ECT There is no difference
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Hi and here is a good time ,and SINCE you say dispensationalist , do not understand what dispensation of the FULNESS OF TIME , explain to us what it IS !!
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
The proof of the general immaturity of D'ism, not personally but theologically, is that people who have been Christians a year seem to know exactly what D'ists for 30 years think is true; there has to be a kingdom of Israel sometime.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That all that was on the heart of God was accomplished in Jesus Christ. It never was about a kingdom for Israel in that geography. It was about justifying sinners from their sins in Christ. That is what 'what was promised to the fathers was fulfilled in that God raised Jesus from the dead' Acts 13, which is saying the reusrrection is proof that it was accomplished and that he was the empowered King of the universe. It was that the message a grace would go out with ease and finality; there is nothing complicated to understand and there is nothing to wait for. In the NHNE, where believers will go , Christ is the temple in which we will worship.
This is why the NT has no details about the future like a cheap chapter from Nostradamus about what will happen to Arab oil when a nuke hits Jerusalem or some such nonsense.
The most immature Christians I know pay attention to that, thirsting to know more of the future than their neighbor. It is folly.
'All the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ in bodily form.' That fulness.
Hi and I just got back from another web site and will respond Saturday , God willing !!
dan p
Yes and no.
Israel's Promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Testament in His Blood (Matt. 26:28) is the issue of the Blood of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), that is to say, was confirmed before of God in Christ (Gal. 3:17).
So, yes - The New Covenant preceded the old because it was from everlasting.
And yes - The old was added 'because of transgressions'--to show the magnitude of transgressions, until the Seed came! (Gal. 3:19 and 3: 22-25).
At the same time, you make a mistake very similar to one STP and his pals make.
How do you reconcile what James said to Paul - who took no issue with James' words to him, in the following...
Acts 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
How do you reconcile that - based on Scripture - and not on your own reasoning?
In other words, what Scriptures do you have to point to as a basis for your obvious conclusion that James was wrong?
I know why STP and his pals are way off base in their reading their obvious mis-fires INTO various of those of Paul's words and behaviours that in Acts often appear seemingly inconsistent with Paul's very writings - because STP's and his pals supposed Acts 9 Dispensationalism is an inconsistent one.
But how do you get around these "things that differ," like those there in Acts 21, that you are supposed to be believed as knowing what you are talking about?
While you're at it, reconcile the above with the actual significance of Acts 10, and that; in light of Acts 15: 11, that is to say: in light of Gal. 2:17.
Rom. 14: 5 towards you on all this, IP - in remembrance of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Always getting a dig in...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You persist in this distortion every chance you get...singular promise.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Believing the prophets is immaturity?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Another vague distortion soundbyte.
When the LORD showed up to Israel he separated out believing Israel from unbelieving Israel. This believing Israel was reckoned as the true circumcision and the Israel of God.
For unbelieving Israel, their circumcision was reckoned as uncircumcision. This is what Paul is talking about.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
AFTER those days, I will make...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Matthew 10:23 (KJV)
In this kingdom, Israel had to be saved first. Then, they would go to the Gentiles.
Read the prophecies. You are calling God's plan "the stupidest thing you've seen today". You should be ashamed.
And in the middle ages, before Constantinople fell, the theologians debated furiously about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
What is really going on here? Does someone have a problem with there being a modern state of Israel? Or an ongoing distinction between Jews and gentiles? The proof text slinging seems like a mask for something else. Is it envy? Or pride? Or both? Or something else completely?
To the point, there seems agreement that:
1. God's plan of salvation has always been intended for both Jews and gentiles.
2. Jesus alone makes salvation possible.
3. Both Jews and gentiles need Jesus.
4. In Jesus' kingdom both Jews and gentiles are accepted and beloved.
What else must we know now when we know we are only looking through a dark glass? When what is coming happens, it will never look exactly as we expected it to look. So, why waste the effort arguing over things that will only become clear when they happen.
What is really going on here? Does someone have a problem with there being a modern state of Israel? Or an ongoing distinction between Jews and gentiles? The proof text slinging seems like a mask for something else. Is it envy? Or pride? Or both? Or something else completely?
To the point, there seems agreement that:
1. God's plan of salvation has always been intended for both Jews and gentiles.
2. Jesus alone makes salvation possible.
3. Both Jews and gentiles need Jesus.
4. In Jesus' kingdom both Jews and gentiles are accepted and beloved.
What else must we know now when we know we are only looking through a dark glass? When what is coming happens, it will never look exactly as we expected it to look. So, why waste the effort arguing over things that will only become clear when they happen.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There are 2500 usages of the OT by the NT. You would never know this from the way Dispensationalism does things, which ends up with a 'need' for a 'restored Israel kingdom.' There is no such 'need' but rather a refutation of it in the NT. But they keep saying it 'needs' to happen. and then they ridicule the idea that there might be a Jew inwardly or a spiritual Israel, just like there is a spiritual sacrifice (human risks for faith) in Rom 12:1.
In short, the differences are huge.
The British East India Co. sought to encourage modern Zionism by helping Darby promote his eschatology.
The things that 'will become clear' should be changed to the things that became clear when they happened: Jesus was made Lord and Christ. His kingdom is now at work. The power granted in Acts 1-2 was kingdom authority. The fulness of the expression of God is not to create a kingdom for Israel, but to justify people from their sins in Christ.
The differences are huge.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That was not called stupid. Your ability to be clear was.
there is one kingdom. JEsus made missiionaries of Jews first, naturally, but it had already been stated that the Gentiles would be reached.
The return? You are so inadequate at putting an coherent explanation together in one place.
I don't read the prohpecies: I read what the apostles said about them, not what you think about them nor Chafer who said the Bible doesn't make sense without Dispensationalism's two unrelated programs.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That's good as long as the new Israel includes Gentiles and stands or falls by faith in the Gospel.
Why does it take a year of pulling teeth for you to put together 3 coherent sentences?
Interplanner
Well-known member
You believe Dispensationalism's two programs. Since it believes the Bible does not make sense without two programs, you have bought into a system that is wrecklessly against what the apostles taught. You think you are following the prophets, but you are really following what Judaism's zealots have thought instead of the apostles.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Too bad everything you think is based on such unspecific material. How do you know the 'son of man be come' is not the enthronement of Acts 2 or have you decided that Acts 2 is not an enthronement?
Do you know what a paragraph is? Do you know what it means to state something completely unambiguous because you are aware of all the rrelated issues surrounding what you are saying. Reading you is like 3 shell games on at once and you think you are so smart that one game can't be figured out.
Interplanner
Well-known member
read it in context, it is mentioned and explained 2 verses later about everything promised to David. You are the one with the blocked understanding. The grammar is a collective term, a basket with many things in it. Your system is wrong so you have to fight the Bible.