I made the argument in the OP. All I have gotten from dispensationalists in response is slander; but that is what I expected based on past experience!
The Parenthesis Church
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Jul 24, 2012.
Page 4 of 15
-
-
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Stop accusing everyone, until maybe you could at least post a verse on the topic. You are projecting your own thoughts on everyone else. -
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I have not seen you post anything on any thread that is helpful to anyone. -
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Where is OR being rude as you are here???? -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Don't you think we've been keeping OR and Icon in the dark long enough? Games up now guys: We should go ahead and forward them the memo....Truth is, we haven't been "Parentheses-Church" adherents for a while....we are now the "Bracket-People" {} <----- and have been for some years. We didn't forward you guys the memo. This is why none of us are defending the Parentheses doctrine. We are all staunch adherents of the Bracket movement.
Alas, gone are the Halcyon days of Hal Lindsey and Late Great Planet Earth
We now follow the teachings of Al Dintsey's new book: Early Miserable Planet Pluto
I just think it's time to come clean about what we REALLY believe now. Not to worry...We will staunchly defend "Bracketism". This is why at page 7, no one has bothered to debate the OP. We don't follow that anymore. If you want to begin a thread where someone will actually defend the positions you want them to defend: Start one on the {} Bracket-Church. -
Iconoclast said: ↑Old regular is correct, ITL.
the parenthesis has always been part of the dispensational system. He did not make it up.That is the classic teaching that has been disproven.
http://creationconcept.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/h-a-ironsides-great-parenthesis-theory/
The most basic disagreement between dispensationalism and Reformed theology centers around the relationship between the New Testament church and Old Testament Israel. According to dispensationalism, the church age is a parenthesis in the Jewish kingdom program prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament church at Pentecost, they teach, was an absolutely new entity, a mystery to which no Old Testament prophecy had directly referred. They teach that all the Jewish kingdom prophecies referred to a Jewish millennial kingdom that was postponed until after the unexpected church age because of the Jewish rejection of Jesus. Of course, Reformed theology disagrees with this teaching.Click to expand...
The idea of a parenthesis church as stated by OldRegular is a foundational teaching of dispensationalism. I have had run-ins with OR, but that does not prevent me from acknowledging that he has posted factually concerning dispensationalism. -
As I stated earlier, this is one area of theology that I have not studied about that much. I do know enough to realize however, that Calvinism vs free will and covenant vs disp. are not always on the same side.
It seems lots of posters assume that covenant theology and Calvinism are always on the same side and vise versa. That is not true. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
OK, you say that Zion was a fortress. Then Zion became synonymous with the city of Jerusalem. Then the whole of Judah, and finally the people of Israel.
Iconoclast said: ↑The spiritual meaning of “Zion” is continued in the New Testament, where it is given the Christian meaning of God's spiritual kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 14:1).Click to expand...
Then you say:
With this view, the early Christians called the kingdom (church) established by the only Son of God and Messiah Jesus Christ, as New Jerusalem or the Jerusalem above (Gal.4: 26; Rev.21: 2).Click to expand...
Zion and Jerusalem both are the same.Click to expand...
However Jerusalem denotes church, the body of God.Click to expand...
Then:
Zion was in Jerusalem. Zion was a part of Jerusalem. "For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem" (Is. 30:19). Zion is in the true church.Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation said: ↑Well, if this is how you are defining "Dispensationalism" then, you already win, as no one agrees with the contentions about dispensationalism that you present. This will be a short thread. No one claims what you are suggesting "dispensationalism" entails or believes. You may not have "techincally" mis-represented...but you have supplied certain interpretations or assumptions with your OP which no one will defend. I think no one is a "dispensationalist" as you are defining it.
This is why "straw-man" arguments are pointless and ineffective....no one will debate with you the idea that what you have expressed "dispensationalism" to be is true. Have fun arguing with yourself. :wavey:Click to expand...
Most "dispensationalists" today are "progressive" dispensationalists that allow for the distinction between Israel and the Church to be more cosmetic and simply chronological rather than soteriological. Dispensationalism, if defined by those who originally systematized it, is very much like described in the OP.
The ones with which I have to deal regularly make Darby and Scofield look like covenant theologians. They are hyperdispensationalists who are hardcore that salvation was by works and law-keeping with no eternal security outside the "mystery" church that began with Paul's conversion.
