One that I am aware of . And He had grace on Abel but not Cain . Abel's grace s cries out from the ground to this day as the first martyr, prophet or apostles as a sent one. .Most first mentions are found in Genesis not Revelation.
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.
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.
First and foremost quote me saying the last statement anywhere......and second.....I will say is is idiotic to deny the prophectic utterances woven all through the OT directed at Israel that have yet to be fulfilled and equally idiotic to say the end came and went in 70 A.D........be frank all you want.....and no offence, but what you are espousing does not make the grade UG
First and foremost quote me saying the last statement anywhere......and second.....I will say is is idiotic to deny the prophectic utterances woven all through the OT directed at Israel that have yet to be fulfilled and equally idiotic to say the end came and went in 70 A.D........be frank all you want.....and no offence, but what you are espousing does not make the grade UG
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.
You missed my whole point, Since I have studied and been part of dispy churches (multiple) and have never heard this view before. I think it can be considered to be a minority view
It has nothign to do with my limited knowledge dude, My knowledge of dispensational teaching is by no means limited!
So when did understanding writing modes become "mental gymnastics"
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.
I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).
Revelation 20:4-5 NASBS
[4] Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?
Dispy's also consider the context, and in this case the context of not just a chapter or a book but of the Bible as a whole. With your interpretation you would have James contradicting Paul, and since the Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself, your interpretation must be wrong.
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.
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.
Is this a shameless plug? Are you CHRISTIAN GAVIRIA ALVAREZ?Read this excellent bible study that describes what the millennial kingdom of the Messiah will be like, http://www.wisdomofgod.us/2019/03/1...-god-will-be-like-in-the-millennial-shabbath/ , and then this one that explains why the rulership of the Messiah on earth is for 1,000 years http://www.wisdomofgod.us/2018/11/0...-yb-jubilees-and-the-12901335-days-of-daniel/ .
Simple, James is writing to the Jews, who subscribe to faith + works for justification. Paul is writing to the Gentiles, which is faith only for justification. One is the GOK, the other is GOG.
Protestants don't ignore John 20:23, Lutherans use it all the time in Confession and Absolution. That is used to give the 'priest/pastor authority to absolve others of their sins.Similarly, Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, is for Jews to preach to Jews, which is the GOK. So is that troublesome verse that Protestants largely ignore, John 20:23, is also not written to us but the original 11.
The typical condescending line. There is no contradiction, but for the reasons I had mentioned earlier. It has nothing to do with who was being addressed.Once you understand who the various passages are written to, there is no contradiction
He was the first person to be saved under the grace dispensation.
One key difference in CT and dispy is that the latter take the bible at its literal meaning, taking note of context, while the former tend to allegorize scripture. So for example, when we encounter a passage like Hebrews 11:31
By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
Dispy would interpret that as Rahab did not perish because she showed her faith by receiving the spies with peace.
While CTs would say, that Rahab, like us, put her faith in Jesus's dbr, and she did not perish because of that.
Which part of acts did the dispensation of grace began.
Your the only one I ever heard who thinks this way.. And I have been a dispy all my life in many churches around my country.
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.
Interesting, I never asked a question, but true to form, you answered a non existent question. James is writing to Jewish believers who are under the same Gospel as Gentile believers. They both were concluded under sin by Paul in Romans and both receive the gift of eternal life as a free gift by faith. Your distinctions are bogus, and amounts to another Gospel which Paul also warned against in Gal 1:6-8.
What is GOK and GOG?
Protestants don't ignore John 20:23, Lutherans use it all the time in Confession and Absolution. That is used to give the 'priest/pastor authority to absolve others of their sins.
The typical condescending line. There is no contradiction, but for the reasons I had mentioned earlier. It has nothing to do with who was being addressed.
There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in soteriology, for ALL (both Jew and Gentile) have sinned and are shut up unto Judgment but for the grace of God found in Jesus Christ.
Methinks you need to set aside that twisted views of yours, they definitely are not classical dispensational teachings and all in all preach a different Gospel to the Jew and Gentile.
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the GentilesAnd when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
(Gal 2:7-9)
These aren't speaking of two different Gospels but two different directives given to two different messengers (Paul and Peter).
Protestants don't ignore John 20:23, Lutherans use it all the time in Confession and Absolution. That is used to give the 'priest/pastor authority to absolve others of their sins.