Dispensationalism: Establishing an Understanding

135

Comments

  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    Do you believe the trinity doctrine?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    Do you believe the trinity doctrine?

    I sure do. But I am honest enough to say there is not one verse that proves the Trinity because that's not how Theology and Biblical Interpretation works a lot of the time.

    You, however, seem to think that every doctrine must have one specific verse to support it. If you believe the Trinity, that's a double standard.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    Do you believe the trinity doctrine?

    I sure do. But I am honest enough to say there is not one verse that proves the Trinity because that's not how Theology and Biblical Interpretation works a lot of the time.

    You, however, seem to think that every doctrine must have one specific verse to support it. If you believe the Trinity, that's a double standard.

    Then we shouldn't need scripture to prove it. But since I don't believe what you say about futurism, you need scripture to prove that.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    Do you believe the trinity doctrine?

    I sure do. But I am honest enough to say there is not one verse that proves the Trinity because that's not how Theology and Biblical Interpretation works a lot of the time.

    You, however, seem to think that every doctrine must have one specific verse to support it. If you believe the Trinity, that's a double standard.

    Then we shouldn't need scripture to prove it. But since I don't believe what you say about futurism, you need scripture to prove that.

    That is about the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Do you not agree you have a double standard?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463
    edited November 2018

    @C_M_ said:

    This is not an endorsement, but an affirmation of discovery. Truth found truth shared. CM

    Dispensationalism
 --The wonder of it all

    The "secret rapture" other pernicious teachings, equally dangerous and deceptive, in what is known as "modern dispensationalism". This "strange" doctrine was first brought to America by Malachi Taylor, one of the Plymouth Brethren. Among those taken in was C. I. Scofield, who became its leading exponent. He prepared a new edition of the Bible, and with notes, headings, sub­headings, and summaries imposed upon the Bible a system of error. Given that these errors are bound together in one volume with the Scriptures of truth, may account for the rapidity with which the fire of evil has spread.

    Seven Dispensations.—The Scofield Bible divides the history of the world into periods of time, known as "dispensations" (see above). In each of these periods, the Lord "deals with man upon a plan different from the plan of the other dispensations." For example:

    1. The period from Sinai to Calvary was "the dispensation of Law".
    2. From the cross to the second coming, "the dispensation of grace".
    3. From the second coming to the close of the millennium, "the dispensation of the kingdom."
    4. There is no "mingling" of methods of salvation during these periods according to the Scofield.
    5. "No grace" in the dispensation from Moses to the cross.
    6. "No law" in our present period of "grace."
    7. No dispensation of human conscience during the period before the flood.
    8. No reign of human government during the period from the flood to Abraham.

    These seven dispensations have been labeled by one writer as "arbitrary, fanciful, and destitute of Scriptural support."

    Meaning of Dispensationalism -- In the Bible, the word "dispensation" never refers to a period of time. Invariably its meaning is:

    • "A stewardship"
    • "The act of dispensing"
    • "An administration"

    Read the four New Testament texts in which the word "dispensation" is found:

    • 1 Corinthians 9:17
    • Ephesians 1:10; 3:2
    • Colossians
    • 1 Corinthians 9:17 (Weymouth's translation) reads: "A stewardship has nevertheless been entrusted to me". Can one trust this teaching when it redefined the very word, clearly used, in the Bible?

    This just one of the seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible. the others are listed as follows:
    1. Dispensationalism (See above).
    2. Antinomianism.
    3. False ideas of the antichrist.
    4. The "secret rapture."
    5. The return of the Jew to Jerusalem.
    6. False teachings in regard to the kingdom.
    7. The False hope of a second chance.

    This thing (as I dig) is shaping up to be quite questionable. CM

    PS. What is this, Reformed? CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @C_M_ said:

    This is not an endorsement, but an affirmation of discovery. Truth found truth shared. CM

    Dispensationalism
 --The wonder of it all

    The "secret rapture" other pernicious teachings, equally dangerous and deceptive, in what is known as "modern dispensationalism". This "strange" doctrine was first brought to America by Malachi Taylor, one of the Plymouth Brethren. Among those taken in was C. I. Scofield, who became its leading exponent. He prepared a new edition of the Bible, and with notes, headings, sub­headings, and summaries imposed upon the Bible a system of error. Given that these errors are bound together in one volume with the Scriptures of truth, may account for the rapidity with which the fire of evil has spread.

