Interplanner
Well-known member
Apparently there's nothing worth copying from STP today.
ECT The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
Hi and 2 Cor 3:13-16 for one !!
Where is there a ONE GOSPEL in Rom 5:14 ?
How Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 ?
Where the B O C began ??
How you were saved with verses and I see at least 4 verses that explain how people are saved under Grace ?
dan p
STP's statements, however accurately or twisted you might present them, do not define dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism does not look forward to the day when the Levitical sacrificial system will be practiced at all. There is no longer any need for the blood of lambs and bulls because Christ shed His blood. When the substance has come, the symbolic is no longer needed. We learn this in a book that was addressed to Jews.
No, only that it was addressed to Jews. We know this by the very complex and intellectually taxing act of reading the book's title.
God will indeed return to Israel and will magnify the law and make it honorable. But this does not include issues concerning blood sacrifices which could no longer have any application. It applies, rather, to laws like "If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them." and "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
It is you who are fundamentally irrational.
Why is it that people think that they can object to a system's teachings based on ideas that it doesn't teach and think that they've done something meaningful? :kookoo:
No dispensationalist has ever rightly stated anything to the contrary.
Just what is it that you think you're accomplishing by pretending otherwise? I don't get it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Interplanner
Well-known member
ON the last point:
I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points.
On the Levitical system:
It seems you've just stepped into this discussion missing about 50 web pages worth of talk. Many of them fling chapters of Ezekiel at me to show that the sacrificial system will be up and running. The ones that use Jer 31 do not think it is fulfilled in Christ for a minute. Instead it is about another chance for the system and temple to be up and running.
on the title of hebrews.
It can be about that group in that generation and still have many, many shared points of doctrine to reinforce all believers. that is how is has been treated historically. and then there is the question of the options for the meaning of Hebrews. Is it:
Christian Jews?
the whole race?
the new sense (Rom 2, Rom 9) in which there is both Jew and Gentile?
hebrews is written in Greek that is more complicated than Luke-Acts. Why would that be? Isn't fair to say that there is at least some variation on the literal meaning given that fact?
On God enforcing the law
That is a worthwhile distinction; you are the first of those 5 to mention it. I think they are really sensetive about being criticised, so I'm glad you've spoken up. You seem to be referring to a Jewish millenium then. Would good is it to be for just Jews? Why not Gentiles? Do you mean a new sense of Jews--based on faith, Rom 2, 9?
I believe such OT passages were referring to what Christ would accomplish in his own life and those things were done for Israel's sake. His life was lived for them, to justify them too. "OUt of Egypt I called my son" is a hint of this; a 2nd time for "Israel" (christ) to do what was needed for righteousness.
about speaking directly:
I grew up in it; I studied at Multnomah under them. I have been on these discussion for years. there are many important pages recently that you don't seem to know. Yes, I find it irrational on many points: eschatology, hermeneutics, specific passages like Acts 13, Gal 3. I still find 'speakers' or 'Bible teachers' or 'experts' who don't know Acts 13 is an official sermon transcript, and really, really don't know what Gal 3 is saying. Almost all of them think the Law is what Moses wrote instead of the praxis of Judaism that Paul grew up in which had certain things to accomplish after the exile. They irrationally ignore other history such as Judas the Galilean (mentioned in Acts 5) and most of the impact and background of the zealot revolt that lasted from Judas to Masada. In fact, it is even called a sin to know of it. Or it is called 'made up' by one of the makeup artists. So a huge volume like Cornfeld's archeological commentary on the Jewish War, published by Zondervan, 2 illustrations per page on average, is total trash to them. If that's not irrational, I don't know what word will work.
On shadow to reality
I don't know if any of the 5 here know what it means. they seem to respond to it like it was poison. Many of them have never read that all God's wrath on Israel fell in that generation after Jesus, that Paul said so two ways, that he said the law was 'the weak and miserable principles of the world' in Gal 4. That's the problem with prooftexts; the 'solve' everything and you stop hearing the Bible. I don't know if any of them know that shadow to reality is in both hebrews 8-10 and Col 2 (where there was neo-Judaism) and sort of connects the two docs as being by Paul.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Clete,
I'm not sure what the farce is.
