Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I think you understand the term dispensation differently from me.
For me, the dispensation of grace started with the Apostle Paul, Jesus saved him after the Jews made the final rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom, thru the stoning of Stephen, to preach the gospel of grace to the Gentiles.
And as our debate over the GC in the other thread goes, the GC also ended after that rejection.
For me, the dispensation of grace started with the Apostle Paul, Jesus saved him after the Jews made the final rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom, thru the stoning of Stephen, to preach the gospel of grace to the Gentiles.
And as our debate over the GC in the other thread goes, the GC also ended after that rejection.
Gong show is another one that rejects truth..........I can see grace (though partially hidden and very limited) woven all through the O.T. and for SURE John tells us that GRACE came by JESUS, not PAUL...........Grace is clearly seen being given and supplied unto DAVID...under the LAW he should have been killed for his sins and yet he was spared, preemptively forgiven and the INNOCENT SON of DAVID took his place in death <---a big picture of JESUS.....<----thou SON of DAVID have mercy on me cried the old man.......
But hey.....when people go to seed on fallacy and refuse to actually acknowledge the truth and or even be (enlarged) open to the truth what can one expect.......NOTHING but fighting the truth tooth and nail while being in opposition of the truth......
But hey.....when people go to seed on fallacy and refuse to actually acknowledge the truth and or even be (enlarged) open to the truth what can one expect.......NOTHING but fighting the truth tooth and nail while being in opposition of the truth......
-
1
- Show all
I know their differences but I also know they would both agree that Rahab showed her faith by hiding the spies.
Hiding the spies didn't save her. That seems to be your confusion.
Hiding the spies was simply a demonstration of her true faith...
James 2:17-18 KJV
[17] Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. [18] Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Hiding the spies didn't save her. That seems to be your confusion.
Hiding the spies was simply a demonstration of her true faith...
James 2:17-18 KJV
[17] Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. [18] Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
-
2
- Show all
Those are man made categories. I prefer seeing the Church beginning when Christ purchased it with His own blood. Besides Acts 9 (denying water baptism) and Acts 28 (denying water baptism and the Lord's Supper) are simply silly man made contrivances. So I like my contrivance better lol.
-
1
- Show all
Like I said, dispy differ from CT in that, we interpret scripture using words in their plain reading.
Thus, if James said in ch 2 that
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel
Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.
The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.
Thus, if James said in ch 2 that
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel
Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.
The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.
U
Like I said, dispy differ from CT in that, we interpret scripture using words in their plain reading.
Thus, if James said in ch 2 that
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel
Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.
The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.
Thus, if James said in ch 2 that
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel
Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.
The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.
What you are basically stating is that best to avoid the intent, purposes, style and audience of the author so that I do not have to do the real work of understanding scripture.
Like I said, dispy differ from CT in that, we interpret scripture using words in their plain reading.
Thus, if James said in ch 2 that
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel
Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.
The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.
Thus, if James said in ch 2 that
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
And when we read Hebrews 11:31 and it says the same thing, we simply conclude that Rahab was justified by faith AND works. And it made perfect sense since the context then, the Law dispensation demanded obedience to the Law in Exodus 19
Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel
Likewise, when we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we conclude that you need to repent/believe AND be baptized to be saved.
The best part about being a dispy, is the freedom from not having to do mental gymnastics with the English words, to get it to say something else.
Apparently you are not 'rightly dividing' but wrongly selectively taking verses that nicely fit your preconceived formula.
We must take Scripture as a whole and seek the interpretation that does not contradict other parts of Scripture, and if it does, it"s our interpretation that needs adjusting...not Scripture.
-
1
- Show all
U
Can I be frank too?
The tragedy is stating the God has two separate plans, when scripture is clear that God does not fail and everything He promised has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
It also tragic to believe that temple sacrifices are going to be reinstated in clear defiance of what is written in the book of Hebrews, in some future millennium on earth with a new temple, when the last one was destroyed as He predicted.
The tragedy is stating the God has two separate plans, when scripture is clear that God does not fail and everything He promised has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
It also tragic to believe that temple sacrifices are going to be reinstated in clear defiance of what is written in the book of Hebrews, in some future millennium on earth with a new temple, when the last one was destroyed as He predicted.
-
1
- Show all
E
Who said he has two different plans. I mean seriously. I have heard this argument from ammil people so often but yet have never got a direct answer of who teaches two different plans?
The plan of salvation has been the same since adam, Grace through faith. That has been the ONLY plan. And that was fulfilled by Christ.
But we are not talking about a plan, or covenant which was given for salvation. We are talking about a covenent God made between himself and ONE nation. Which has NOTHING to do with salvation.
It is not two plans they are. Not even related.
So when prophesy says that a new temple will be rebuilt and the jews (in sin mind you) start sacrificing again, (Again in sin) We should just ignore it, and consider it false and not scripture. Just because we do not think it should happen?
This is called selective reasoning from scripture.
The plan of salvation has been the same since adam, Grace through faith. That has been the ONLY plan. And that was fulfilled by Christ.
But we are not talking about a plan, or covenant which was given for salvation. We are talking about a covenent God made between himself and ONE nation. Which has NOTHING to do with salvation.
It is not two plans they are. Not even related.
So when prophesy says that a new temple will be rebuilt and the jews (in sin mind you) start sacrificing again, (Again in sin) We should just ignore it, and consider it false and not scripture. Just because we do not think it should happen?
This is called selective reasoning from scripture.
-
1
- Show all