They believe that all the other apostles were "kingdom" saints who had to "endure to the end" to be saved.
They will argue along with the Church of Christ and other cults that John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 teach "baptismal regeneration," but were not directed to "the Body of Christ" to which we are members.
They believe that water baptism has nothing to do with the Body of Christ, and should not be practiced. To do so is to "confuse" and "mix" the "dispensations."
They are hardcore Open Theists whose faith in God as good necessitates finding as many passages of Scripture to indicate God's prophecy not being 100% true if it involves what people would do.
They take a view of soteriology for the Body of Christ much like the Grace Evangelical Society such that man always has libertarian free will and that simply mental assent to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is what is necessary for salvation, and that eternal security (only for the Body of Christ) can be mutually exclusive from any kind of "evidence" of faith.
They would agree with the Preterists that when Jesus said "This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mat 24:34), that He was talking about His second coming and the end of all things AND that "this generation" meant the disciples actually standing there. This is one of the places where they would argue that what Jesus said (being "true" at the time), did not actually happen at all as He said, because when "Israel" "rejected" the Messiah with His second-chance offer of "the kingdom" with the "church of Israel" from Pentecost to the stoning of Stephen, God "changed His mind" and introduced His "mystery" dispensation to Paul (and there was the real possibility that this "dispensation of grace" would never have occurred).
They will argue until they are blue in the face that Romans 4 and James 2 are "a direct contradiction UNLESS you understand the Bible 'dispensationally.'" -
Getting Back to the OP
Getting back to the OP:
Millennial Series: Part 19: Premillennialism and the Church
Study By: John F. Walvoord
Article contributed by www.walvoord.com
http://bible.org/seriespage/millennial-series-part-19-premillennialism-and-church
Emphasis Mine.
The Church Age as a Parenthesis
One of the important questions raised by the amillenarians is whether the present age is predicted in the Old Testament. This they confidently affirm and find the kingdom promises fulfilled in the present church age. Premillenarians have not always given a clear answer to the amillennial position. While dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament, some premillenarians have tended to strike a compromise interpretation in which part of the Old Testament predictions are fulfilled now and part in the future. In some cases they have conceded so much to the amillenarians that for all practical purposes they have surrendered premillennialism as well. It is the purpose of the present investigation to show the reasonableness and Scriptural support of the parenthesis concept.
snip
The ultimate proof of the teaching that the present age is a parenthesis is in the positive revelation concerning the church as the body of Christ, the study of which will be undertaken next. The evidence for a parenthesis in the present age interrupting God’s predicted program for Jew and Gentile as revealed in the Old Testament is extensive, however. The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine. The kingdom predictions of the Old Testament do not conform to the pattern of this present age. Amillenarians from Augustine down to the present make no pretense of interpreting these prophecies in the same literal way as premillenarians. Those among the premillennial group who see clearly the issues involved would do well to divorce themselves from the amillennial method in dealing with the prophetic word, and interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament in relation to the millennium rather than the present age.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1954) -
Ernest Reisinger on Dispensationalism
The following is by the late Ernest Reisinger,of Founders Ministries, a reformed dispensationalist. Reisinger gives a brief autobiography showing his life as a dispensationalist.
In this article I wish to address some of the doctrinal issues which are involved in Dispensationalism.
Perhaps a brief autobiographical background may be helpful. I am very grateful for all the helpful things that I have learned on my way to the Celestial City. I am indebted to many teachers who taught me to revere the Holy Scriptures. The formative years of my spiritual development were spent under the ministries of godly men who were committed to Dispensationalism. It was through them that I was taught the importance of a personal devotional life. I was taught to be missionary minded. I was taught to be a personal witness for Christ. I was taught five fundamental truths: (1) the inspiration and infallibility of the scriptures; (2) the virgin birth of Christ; (3) the miracles of Christ; (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ; (5) the bodily resurrection of Christ.
One of the first books that had a profound effect on my methods of evangelism was True Evangelism, by Lewis Sperry Chafer. I can still recommend it as being very helpful.
