Dispensationalism: Establishing an Understanding
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
Reformed said: "I am familiar with Dispensationalism (obviously)..."
I am taken back. Help me, Mr. Reformed. I remain. CM
I never said I couldn't recall the broad points. It is just it would take several hours to discuss them. I don't have that kind of time in an internet forum.
Reformed,
I am disappointed that my inquiry seems to have been dismissed because of a lack of "time in an internet forum". My inquiries were broad, yet targeted, where it wouldn't require great sums of time or a scholarly thesis. I wonder how you or another would explain Dispensationalism to the average person? You seem to be only able to explain, if and when a lot of time is available. Would this be limited to high points only?You wouldn't explain Dispensationalism to the average person.
Reformed, am I to conclude that Dispensationalism can be only explained by a selected or highly skilled few? I didn't ask you to share from memory. I wonder why, at least, some of my questions couldn't be answered and book references are given for further reading. I think this is fair and reasonable, even for a busy person.
That is exactly what I did. I answered a few questions and then referred you to a book.
What would you say or do if you're interviewed by a radio or TV reporter? On second thought, I would think an organization would have prepared answers or brochures on the basic questions I asked.
Not really, these are not basic questions people would ask.
Reformed, would it be unrealistic for you to reconsider my broad, yet limited question to better understand what you're familiar with, recall its teachings, and at least willing to defend? If by chance, you reconsider, the questions are:
- What are the three types of modern dispensationalism?
Depends who you ask. But mainly Classic, Progressive, Ultra
- Which one did Dr. Ryrie belonged, invented, or advocated?
Classic
- Which one did he teach you?
Classic
- Which one do you espouse, Reformed?
Classic
- Is dispensationalism a hodgepodge of theological scraps?
I don't even understand this question.
- Does the Bible teach that world history is to be divided into seven dispensations?
Depends on what you mean by that.
Is this breakdown below biblical?
- "Innocence"
- "Conscience"
- "Government"
- "Patriarchal Rule"
- "Mosaic Law"
- "Grace or the Church Age"
- "The Millennial Kingdom"? Please, tell me what does each mean?
Generally. Innocence, before original sin. Conscience, before general governemtns, patriarichal through the time of Joseph, Mosaic law after the departure from Egypt, Grace/Church Age after Pentecost, Millennial yet to come.
When it comes to the seven time-blocks or dispensations:
- How can something closes if the start is not known?
The starts are known. They are specific events.
- If there is "no set lengths for a period", how do you know you're in the "Grace or the Church Age" with no date or event as markers?
Because the events surrounding the Millennial dispensation have not begun.
- If the "church age started at Pentecost", what about the five BEFORE the "Church Age"? What are the markers?
If you would consider answering the questions, in this post, it would surely, help the conversation and keep us from talking (typing) in circles. CM
There you go, the rest you need to read up on.
-
@Dave_L said:
You have nothing more than a feeble attempt to justify your position using tons of diversion (hog warsh) when only one direct scripture will do.Dave,
You seem to have a great dislike, if not contempt for dispensationalism. You don't make any attempt to hide your seeming hatred for its teachings. Have you had a personal experience or disappointment with dispensational doctrines or just a deep study of biblical understanding?As you have seen I have put forth several questions to one who has embraced dispensationalism. I wanted to suspend my prior knowledge to be enlightened by one who sat at the feet of Dr. Ryrie. To this point, I have not been given satisfactory answers to my inquiries since Reformed said I don't understand or know what I am talking about. I extended to him another opportunity to answer my questions. So, let's see what happens.
Until such, given his responses so far, I do have a healthy skepticism of dispensationalism. I wonder:
- Could it be that dispensationalism is too cumbersome to explain by the average person and therefore, too cumbersome for the average person to believe?
- Are dispensationalists confused about their own teachings?
- Are dispensationalists ashamed of its own teachings?
- Do dispensationalism lack biblical and theological basis and backbone?
- Is dispensationalism too complex for a layman to explain?
- Dispensationalism permeates many Christian Religions, do they know what they a part or embracing?
As an outsider, what do you think? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
You have nothing more than a feeble attempt to justify your position using tons of diversion (hog warsh) when only one direct scripture will do.Dave,
You seem to have a great dislike, if not contempt for dispensationalism. You don't make any attempt to hide your seeming hatred for its teachings. Have you had a personal experience or disappointment with dispensational doctrines or just a deep study of biblical understanding?As you have seen I have put forth several questions to one who has embraced dispensationalism. I wanted to suspend my prior knowledge to be enlightened by one who sat at the feet of Dr. Ryrie. To this point, I have not been given satisfactory answers to my inquiries since Reformed said I don't understand or know what I am talking about. I extended to him another opportunity to answer my questions. So, let's see what happens.