    Seven Dispensations.—The Scofield Bible divides the history of the world into periods of time, known as "dispensations" (see above). In each of these periods, the Lord "deals with man upon a plan different from the plan of the other dispensations." For example:

    1. The period from Sinai to Calvary was "the dispensation of Law".
    2. From the cross to the second coming, "the dispensation of grace".
    3. From the second coming to the close of the millennium, "the dispensation of the kingdom."
    4. There is no "mingling" of methods of salvation during these periods according to the Scofield.
    5. "No grace" in the dispensation from Moses to the cross.
    6. "No law" in our present period of "grace."
    7. No dispensation of human conscience during the period before the flood.
    8. No reign of human government during the period from the flood to Abraham.

    These seven dispensations have been labeled by one writer as "arbitrary, fanciful, and destitute of Scriptural support."

    Meaning of Dispensationalism -- In the Bible, the word "dispensation" never refers to a period of time. Invariably its meaning is:

    • "A stewardship"
    • "The act of dispensing"
    • "An administration"

    Read the four New Testament texts in which the word "dispensation" is found:

    • 1 Corinthians 9:17
    • Ephesians 1:10; 3:2
    • Colossians
    • 1 Corinthians 9:17 (Weymouth's translation) reads: "A stewardship has nevertheless been entrusted to me". Can one trust this teaching when it redefined the very word, clearly used, in the Bible?

    This just one of the seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible. the others are listed as follows:
    1. Dispensationalism (See above).
    2. Antinomianism.
    3. False ideas of the antichrist.
    4. The "secret rapture."
    5. The return of the Jew to Jerusalem.
    6. False teachings in regard to the kingdom.
    7. The False hope of a second chance.

    This thing (as I dig) is shaping up to be quite questionable. CM

    PS. What is this, Reformed? CM

    No idea what a lot of that is actually. Read Ryrie's book.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463
    edited November 2018

    No idea what a lot of that is actually. Read Ryrie's book.

    Reformed,

    You nor I need to look to Ryrie to see the pure Bible texts (1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; Colossians; 1 Corinthians 9:17) and the clear usage of the word "Dispensation" in its context.

    1. You don't accept or believe what I shared above?
    2. Do you accept the Scofield Reference Bible Notes as written?
    3. You don't believe the seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible?

    Check it out. It's in your Logos Library. A cursory reading of the notes clearly shows there are incongruencies between the purity of textual meaning and Scofield's Reference Notes. Many are grossly misleading. Come, reason with me. Hey, this is not politics. It's the Word. Let's be true to it, even if it hurts our favorite belief or affiliation. I remain. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    No idea what a lot of that is actually. Read Ryrie's book.

    Reformed,

    You nor I need to look to Ryrie to see the pure Bible texts (1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; Colossians; 1 Corinthians 9:17) and the clear usage of the word "Dispensation" in its context.

    1. You don't accept or believe what I shared above?
    2. Do you accept the Scofield Reference Bible Notes as written?
    3. You don't believe the seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible?

    Check it out. It's in your Logos Library. A cursory reading of the notes clearly shows there are incongruencies between the purity of textual meaning and Scofield's Reference Notes. Many are grossly misleading. Come, reason with me. Hey, this is not politics. It's the Word. Let's be true to it, even if it hurts our favorite belief or affiliation. I remain. CM

    And this is why I don't waste my time on this thread.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    No idea what a lot of that is actually. Read Ryrie's book.

    Reformed,

    You nor I need to look to Ryrie to see the pure Bible texts (1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; Colossians; 1 Corinthians 9:17) and the clear usage of the word "Dispensation" in its context.

    1. You don't accept or believe what I shared above?
    2. Do you accept the Scofield Reference Bible Notes as written?
    3. You don't believe the seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible?

    Check it out. It's in your Logos Library. A cursory reading of the notes clearly shows there are incongruencies between the purity of textual meaning and Scofield's Reference Notes. Many are grossly misleading. Come, reason with me. Hey, this is not politics. It's the Word. Let's be true to it, even if it hurts our favorite belief or affiliation. I remain. CM

    And this is why I don't waste my time on this thread.

