Does CI Scofield's Gap Theory have any credibility?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- 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.
One of my points, though, is that dispensationalist authorities were very willing to proclaim whacky stuff as truth, yet criticize covenant theologians of playing loose and free with Scripture.
I haven't even mentioned the tons of prophetic claims uttered by various individuals.
Since Jesus didn't return in the late 1980's, it seems like the theology would have died a slow death because the claim of many dispensationalists was that he would return then, due to their view of the "olive tree" of Matthew 24, which they claimed prophesied the return of Jesus within one generation of Israel's establishment as a nation.
I haven't even mentioned the tons of prophetic claims uttered by various individuals.
Since Jesus didn't return in the late 1980's, it seems like the theology would have died a slow death because the claim of many dispensationalists was that he would return then, due to their view of the "olive tree" of Matthew 24, which they claimed prophesied the return of Jesus within one generation of Israel's establishment as a nation.
-
1
- Show all
Are Dispensationalists saved? Here's why I ask. They believe the Sermon on the Mount is not for today. John the apostle says;
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ [Sermon on the Mount], hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9)
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings [The Sermon on the Mount], the people were astonished at his doctrine:” (Matthew 7:28)
Sermon on the Mount Doctrine of Christ
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ [Sermon on the Mount], hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9)
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings [The Sermon on the Mount], the people were astonished at his doctrine:” (Matthew 7:28)
Sermon on the Mount Doctrine of Christ
L
Gun nerds might know what you are talking about 
-
1
- Show all
The Jesuit origin of the Gap.
“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times.
In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.
It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.”
Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin
“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times.
In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.
It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.”
Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin
No.
Why do "Christian" men continually seek to force God's clearly revealed truth into Godless men's boxes? These boxes are no more than outdated foolish theories of vile men's devise.
God created a fully formed and mature universe 6000 years ago. If men dare to contradict their maker and His revealed truth, let them and their lies burn in Hell. You can try to lead them to water, but you cannot force them to drink. All we can do is trust, pray, and obey.
Why do "Christian" men continually seek to force God's clearly revealed truth into Godless men's boxes? These boxes are no more than outdated foolish theories of vile men's devise.
God created a fully formed and mature universe 6000 years ago. If men dare to contradict their maker and His revealed truth, let them and their lies burn in Hell. You can try to lead them to water, but you cannot force them to drink. All we can do is trust, pray, and obey.
-
1
- Show all
L
I think what killed the Scofield is the same thing that will kill the 357 sig and the 10mm; proprietarianism, and lack of versatility. Even .40 is on its way out the door, as police abandon them returning to the 9mm and the 45 acp. Especially now that mag capacity has improved with the para, 45 acp staggered loaded mags what was a 9 round max with one in the tube is now a 16 round with one in.
Do you mean, "the fig tree" of Matthew 24?
I made some posts about "the fig tree" and how I believe (due to the parable in Lk 13:6 and context) that it is something distinct from "the vineyard" (which Isaiah 5:7 states "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel" and Lk13:6 states "a certain man had a fig tree PLANTED IN his vineyard"... so distinct items).
So, just because ppl exercise/exhibit/relay/project their "guesses" as to what something means, we toss out everything associated with them? This sounds like the atheist argument, that goes something like: Christians are totally WRONG and the Bible is an utter farce, b/c some Christian said some dumb thing or other, at some point... whoopie.
I get it , it's not really "dispensationalism" you dislike [or, was it 'hate'? lol], it's persons who hold to dispensationalism / dispensations. LOL
[1Tim1:4 - "nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith."---"nor to give heed to myths and endless genealogies, which bring speculations rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith."---"neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith; so do I now."]
I made some posts about "the fig tree" and how I believe (due to the parable in Lk 13:6 and context) that it is something distinct from "the vineyard" (which Isaiah 5:7 states "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel" and Lk13:6 states "a certain man had a fig tree PLANTED IN his vineyard"... so distinct items).
So, just because ppl exercise/exhibit/relay/project their "guesses" as to what something means, we toss out everything associated with them? This sounds like the atheist argument, that goes something like: Christians are totally WRONG and the Bible is an utter farce, b/c some Christian said some dumb thing or other, at some point... whoopie.
I get it
, it's not really "dispensationalism" you dislike [or, was it 'hate'? lol], it's persons who hold to dispensationalism / dispensations. LOL[1Tim1:4 - "nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith."---"nor to give heed to myths and endless genealogies, which bring speculations rather than God's stewardship, which is in faith."---"neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith; so do I now."]
Speaking of the word I've underlined and also then bolded in the above ^ , it is the same word used in the following text:
Luke 16:1-13 -
The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. 2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. 5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. 8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world [/age] are in their generation wiser than the children of light. 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luke 16:1-13 -
The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. 2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. 5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. 7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. 8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world [/age] are in their generation wiser than the children of light. 9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. 11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? 13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.