Dispensationalism...

[Everlasting-Grace]

If Jesus was the final and true sacrifice by being slain in the last days, how can dispensationalists adhere to the following in their idea of a future 1000 year kingdom where Christ rules in Jerusalem?

"There were also four tables of hewn stone for the burnt offering, a cubit and a half long, and one cubit and a half wide, and one cubit high, on which the instruments were to be laid with which the burnt offerings and the sacrifices were slaughtered." (Ezek 40:42, NRSV)

That is the point I find most blasphemous in dispensationalism. It was also a point never emphasized from the pulpit, yet most people in the pews of dispensationalist churches are not aware that is taught because of a nutty literalism of Ezekiel.

How can you have faith in the sacrifice of Christ when you are going to repeat it over and over in your idea of the millennium? It can't be seen as merely a memorial because Christ is there with you so you don't need to memorialize!

the slaughter of animals NEVER took away sin. (hebrews makes this clear)

If God wants to institute sacrifice as a teaching took in the millenium to continue to teach people what he taught. then who am I to question God?

You want to question him feel free.. No sacrifice has ever or will ever remove one sin..

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

op: Dispensationalism Dispensationalists:

TWO Different groups of them:

Acts 2 D's:

• 1. 'church' began here, with TWELVE
• 
  
• 2. a) some believe "Grace through faith" salvation
• 2. b) others believe "faith PLUS works [water]" salvation
• 
  
• 2. c) others try to homogenize these into Confusion
• 
  
• 3. some believe osas, others not

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)

Acts 9 (Mid-Acts) D's:

• 1. Today's Body Of Christ began here, with ONE, Paul
• 
  
• 2. all believe "GRACE Through faith" salvation
  • because Of The Merits Of Christ's FINISHED CrossWork!
  • with ONE [Spiritual] Baptism, God's OPERATION!!
• 
  
• 3. all believe in God's ETERNAL Life/Assurance!!!

Request that critics please STOP Mixing/Confusing these
TWO DIFFERENT groups. Amen?

 

[Ethan1942]

Matt 24: 3 NKJV
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24: 3 NET
3 As[a] he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things[b] happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24: 3 NASB
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24: 3 NIV
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24: 3 HCSB
3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24: 3 LEB
3 And as[a] he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came up to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Matt 24: 3 ESV
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

can you please tell me where you get the term end of the world?

The phrase "the end of the world" I find in Matthew in the KJV, RV, ASV, The Peshitta, BBE and the CEV as to the translations I have in my software. What was in the disciples' mind we cannot know for certain. Did they think the end of the world was the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of the temple? Since we can't read the disciples' mind we must look to what Jesus said instead of fruitless surmising about the disciples thinking.

 

[Ethan1942]

the slaughter of animals NEVER took away sin. (hebrews makes this clear)

If God wants to institute sacrifice as a teaching took in the millenium to continue to teach people what he taught. then who am I to question God?

You want to question him feel free.. No sacrifice has ever or will ever remove one sin..

By a Freudian slip, you seem to reveal what you truly think. There was a sacrifice that removed ALL the sins of his people, and it is Jesus.

"For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself." (Heb 7:26-27, NRSV)

Sacrifice is mentioned 17 times in the book of Hebrews and how anyone can read that book and justify literal sacrifices in some future millennium is beyond me. It surely belittles and demeans the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ!

Reading the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel and we see the most fantastic vision and symbolism imaginable, and yet people go berserk literalizing chapters 40-48. That is flat out ridiculous. I repeat my challenge of before, show where the body of Christ in history prior to dispensationalism inserted a 2500+ year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9:24. Show in the history of the church where Ezekiel chapters 40-48 has been so literalized as to be absurd as dispensationalists do.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

The phrase "the end of the world" I find in Matthew in the KJV, RV, ASV, The Peshitta, BBE and the CEV as to the translations I have in my software. What was in the disciples' mind we cannot know for certain. Did they think the end of the world was the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of the temple? Since we can't read the disciples' mind we must look to what Jesus said instead of fruitless surmising about the disciples thinking.

I think we can know what is on the mind though

1. They new Christ was not going to set up his earthly rule at that time.
2. Since he was not going to set up his rule then. He would have to come back to do what was promised.
3. They could look at the IT prophets. and know. Christ would return at the end of the age..

and using your argument. Niether one of us can determine who is correct and who is not. we both could be wrong.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

By a Freudian slip, you seem to reveal what you truly think. There was a sacrifice that removed ALL the sins of his people, and it is Jesus.
"For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself." (Heb 7:26-27, NRSV)

No it was not a slip. we were talking about sacrifices in the temple. not the one on the cross

Sacrifice is mentioned 17 times in the book of Hebrews and how anyone can read that book and justify literal sacrifices in some future millennium is beyond me. It surely belittles and demeans the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ!

I do not question God. When God says somethign will happen. I take him at his word.

If he says there will be sacrifices in the 3rd temple. then there will be..