    Reformed,
    What's happening? I thought we had a conversation going? I know you may feel a bit overwhelmed but work with me. I think I have proven over time to take the Word seriously. I tried to provide some type of references for further reading or source of my points put forth.

    What are you so frustrated about? Is it me, the topic or others? The truth of the matter stands on it own. Let's drill down on the texts (above) and the usage of the word, "Dispensation" until we reach spiritual oil. I am sharing what I have found to be relevant and bears accurately on the subject matter. Stay with me. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @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:

    @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.

    Again, if you don't want to actually engage quit hijacking this thread.

    I have several things to contribute.

    No you don't. All you have contributed is the following:

    1. You don't have any Scripture (which is not true)
    2. Dispensationalists teach Rapture Anxiety (which is not true for the vast majority of Dispensationalists)
    3. I refuse to read anything written by a Dispensationalist
    4. Only I am right and nobody else can be correct unless they agree with me so I will not even entertain their argument.

    How is that contributing anything?

    We proved Dispensationalism has no direct scripture quotes for its futuristic claims.

    lol no you didn't.

    Quote one scripture that directly states anything about a 7 year tribulation.

    Produce one scripture directly stating there will be a pre-trib rapture.

    Two can play at this game Dave, quote one Scripture that says anything about there being a Trinity

    Do you believe the trinity doctrine?

    I sure do. But I am honest enough to say there is not one verse that proves the Trinity because that's not how Theology and Biblical Interpretation works a lot of the time.

    You, however, seem to think that every doctrine must have one specific verse to support it. If you believe the Trinity, that's a double standard.

    Then we shouldn't need scripture to prove it. But since I don't believe what you say about futurism, you need scripture to prove that.

    That is about the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Do you not agree you have a double standard?

    There is plenty of scripture directly supporting the trinity doctrine (to the spiritually discerning). But zero scripture directly supporting most of Dispensationalism.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0

    @Dave_L said:
    There is plenty of scripture directly supporting the trinity doctrine (to the spiritually discerning). But zero scripture directly supporting most of Dispensationalism.

    Actually, there is equally NO - NOT ONE - scripture which supports the Trinity doctrine, just as there is NO - NOT ONE - scripture reference which supports currently equally popular Dispenstional doctrine.

    Both doctrines are solely based on few scriptures which are then interpreted in seeming support of such doctrines ... such interpretations neglecting context and overall scope of Scripture as well as the fact that those very few scriptures MUST be interpreted in light of the many clear scriptures which do teach differently.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    There is plenty of scripture directly supporting the trinity doctrine (to the spiritually discerning). But zero scripture directly supporting most of Dispensationalism.

    Actually, there is equally NO - NOT ONE - scripture which supports the Trinity doctrine, just as there is NO - NOT ONE - scripture reference which supports currently equally popular Dispenstional doctrine.

    Both doctrines are solely based on few scriptures which are then interpreted in seeming support of such doctrines ... such interpretations neglecting context and overall scope of Scripture as well as the fact that those very few scriptures MUST be interpreted in light of the many clear scriptures which do teach differently.

    I would take you up on this. But it's off topic.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    There is plenty of scripture directly supporting the trinity doctrine (to the spiritually discerning). But zero scripture directly supporting most of Dispensationalism.

    Actually, there is equally NO - NOT ONE - scripture which supports the Trinity doctrine, just as there is NO - NOT ONE - scripture reference which supports currently equally popular Dispenstional doctrine.

    Both doctrines are solely based on few scriptures which are then interpreted in seeming support of such doctrines ... such interpretations neglecting context and overall scope of Scripture as well as the fact that those very few scriptures MUST be interpreted in light of the many clear scriptures which do teach differently.

    I would take you up on this. But it's off topic.

    Cop-out

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    There is plenty of scripture directly supporting the trinity doctrine (to the spiritually discerning). But zero scripture directly supporting most of Dispensationalism.

    Actually, there is equally NO - NOT ONE - scripture which supports the Trinity doctrine, just as there is NO - NOT ONE - scripture reference which supports currently equally popular Dispenstional doctrine.

    Both doctrines are solely based on few scriptures which are then interpreted in seeming support of such doctrines ... such interpretations neglecting context and overall scope of Scripture as well as the fact that those very few scriptures MUST be interpreted in light of the many clear scriptures which do teach differently.

    I would take you up on this. But it's off topic.