Until such, given his responses so far, I do have a healthy skepticism of dispensationalism. I wonder:
I answered above....
- Could it be that dispensationalism is too cumbersome to explain by the average person and therefore, too cumbersome for the average person to believe?
It is cumbersome to explain to the average person in one sitting, yes.
- Are dispensationalists confused about their own teachings?
Some are, yes.
- Are dispensationalists ashamed of its own teachings?
No. That would mean we are ashamed of the Scripture.
- Do dispensationalism lack biblical and theological basis and backbone?
No
- Is dispensationalism too complex for a layman to explain?
Unless they have done an extensive study? Probably.
- Dispensationalism permeates many Christian Religions, do they know what they a part or embracing?
Many Christian Religions? There is only one true faith.
-
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.
-
Reformed,
Thanks for your response in reconsidering my questions. I need a little clarification on your answer to one of my questions.
CM said: What are the three types of modern dispensationalism?
Reformed said: "Depends who you ask. But mainly Classic, Progressive, Ultra"The meaning of each, I guess, I would have to look up. Until then, is "Classic dispensationalism" the same (a.k.a) as "Scofieldian Dispensationalism"?
Can I assume that your "Ultra Dispensationalism" is the same as "Revised Dispensationalism"?
Study the Bible, our guide. CM
-
@Dave_L said:
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.Ouch!!!
Dave,
I may have mistaken you with someone else, but I thought you were beholding to the Scofield Reference Study Bible? It may be a KJV Translation, but the notes are of C. I. Scofield's. He popularized Dispensationalism with this work. CM -
@Dave_L said:
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.And this is exactly why I don't take you seriously.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.Ouch!!!
Dave,
I may have mistaken you with someone else, but I thought you were beholding to the Scofield Reference Study Bible? It may be a KJV Translation, but the notes are of C. I. Scofield's. He popularized Dispensationalism with this work. CMI have a Scofield "family bible" from the 1940s. But I found too many errors in the notes to trust it.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.And this is exactly why I don't take you seriously.
Then you don't take Calvin, or any of the truly Reformed seriously.
-
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.Ouch!!!
Dave,
I may have mistaken you with someone else, but I thought you were beholding to the Scofield Reference Study Bible? It may be a KJV Translation, but the notes are of C. I. Scofield's. He popularized Dispensationalism with this work. CMI have a Scofield "family bible" from the 1940s. But I found too many errors in the notes to trust it.
Dave,
Dispensationalism is Protestant evangelical. They use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation applied to the biblical covenants. This method is used both by:- Those who believe in thought inspiration
- Those who hold to verbal inspiration
Their relationship between the biblical covenants and the dispensations based on time periods. Dispensationalism also presupposes that the Scripture calls for distinctions.
I also found that Dispensationalists see “the material of the Old Testament is distinguished from that of the New”. The Famed, Dr. Ryrie would back me up, even if Reformed wouldn't.
A recent understanding (hopefully, with some clarifications), there are three major branches of dispensationalism recognized today:
- Classic Dispensationalism (a.k.a "Scofieldian"?)
- Revised Dispensationalism ("Ultra"?)
- Progressive Dispensationalism (Robert L. Saucy is considered the “father” of progressive dispensationalism, tries to distance himself from the strict literalistic interpretation by using a “complementary hermeneutic,” and adopts a mediating position between dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist interpretation).
The last two are somewhat a departure from classic dispensationalism and attempts to avoid its extreme stance. Although they share most dispensational assumptions, they are rejected by classic dispensationalists. Our resident scholar, in CD, Reformed, knows and will accept what I said because it's true of these teachings and backed by the works of the late, C. C. Ryrie.
This is not an endorsement, but an affirmation of discovery. Truth found truth shared. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
To both CM & Reformed: Not one single scripture directly supports any of the futuristic claims of Dispensationalism. This makes them false prophets to be avoided at all costs. On a personal level I don't take stock in anything mentioned by Dispensationalist "Scholars". Even where they agree with standard historical theology. I do not believe they are capable of understanding scripture at any level. And have a low regard and a reckless use of scripture because of it.Ouch!!!
Dave,
I may have mistaken you with someone else, but I thought you were beholding to the Scofield Reference Study Bible? It may be a KJV Translation, but the notes are of C. I. Scofield's. He popularized Dispensationalism with this work. CMI have a Scofield "family bible" from the 1940s. But I found too many errors in the notes to trust it.
Dave,
Dispensationalism is Protestant evangelical. They use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation applied to the biblical covenants. This method is used both by:- Those who believe in thought inspiration
- Those who hold to verbal inspiration
Their relationship between the biblical covenants and the dispensations based on time periods. Dispensationalism also presupposes that the Scripture calls for distinctions.