I have put in threads here with LISTS of problems with D'ism, and I have only made minor adjustments to them. For ex of the lists:
10 Principles of NT Eschatology
Notes on D'ism this Week
8 things that sink D'ism
I'm surprised you haven't responded yet, but since you only popped in to disagree, perhaps you are not really looking very closely.
I'm not sure what the farce is.
I have put in threads here with LISTS of problems with D'ism, and I have only made minor adjustments to them. For ex of the lists:
10 Principles of NT Eschatology
Notes on D'ism this Week
8 things that sink D'ism
I'm surprised you haven't responded yet, but since you only popped in to disagree, perhaps you are not really looking very closely.
"I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points."
In a way, dispensationalism has "collapsed" on TOL - into the dialectic game, which older dispensationalists like Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann or Rodney Howard-Browne do not get into very much. Many of the older dispensationalists did not preach on the doctrines of dispensationalism. But not preaching very much on dispensationalism but holding on to it is deceptive.
The learning of dispensationalism by people depends a lot upon the Capital C Church over which the clergy class rules as "lords over God's heritage." - I Peter 5: 3. When the dispensationalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention they not only booted out of their seminaries all the professors who were not dispensationaliss, but they got rid of the old Southern Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. In dispensationalism the preacher must be the "priest" who rules over the doctrines believed by the congregation.
In a way, dispensationalism has "collapsed" on TOL - into the dialectic game, which older dispensationalists like Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann or Rodney Howard-Browne do not get into very much. Many of the older dispensationalists did not preach on the doctrines of dispensationalism. But not preaching very much on dispensationalism but holding on to it is deceptive.
The learning of dispensationalism by people depends a lot upon the Capital C Church over which the clergy class rules as "lords over God's heritage." - I Peter 5: 3. When the dispensationalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention they not only booted out of their seminaries all the professors who were not dispensationaliss, but they got rid of the old Southern Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. In dispensationalism the preacher must be the "priest" who rules over the doctrines believed by the congregation.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Do you mean the doctrines themselves are deceptive, or that it is is deceptive not to preach ones own doctrines--and how exactly does a person do that?
I used to listen to dispensationalist preachers on the radio, and if a listener at that time did not know much about dispensationalism and know which radio preachers were dispensationaliss, he or she would not have known the radio preacher is a dispensationalist and following a set of false doctrines. Most dispensationalists thirty or more years ago did not preach much on the doctrines of dispensationalism. In that way they lured people into the Gospel of Christ and into dispensationalism. Had the dispensationalist preachers defined dispensationalism clearly this would not have been so deceptive. And how does a person who does not know that dispensationalism is a false doctrine know he is being deceived?
Many of the dispensationalist preachers on the radio thirty or more years ago preached the Gospel, but they held to the doctrines of dispensationalism, which to some extent gave their messages a subtle dispensationalist slant. In this way they taught dispensationmalism in a deceptive way. Many people hearing them did not know the preachers were teaching the Gospel with a dispensationalist slant. The preachers did not explain clearly the dispensationalist doctrines.They taught the Gospel in a dispensationalist way and the congregation for the most part thought dispensationalism is part of that Gospel.
Here on TOL the dialectic that goes on is much more often focused upon the doctrines of dispensationalism. The preaching by dispensationalists in the churches at least then - and probably now also - was almost never focused upon dispensationalist doctrine itself, and so few church people ever learn that dispensationalist doctrine does not agree with a number of scriptures.
My guess is that especially in the larger churches dispensationalist preachers do not preach the Gospel itself as well as dispensationalists did forty years ago. Preaching false doctrine can have a progressive negative effect over time on spiritual regeneration, so that a dispensationalist preacher in 2017 in a larger church setting would remain more in the spiritual state of the natural man (I Corinthians 2: 14) than a dispensationalist preacher forty or fifty years ago, even though forty or fifty years ago dispensationalms was just as false.
Luke 13: 20-21 says "And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." Leavening of the congregations is progressive, the loss of the truth and loss of spiritual regeneration gets worse over time.