    Cop-out

    Ping Reformed....We are talking about Dispensationalism, not the Trinity. If you want scriptural support for that, consult the Creeds.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Dave_L said:

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    There is plenty of scripture directly supporting the trinity doctrine (to the spiritually discerning). But zero scripture directly supporting most of Dispensationalism.

    Actually, there is equally NO - NOT ONE - scripture which supports the Trinity doctrine, just as there is NO - NOT ONE - scripture reference which supports currently equally popular Dispenstional doctrine.

    Both doctrines are solely based on few scriptures which are then interpreted in seeming support of such doctrines ... such interpretations neglecting context and overall scope of Scripture as well as the fact that those very few scriptures MUST be interpreted in light of the many clear scriptures which do teach differently.

    I would take you up on this. But it's off topic.

    Cop-out

    Ping Reformed....We are talking about Dispensationalism, not the Trinity. If you want scriptural support for that, consult the Creeds.

    Here's the thing. You hold a double standard. You require Dispensationalism to have ONE VERSE to support their claims but you can't do that with the Trinity. Why do you have the double standard?

    I get it, you hate Dispensationalism because you sat under some crazy extremists. But your approach to this topic is ridiculous.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @reformed said:

    @Dave_L said:

    I would take you up on this. But it's off topic.

    Cop-out

    "Cop-out" or not, Dave is right. Let's give this topic a full airing, please. Besides, Trinity has had its day in the sun, in these forums. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @Dave_L said:

    Ping Reformed....We are talking about Dispensationalism, not the Trinity. If you want scriptural support for that, consult the Creeds.

    Better yet, "consult" the Bible and other threads in these forums. Let the Dispensationalism conversation move forward. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    Ping Reformed....We are talking about Dispensationalism, not the Trinity. If you want scriptural support for that, consult the Creeds.

    Better yet, "consult" the Bible and other threads in these forums. Let the Dispensationalism conversation move forward. CM

    There was a specific reason I was asking. It is pointing out his double standard of Trinitarian Doctrine vs. Dispensationalism.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @reformed said:

    Here's the thing. You hold a double standard. You require Dispensationalism to have ONE VERSE to support their claims but you can't do that with the Trinity. Why do you have the double standard?

    I get it, you hate Dispensationalism because you sat under some crazy extremists. But your approach to this topic is ridiculous.

    Dave, may or may not be or do what you stated, but settle it elsewhere, please.
    Reformed, please respond to my last post to you, after your apparent frustration post. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:

    No idea what a lot of that is actually. Read Ryrie's book.

    Reformed,

    You nor I need to look to Ryrie to see the pure Bible texts (1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; Colossians; 1 Corinthians 9:17) and the clear usage of the word "Dispensation" in its context.

    1. You don't accept or believe what I shared above?
    2. Do you accept the Scofield Reference Bible Notes as written?
    3. You don't believe the seven principal errors of the Scofield Reference Bible?

    Check it out. It's in your Logos Library. A cursory reading of the notes clearly shows there are incongruencies between the purity of textual meaning and Scofield's Reference Notes. Many are grossly misleading. Come, reason with me. Hey, this is not politics. It's the Word. Let's be true to it, even if it hurts our favorite belief or affiliation. I remain. CM

    And this is why I don't waste my time on this thread.

    Reformed,
    What's happening? I thought we had a conversation going? I know you may feel a bit overwhelmed but work with me. I think I have proven over time to take the Word seriously. I tried to provide some type of references for further reading or source of my points put forth.

    What are you so frustrated about? Is it me, the topic or others? The truth of the matter stands on it own. Let's drill down on the texts (above) and the usage of the word, "Dispensation" until we reach spiritual oil. I am sharing what I have found to be relevant and bears accurately on the subject matter. Stay with me. CM

    You don't seem to be genuine in the search for truth on the topic. You cherry-pick things, refuse to investigate resources I have shown, and don't list your sources.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    Here's the thing. You hold a double standard. You require Dispensationalism to have ONE VERSE to support their claims but you can't do that with the Trinity. Why do you have the double standard?

    I get it, you hate Dispensationalism because you sat under some crazy extremists. But your approach to this topic is ridiculous.

    Dave, may or may not be or do what you stated, but settle it elsewhere, please.
    Reformed, please respond to my last post to you, after your apparent frustration post. CM

    Yes mother

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0