I also found that Dispensationalists see “the material of the Old Testament is distinguished from that of the New”. The Famed, Dr. Ryrie would back me up, even if Reformed wouldn't.
A recent understanding (hopefully, with some clarifications), there are three major branches of dispensationalism recognized today:
1. Classic Dispensationalism (a.k.a "Scofieldian"?)
2. Revised Dispensationalism ("Ultra"?)
3. Progressive DispensationalismThe last two are somewhat a departure from classic dispensationalism and attempts to avoid its extreme stance. Although they share most dispensational assumptions, they are rejected by classic dispensationalists. Our resident scholar, in CD, Reformed, knows and will accept what I said because it's true of these teachings and backed by the works of the late, C. C. Ryrie.
This is not an endorsement, but an affirmation of discovery. Truth found truth shared. CM
The are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.
-
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
-
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
-
@C_M_ said:
Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
an artificial construct in order to promote futurism a theology in contradiction to many scriptures relating to the timing of the coming of the Lord. etc
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
I suppose a distinction between OC Law and NC Grace is not necessarily a hallmark of dispensationalism, rather Scripture does teach such distinction
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
This again is an artificial non-scriptural construct ... propagating a futurism theology based on an heavily influenced by earthly thinking, in particular supporting the Zionist views of an earthly Israel nation.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
See above about this ... False interpretations of Scripture passages due to disregarding both immediate as well as remote context, as well as a lack of recognition of what texts are to be understood literally and what texts utilize figures of speech, are seen as reasons for these misunderstandings and perhaps even purpuseful false teaching.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
Not if you aren't even going to discuss the topic. I'm not saying go away from CD just this thread.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
Not if you aren't even going to discuss the topic. I'm not saying go away from CD just this thread.
There's not too much more I can share with you. But I have some interesting points remaining to make against Dispensationalism.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
Not if you aren't even going to discuss the topic. I'm not saying go away from CD just this thread.
There's not too much more I can share with you. But I have some interesting points remaining to make against Dispensationalism.
How can you make points against it if you don't even understand it?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
Not if you aren't even going to discuss the topic. I'm not saying go away from CD just this thread.
There's not too much more I can share with you. But I have some interesting points remaining to make against Dispensationalism.
How can you make points against it if you don't even understand it?
What's there to understand? Without scripture there's nothing to understand.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
Not if you aren't even going to discuss the topic. I'm not saying go away from CD just this thread.
There's not too much more I can share with you. But I have some interesting points remaining to make against Dispensationalism.
How can you make points against it if you don't even understand it?
What's there to understand? Without scripture there's nothing to understand.
That's just it. I have provided Scripture but you refuse to even read it. So stop lying and saying I haven't provided Scripture on this topic.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The[y] are false prophets who use some widely accepted Evangelical truth to sell their product on the merits of.Dave,
Could this be why you hold this teaching in such low regard? Traditionally, all dispensationalists hold to the following four major doctrines:- 1). A distinct separation between an earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.
- 2). A clear separation between Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
- 3). The New Testament Church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and was not foretold in the Old Testament.
- 4). A clear distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the Second Coming of Christ, separated by the seven-year tribulation. All of their beliefs are based on a literal, plenary interpretation of the Bible.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001., pp 343-5
These are only some of many false doctrines. Again, not one scripture supports any of their futuristic claims.
In your opinion.
Even the Dispy top dogs can't cough it up. Quote Ryrie if it isn't so. One direct scripture supporting any of their futuristic claims.
Dave we have been around this merry-go-round. You refuse to read anything supporting this with Scripture. So why should I bother again when you have made it clear you will not read anything that may or may not support Dispensational claims?
We should give it a rest.
Or, if you aren't going to engage the topic just don't chime in. Let others discuss it.
I'll add where I think it will do good. Thanks........
Then you need to actually engage and not just refuse to read things.
If you put up one direct quote supporting only one of your futuristic doctrines, I'll read it. I'm not wasting my time on anything else.
Then just go away Dave if you aren't going to actually discuss the topic.
I might have more to share others can benefit from.
Not if you aren't even going to discuss the topic. I'm not saying go away from CD just this thread.
There's not too much more I can share with you. But I have some interesting points remaining to make against Dispensationalism.
How can you make points against it if you don't even understand it?
What's there to understand? Without scripture there's nothing to understand.
That's just it. I have provided Scripture but you refuse to even read it. So stop lying and saying I haven't provided Scripture on this topic.
You must have provided twisted scripture because you haven't any that will stand on it's own.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)