I did not find my way out of Dispensationalism easily. It took time and tears and cost me fellowship with some genuine, committed Christian friends. Some of them thought that I was departing from the faith or going liberal. The inward heart struggle to embrace the historic Christian faith involved not only intellectual conflict but also emotional struggle. The many changes were not made in haste, anger, passion, or ecstasy. It did not happen on a weekend. I spent the first ten years of my Christian life immersed in Dispensationalism. I wore out three Scofield Bibles and the fourth was falling apart. I heard Lewis Sperry Chafer in person. The only systematic theology I studied was Dr. Chafer's eight-volume set.
My theological change resulted from a serious, exhaustive search to know three things: What saith the scriptures; what do they mean; and how do I apply them to my belief and practice?
I pray that this little history of my own journey will be kept in mind as I attempt the rather difficult task of dealing with principles of Dispensationalism without being disrespectful or unchristian to the many genuine Christians who sincerely hold this view that I now consider erroneous, unbiblical, dangerous and outside the historic stream of Christianity.
Although I strongly differ from my dispensational brethren in their interpretation of scripture, I would defend their right to adhere to their view. I do not wish to separate from their fellowship. However, I strongly believe Dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith of our fathers. No Christian wishes to be argumentative, but it is impossible to address this controversial issue without being polemic and somewhat censorious of the system. I must be very candid in saying that I cannot approach this contemporary issue in an unbiased manner.
This unbiblical and unhistorical theology has spawned many serious errors, and we are now reaping some of its fruit--especially in the areas of evangelism and teachings on the Christian life (justification and sanctification).
***************************************************
The parenthesis theory of the Kingdom and the Church.
According to this theory, (and it is only a theory) the Church Age is an unforeseen parenthesis in the Jewish program prophesied by Old Testament prophets. If the Jews had not rejected Jesus, the Jewish Kingdom would have begun at our Lord's first coming. But, God's "Plan A" was thwarted, or interrupted, or failed, and the Church age totally unforeseen by the Old Testament prophets was interjected, or, "Plan B" substituted for "Plan A." The dispensationalists call this the parenthetical Church age. My Bible knows nothing about a God who does not have power to perform His plan. The God of the Bible is sovereign in creation, sovereign in redemption and sovereign in providence. He is all-wise in planning and all-powerful in performing.
We must ask the dispensational teachers the following questions about their parenthesis theory. If the Church is a parenthesis, when did it begin, and how do you know? When will it end, and how do you know?
Emphasis Mine!
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj08/article1.html -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterInTheLight said: ↑OK, you say that Zion was a fortress. Then Zion became synonymous with the city of Jerusalem. Then the whole of Judah, and finally the people of Israel.
And here is where the disconnect begins. You have not shown (Biblically) that Zion becomes the term for Christians to use of God's spiritual kingdom. I'm not seeing that in those two verses.
Then you say:
And here is where the argument really starts to be tenuous. So far I've been dutifully connecting the dots--no matter how far flung they've been presented--and I'm getting lost. Watch...
OK, got it.
It does? That's news to me.
Then:
A series of statements that are to be taken as being true with no supporting evidence.Click to expand...
Hello....Slow down a bit...keep it simple:thumbs:
In the OT.....everything was physical,earthly, and we are told......a shadow of the heavenly reality.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:Click to expand...
Do make it harder than it is...take a minute to read Hebrews 8,9, 10.
This is what the writer is explaining to us......then he sums it up ...hebrews 12:18-24
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Click to expand...
ITL....simply put----Jesus takes the earthly Zion and Jerusalem.....the Holy City on earth, and shows that the reign and throne is from the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,Click to expand...
see part 2 next post--- -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go
Click to expand...
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Click to expand...
ITL... there is no trick, or allergorizing, this is a plain reading.....do you see it?
Jesus... the King ...came to take Zion......mt 21, jn 12, the triumphal entry! a greater than David.
Most wanted an earthly King, earthly rule!
He offered the reign and rule from heaven, -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterAresMan said: ↑Granted, many who adhere to "dispensationalism" today are much less radical than the classical dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield.
Most "dispensationalists" today are "progressive" dispensationalists that allow for the distinction between Israel and the Church to be more cosmetic and simply chronological rather than soteriological. Dispensationalism, if defined by those who originally systematized it, is very much like described in the OP.
The ones with which I have to deal regularly make Darby and Scofield look like covenant theologians. They are hyperdispensationalists who are hardcore that salvation was by works and law-keeping with no eternal security outside the "mystery" church that began with Paul's conversion.