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5: 13 Savour is from μωρανθῇ, moranthe, from moros, meaning stupid, "dull (insipid), flat ("without an edge"); (figuratively) "mentally inert"; dull in understanding; nonsensical ("moronic"), lacking a grip on reality (acting as though "brainless")."
Putting Luke 13:20-21 together with Matthew 5: 13 could mean that as the following of false doctrines goes on over time those in the false doctrines become more and more spiritually stupid, reverting to the spiritual state of the natural man, spiritually "without an edge."
Many of the dispensationalist preachers on the radio thirty or more years ago preached the Gospel, but they held to the doctrines of dispensationalism, which to some extent gave their messages a subtle dispensationalist slant. In this way they taught dispensationmalism in a deceptive way. Many people hearing them did not know the preachers were teaching the Gospel with a dispensationalist slant. The preachers did not explain clearly the dispensationalist doctrines.They taught the Gospel in a dispensationalist way and the congregation for the most part thought dispensationalism is part of that Gospel.
Here on TOL the dialectic that goes on is much more often focused upon the doctrines of dispensationalism. The preaching by dispensationalists in the churches at least then - and probably now also - was almost never focused upon dispensationalist doctrine itself, and so few church people ever learn that dispensationalist doctrine does not agree with a number of scriptures.
My guess is that especially in the larger churches dispensationalist preachers do not preach the Gospel itself as well as dispensationalists did forty years ago. Preaching false doctrine can have a progressive negative effect over time on spiritual regeneration, so that a dispensationalist preacher in 2017 in a larger church setting would remain more in the spiritual state of the natural man (I Corinthians 2: 14) than a dispensationalist preacher forty or fifty years ago, even though forty or fifty years ago dispensationalms was just as false.
Luke 13: 20-21 says "And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." Leavening of the congregations is progressive, the loss of the truth and loss of spiritual regeneration gets worse over time.
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5: 13 Savour is from μωρανθῇ, moranthe, from moros, meaning stupid, "dull (insipid), flat ("without an edge"); (figuratively) "mentally inert"; dull in understanding; nonsensical ("moronic"), lacking a grip on reality (acting as though "brainless")."
Putting Luke 13:20-21 together with Matthew 5: 13 could mean that as the following of false doctrines goes on over time those in the false doctrines become more and more spiritually stupid, reverting to the spiritual state of the natural man, spiritually "without an edge."
Last edited:
You sound like you have an axe to grind against dispensationalism. Why?
It's a dialectical two bladed axe.
You're failing at it.
When I first came to TOL I wondered at the dispensationalist old timers why many didn't give lengthy explanations of their position.
At that time I was taking great pains to answer every objection that I could with lengthy explanations.
Gradually, I learned that I was involved in a war of attrition and most objectors really weren't looking for cogent, comprehensive explanations. It began to appear to me that they mostly wanted to demonstrate their supposed intellectual superiority and seek to impress onlookers of how clever they were in exposing the errors of the dispensational consideration of Scripture. Most, I find, are really not interested in the possibility that they might have it all wrong.
Now most of us just sit back with tongue in cheek and let such all-wise persons remain ignorant in their ranting.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Titus 2:15
I'm not going to let a Tambora look at the Core NT theology and say I have not accepted truth. She full of it to say so. She should be agreeing 95-100%, last I checked on what historic Christianity. She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
I'm not going to let a Tambora look at the Core NT theology and say I have not accepted truth. She full of it to say so. She should be agreeing 95-100%, last I checked on what historic Christianity. She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
You're the one who wants war and division, you make thread after thread bad mouthing D'ism because you can't read and you're full of it.
Nope, we were here first.
You brought the war, disagreement, etc. and continue to do so.
Anybody ever tell you, "You're obsessed" ?
:carryon:
Saying it doesn't make it so and debunking ideas that a system does not teach doesn't even touch the system, never mind causing it to collapse.
It is not relevant. The idea that the sacrificial system will be "up and running" is not a teaching of dispensationalism. There may be a dispensationalist who believe it but that isn't the same thing. The error you are making is the equivalent of attempting to debunk Christianity by debunking the teachings of Jim Jones or David Koresh.
