

Well, yes as does the scripture:

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

If he did that in a car he'd be arrested

And you approve of that?

 

[HankD]

....and didn't say I wouldn't participate, just no desire to initiate the thread. There's only been like a kazillion such on the BB already.

Yes and many other topics in which we have both participated.

HankD

 

[HankD]

John of Japan said: "If he did that in a car he'd be arrested"

And you approve of that?

Depends on whether the officer had probable cause.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

The "Jihad" mentality of Islam reaches far back into history preceding even the "Christian Era".

???? I believe if you researched it you'd find the Jews suffered more at the hands of 'Christian' Europeans than at the hands of Muslims. See the curses outlined in Lev 26 & Dt 28.

"Jewish communities have existed across the Middle East and North Africa since Antiquity. By the time of the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, these ancient communities had been ruled by various empires and included the Babylonian, Persian, Carthaginian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman and Yemenite Jews.

Jews under Islamic rule were given the status of dhimmi, along with certain other pre-Islamic religious groups.[1] Though second-class citizens, these non-Muslim groups were nevertheless accorded certain rights and protections as "people of the book". During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.[2] For instance, Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula were invited to settle in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, where they would often form a prosperous model minority of merchants acting as intermediaries for their Muslim rulers.

Today, Jews residing in Muslim countries have been reduced to a small fraction of their former sizes, with Iran and Turkey being home to the largest remaining Jewish populations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

Why the reduction of Jews in Muslim countries today? (hint: it began in and around 1948)

While you're at it find out why the massive reduction of Palestinian Christians occurred. (hint: it began in and around 1948)

 

[John of Japan]

??? To my knowledge none of their speech gagging bills have yet to be passed. But give it time, they only need a couple more seats on SCOTUS to succeed in circumventing our right to free speech.

And...you totally missed my point.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan said: "If he did that in a car he'd be arrested"



Depends on whether the officer had probable cause.

HankD

Well, if he had the other car's paint on his fender....

 

[kyredneck]

you totally missed my point

Which was....

 

[HankD]

???? I believe if you researched it you'd find the Jews suffered more at the hands of 'Christian' Europeans than at the hands of Muslims. See the curses outlined in Lev 26 & Dt 28.

"Jewish communities have existed across the Middle East and North Africa since Antiquity. By the time of the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, these ancient communities had been ruled by various empires and included the Babylonian, Persian, Carthaginian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman and Yemenite Jews.

Jews under Islamic rule were given the status of dhimmi, along with certain other pre-Islamic religious groups.[1] Though second-class citizens, these non-Muslim groups were nevertheless accorded certain rights and protections as "people of the book". During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands.[2] For instance, Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula were invited to settle in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, where they would often form a prosperous model minority of merchants acting as intermediaries for their Muslim rulers.

Today, Jews residing in Muslim countries have been reduced to a small fraction of their former sizes, with Iran and Turkey being home to the largest remaining Jewish populations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule

Why the reduction of Jews in Muslim countries today? (hint: it began in and around 1948)

While you're at it find out why the massive reduction of Palestinian Christians occurred. (hint: it began in and around 1948)

Look K you know as well as I that if I wanted to I could find blurbs on the other side of the controversy - cut and paste them as a challenge or a justification for their actions (either side) - so I won't.

Injustices, atrocities, deceit, lies, etc abound on both sides of this "debate".
There are orphans and widows on either side as well.

On one thing I believe we do agree upon as you indicated.
It would indeed be fruitless to extend this to another thread and it would not end well.

IMO, when it comes to historical truth there is one historical series of events that matters above all else and are unchangeable into eternity - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Just a parting thought from Geo Orwell related to debating history "He that controls the present controls the past".

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Look K you know as well as I that if I wanted to I could find blurbs on the other side of the controversy - cut and paste

K, but one more C&P 'from the horse's mouth' to prove my point:

"While Jewish communities in Arab and Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe ........ "
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

Point made in post #33:

"I believe if you researched it you'd find the Jews suffered more at the hands of 'Christian' Europeans than at the hands of Muslims. See the curses outlined in Lev 26 & Dt 28."

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a statement in which John MacArthur answers some questions;

MacArthur Answers A Question About Dispensationalism


The following question was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and answered by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.


Question: What is dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?

Answer:


I will try to condense this because I don't want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:

"That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)."

Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that), dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.

I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it." When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.

So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a "leaky dispensationalist" and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don't use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart--it is this: "That there is a real future for Israel," and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel--there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive--right? God's going to raise them back up; God's going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David's line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.

So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament--it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.

My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel. One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question. In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it's simply about this--it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and what's going to happen to you if you don't--and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that--right? It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don't--blessings and cursing.

Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God--what happened? Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter--was it literal? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. So if Israel received all of the promised curses--literally--why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages? And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church? There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half--you've given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church--on what basis exegetically?

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, yes as does the scripture:

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

HankD

Hello Hank
Romans 8 makes a distinction of saved or lost persons...yes

I was speaking of some who keep separate saved jews from saved gentiles.