They believe that all the other apostles were "kingdom" saints who had to "endure to the end" to be saved.
They will argue along with the Church of Christ and other cults that John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 teach "baptismal regeneration," but were not directed to "the Body of Christ" to which we are members.
They believe that water baptism has nothing to do with the Body of Christ, and should not be practiced. To do so is to "confuse" and "mix" the "dispensations."
They are hardcore Open Theists whose faith in God as good necessitates finding as many passages of Scripture to indicate God's prophecy not being 100% true if it involves what people would do.
They take a view of soteriology for the Body of Christ much like the Grace Evangelical Society such that man always has libertarian free will and that simply mental assent to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is what is necessary for salvation, and that eternal security (only for the Body of Christ) can be mutually exclusive from any kind of "evidence" of faith.
They would agree with the Preterists that when Jesus said "This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mat 24:34), that He was talking about His second coming and the end of all things AND that "this generation" meant the disciples actually standing there. This is one of the places where they would argue that what Jesus said (being "true" at the time), did not actually happen at all as He said, because when "Israel" "rejected" the Messiah with His second-chance offer of "the kingdom" with the "church of Israel" from Pentecost to the stoning of Stephen, God "changed His mind" and introduced His "mystery" dispensation to Paul (and there was the real possibility that this "dispensation of grace" would never have occurred).
They will argue until they are blue in the face that Romans 4 and James 2 are "a direct contradiction UNLESS you understand the Bible 'dispensationally.'"Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation said: ↑I have been a "dispensationalist" all my life...I have never even run across a creature like you describe here...Perhaps where I am from things are radically different. Maybe it is the type you describe here which makes some people appear to utterly cringe in horror at the very term "dispensationalist". Which always seemed rather humorous to me. This "hyper-dispensationalism" sounds utterly insane. Is it somewhat Geographic do you think? I think this milder form is all I have ever really been exposed to. You are dealing with some crazy creatures indeed. :eek:Click to expand...
What Ares described is a totally confused individual. None of that stuff is biblical. -
AresMan said: ↑Granted, many who adhere to "dispensationalism" today are much less radical than the classical dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield.
Most "dispensationalists" today are "progressive" dispensationalists that allow for the distinction between Israel and the Church to be more cosmetic and simply chronological rather than soteriological. Dispensationalism, if defined by those who originally systematized it, is very much like described in the OP.
The ones with which I have to deal regularly make Darby and Scofield look like covenant theologians. They are hyperdispensationalists who are hardcore that salvation was by works and law-keeping with no eternal security outside the "mystery" church that began with Paul's conversion.
They believe that all the other apostles were "kingdom" saints who had to "endure to the end" to be saved.
They will argue along with the Church of Christ and other cults that John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 teach "baptismal regeneration," but were not directed to "the Body of Christ" to which we are members.
They believe that water baptism has nothing to do with the Body of Christ, and should not be practiced. To do so is to "confuse" and "mix" the "dispensations."
They are hardcore Open Theists whose faith in God as good necessitates finding as many passages of Scripture to indicate God's prophecy not being 100% true if it involves what people would do.
They take a view of soteriology for the Body of Christ much like the Grace Evangelical Society such that man always has libertarian free will and that simply mental assent to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is what is necessary for salvation, and that eternal security (only for the Body of Christ) can be mutually exclusive from any kind of "evidence" of faith.
They would agree with the Preterists that when Jesus said "This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mat 24:34), that He was talking about His second coming and the end of all things AND that "this generation" meant the disciples actually standing there. This is one of the places where they would argue that what Jesus said (being "true" at the time), did not actually happen at all as He said, because when "Israel" "rejected" the Messiah with His second-chance offer of "the kingdom" with the "church of Israel" from Pentecost to the stoning of Stephen, God "changed His mind" and introduced His "mystery" dispensation to Paul (and there was the real possibility that this "dispensation of grace" would never have occurred).
They will argue until they are blue in the face that Romans 4 and James 2 are "a direct contradiction UNLESS you understand the Bible 'dispensationally.'"Click to expand...
There are a couple of hyper-dispensationalists on this Forum. None posting presently that I know of but that is a terrible doctrine. Ryrie has nothing good to say about them.
Page 4 of 15