This is precisely how dispensationalism treats it. Same goes for the book of James as well the rest of the non-Pauline New Testament books. The point isn't that the books should be ignored but simply read in context, understanding that they were not written directly to the Body of Christ but rather to those believers who were members of the Nation of Israel.
This allows you to read the books and understand them to mean precisely what they say without creating contradictions that have to be explained away or "interpreted in the light of (fill in the blank)".
Christian Jews would come the closest to describing the intended audience of the non-Pauline epistles but there's a good chance that such a label conjures ideas in your head that are not accurate because you are, to a large degree, living your life as a Christian Jew right now, albeit inconsistently so.
Dispensationalism teaches that the callings of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). If you were called as a Jew then you remained a Jew even after God cut off his covenant with the Nation of Israel as a whole. Paul explains this in Romans 11 when he explains that not all of Israel has been cut off. Thus people like Peter, James, John and their converts continued to be practicing Jews (i.e. lived under the Law) while Paul's converts were forbidden to place themselves under the law. There were thus two groups of believers living under different covenants with different rules and if you are reading a letter written to the group that you don't belong to but apply it to yourself as though it was written to you then you are going to be confused. This is the state of most of modern Christianity.
It isn't just the title that lets us know that the letter was not addressed to the Body of Christ. It is the doctrine as well. The doctrine is consistent with the presented in the books written by Peter, James and John.
I'm not sure what you're asking me. Jesus will rule the entire world from Jerusalem and the Body of Christ will not be around during that time. During this period, if you want to come to God, you'll have to go through Israel to do it. That is to say, you'll have to submit yourself to the Law of Moses. The specifics of which laws will be in force and which will not is Christ's prerogative to decide. We can know in general which laws will be in force but past a certain point, it becomes speculation.
I don't understand what you're referring to here.
You cannot declare a doctrinal system irrational because it violates the premises of your own doctrinal system! That's called begging the question.
One thing you need to reconsider is the implied idea that God left a bunch of vitally important information out of the bible. He didn't! I don't need to know extrabiblical history in order to be able to read and understand what the Bible is teaching. That isn't to say that an understanding of history is worthless only that it isn't NECESSARY. God did a really excellent job of writing His Bible and it can be quite well understood without even needing to know a syllable of the original language, never mind a bunch of intricate historical nuance.
Besides, you act as if there was never a dispensationalist who ever read history or wrote a biblical commentary. Cherry picking your history books is precisely the reason why we don't base our doctrine on anything other than what we find in the Bible. Dispensationalists don't poo-poo your history books and commentaries because they have a problem with history but because they understand that biblical arguments trump your commentaries. You are never ever going to move a dispensationalist one inch off his doctrine by citing history books and commentaries. It's biblical arguments or nothing.
First of all, speaking of history, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews has been seriously questioned since the 3rd century (i.e. since before the year 300!). But even if that weren't the case, there is no way to have a coherent doctrine that permits one to believe that Paul authored Hebrews. At least not if you wish to take the bible to mean what it says. This is a topic for another thread but just to give one brief taste of what I'm talking about...
Paul states explicitly that he did not receive the gospel from men nor was he taught it (Galatians 1:12). It was given to him by direct divine revelation. A point, by the way, that is rationally inexplicable outside of a dispensational perspective (i.e. there is no need for Paul if the Gospel hadn't changed). The author of Hebrews, on the other hand, speaks of the gospel being "confirmed to us by those who heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3). The contradiction cannot be resolved.
Also, the author of Hebrews speaks in terms of "us" and "we" while Paul talks about "my gospel" and "I, Paul" and says things like "the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation." This group vs. individual way of speaking is consistent with the distinction between the corporate relationship people had with God through Israel vs. the individual relationship those in the Body of Christ have with God through Christ.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Very well said.
Listen to Clete IP
Right Divider
Body part
:dizzy:
You always make up crazy stuff.
More commentary talk?
You are the one obsessed with Israel NOT getting the land that God promised them.
Right Divider
Body part
I am happy when STP is around. He tells the truth, whereas you LIE and make stuff up all of the time.
Right Divider
Body part
Just another ignorant lie to put on your HUGE lie pile.
- Status