I know there will be sacrifices when the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9 and matt 24 happen... But thats before the millenium..

Reading the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel and we see the most fantastic vision and symbolism imaginable, and yet people go berserk literalizing chapters 40-48. That is flat out ridiculous. I repeat my challenge of before, show where the body of Christ in history prior to dispensationalism inserted a 2500+ year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9:24. Show in the history of the church where Ezekiel chapters 40-48 has been so literalized as to be absurd as dispensationalists do.

my friend, I am concerned with what the bible says, Not what history says.

History is written by men.. We know the catholic church destroyed any aspect of any doctrine they did not preach, so if your looking for anything in history that taught what they rejected, You will not find anything, because they destroyed it.

As for a gap. It is in the text itself.. Even jesus read from a scroll where part of the prophecy he literally fulfilled. and said so. the rest, he has yet to fulfill.

If you would like to go over passages and see the GAP let me know.

 

[Jocund]

Thank you. You just made another point for me.

You do not believe in eternal security.. So you. like the jews. Believe you must earn your salvation.

You do not believe in Gods eternal promises.

You are disingenuous. I did not state my position, I asked you questions about yours.

Also, something being conditional does not necessitate that the recipient of salvation could change that state on their own (cf. Rom 9:18-19).

You must be desperate.

 

[Jocund]

So you then agree that Christians can be heirs of the land promise? And that an everlasting covenant has continuity through Christians? And that if we follow Lev 26's requirement for repentence that only Christians can be heirs to that promise?

No. I do not agree with that.

Because most of the people who recieved that land promise were never saved.

Everlasting-Grace, why did you ignore my first two questions in that segment?

1) Since you agree that Jews can become Christian, do you agree that Christians can be heirs of the land promise?
2) Do you agree that the promises have continuity through Christians?

To the third question and your response to it, did you not state that repentance was required for inheritance? On what grounds are you now claiming that an unrepentant (nonChristian) Jew could inherit the promises?

Look back at your interpretation of Rom 11 in post 425. Did you mean to say all Israel (which are only "elect natural Jews") or all Israel (which contains all natural Jews).

and so all Israel(natural Jews) will be saved

Let's put everything you have said so far together:

1) You stated yourself that Jews will become Christian when they turn to Christ (post 475).
2) You stated yourself that repentance is required before Jews inherit the promise per Lev 26. (post 357).
3) You stated yourself that there is no repentance without Christ (post 484).
4) It follows that only Jews that have repentance in Christ (are Christian) will inherit the land.
5) Therefore, based on what you have acknowledged, it is impossible for unsaved Jews to inherit the land through the promise. And it follows that the current occupation of the territory is not directly related to the promises.

Post 475:

Yes my friend, they will not only become christian, they will become by brother and my sister in Christ,

Post 484:

There is no repentance without christ.

Post 357:

If they repent, God will remember his promise.

If you understand anything about how formal logic works, you'll realize you either have to change something you have said (such as dropping your Lev 26 argument that references repentance) or acknowledge that your comments do not support your conclusion.

 

[Beckie]

Thanks to the guys posting pro Christ that have some education on the subject. Finding the layers of His Word to be magnificent! While i grasp the simple . Thanks again guys

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

You are disingenuous. I did not state my position, I asked you questions about yours.

Also, something being conditional does not necessitate that the recipient of salvation could change that state on their own (cf. Rom 9:18-19).

You must be desperate.

No just been there done that far to many times.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Everlasting-Grace, why did you ignore my first two questions in that segment?

1) Since you agree that Jews can become Christian, do you agree that Christians can be heirs of the land
2) Do you agree that the promises have continuity through Christians?
promise?

my friend, I am really getting frustrated trying to converse with you. You continually accuse me of things which are not true.
i answered this, my answer was NO!

what is funny is you quoted my answer then said I did not answer

all I can do is shake my head

To the third question and your response to it, did you not state that repentance was required for inheritance? On what grounds are you now claiming that an unrepentant (nonChristian) Jew could inherit the promises?

are you telling me that ever jew who lived in Isreal,in the OT were repentant?

if you are, please show that n scripture I see time and time again of prophets preaching to an unrepentant people begging them to repent, yet they still lived in the land according to the promise

Look back at your interpretation of Rom 11 in post 425. Did you mean to say all Israel (which are only "elect natural Jews") or all Israel (which contains all natural Jews).

in rom 11, jpaul spoke of three groups

1. Gentile believers, he called then you, un natural branches
2. saved Isreal - he spoke to them as they and natural branches
3 unsaved Isreal, again spoke of them as they, called them blind and natural branches

when paul spoke of all Isreal he again spoke of them as they. Not you

gentiles are not included, he is saying they will all be saved (because they repent,

Let's put everything you have said so far together:

1) You stated yourself that Jews will become Christian when they turn to Christ (post 475).
2) You stated yourself that repentance is required before Jews inherit the promise per Lev 26. (post 357).
3) You stated yourself that there is no repentance without Christ (post 484).
4) It follows that only Jews that have repentance in Christ (are Christian) will inherit the land.
5) Therefore, based on what you have acknowledged, it is impossible for unsaved Jews to inherit the land through the promise. And it follows that the current occupation of the territory is not directly related to the promises.

the current occupation has nothing to do with the promises, MOST of the The people in Isreal today are still my enemy concerning the gospel. [there are saved Jews in the land, we have seen interviews of Jewish army personal who have recieved Christ)

Post 475:


Post 484:


Post 357:


If you understand anything about how formal logic works, you'll realize you either have to change something you have said (such as dropping your Lev 26 argument that references repentance) or acknowledge that your comments do not support your conclusion.

I do not have to change anything,, what I said I stand by, Isreal will repent, and will be restored, God said it, Ibelieve it

it has not happened yet. But it will n

 

[Beckie]

Israel was restored . God said it do you believe it?

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

 

[Evmur]

Did they have all the land God showed to Abraham? They were not in control of the land they had Roam was. Christ is the promise so dispy to want the land instead of Jesus .

The church is not promised the the earth we are promised heaven.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Israel was restored . God said it do you believe it?

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

Yet here they are scattered through the world. Enemies of the gospel. And unrepentant..

 

[Evmur]

Joshua 21:45 "Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; everything came to pass."

Joshua 23:14 (NASB 2020) “Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; they all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed."

1 Kings 8:56 (NASB 2020) “Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to His people Israel in accordance with everything that He promised; not one word has failed of all His good promise, which He promised through Moses His servant."

The land was God's, not theirs. Remember that the next time you post.

2 Chronicles 7:20 (NASB 2020) "Then I will uproot you from My land which I have given you, and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight; and I will make it a proverb and an object of scorn among all peoples."

Jeremiah 2:7 (NASB 2020) “I brought you into the fruitful land to eat its fruit and its good things. But you came and defiled My land, and you made My inheritance an abomination."

Jeremiah 16:18 (NASB 2020) "I will first repay them double for their wrongdoing and their sin, because they have defiled My land; they have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable idols and their abominations.”

To quote only half the truth is to lie. God promised to to bring the Jews back to Israel in the latter days. You can only have one reason for lying, you are anti-semite.

 

[Evmur]

When it comes to theological systems, I try to stick closer to the explicit words of God, without trying to read between the lines or adding what I think is implied, in order to build a new theory or system of theology. By "new" I mean in the latter 1800s.

In the KVJ the word "dispensation" is used 4 times: 1 Co 9:17; Eph 1:10, 3:2; Col 1:25. Each of these 4 are in Paul's writings, and in 1 Co. 9:17 it clearly states "a dispensation of the gospel" and the following 3 occurrences refer to the same. The Greek οἰκονομία translated "dispensation" in the KVJ is also used 3 other times in Lk. 16:2,3,4 where it is translated "stewardship".

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary gives 4 definitions for "dispensation" and the 4th is the one that fits the NT usage:

"4. That which is dispensed or bestowed; a system of principles and rites enjoined; as the Mosaic dispensation; the gospel dispensation; including, the former the Levitical law and rites; the latter the scheme of redemption by Christ."

The use of "dispensation" in Paul's writings would appear to indicate a previous dispensation and that seems to be the case meaning law and gospel in the following:

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:17, KJV)

The more recent English translations, the NEB, REB & NRSV do not use the word "dispensation" at all anywhere in their translations. Strictly speaking, the KJV refers to the gospel as a dispensation, not multiple 3, 4, 7, 9 dispensations, etc.

so you are a dispensationalist.

 

[Beckie]

The church is not promised the the earth we are promised heaven.

Either i did not phrase the question correctly or you did not truly answer. I have never suggested the church was promised the land .

 

[Evmur]

Really? At which point in history did Israel ever occupy the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, as embedded in the Abrahamic Covenant? And at which point did they hold that land eternally? Israel went into exile three times, and the Zionist nation-state of Israel at present occupies a small sliver of the land promised by God. But a time will come when each of the twelve tribes will possess exactly the portion given to them. See Ezekiel 48, which has never been fulfilled.

Quite so, and they are promised the ends of the earth. They are also promised that in the latter days Israel will be the greatest nation and Jerusalem the greatest city.

 

[Beckie]

To quote only half the truth is to lie. God promised to to bring the Jews back to Israel in the latter days. You can only have one reason for lying, you are anti-semite.

The good ol liberal threat just like the media racist racist ... Anyone even coming close to letting a Jewish person think there is a second day for salvation is the racist .

 

[Evmur]

The Bible does not teach dispensations. What you posted above is nothing but a man-made bible study that ignores God's covenants which is the beating heart of the Bible.

God's covenants are dispensed in different ways to different people at different times. Covenants and dispensations are different sides of the same coin.