Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
jknbt

Is Dispensationalism a valid way to interpret scripture?  Or is it "too new to be true"?

Recommended Posts

hello all...a question for you:  Is Dispensationalism a valid way to interpret scripture?  Or is it "too new to be true"?  What do you think?  This seems to be the province of evangelicals at Dallas Theological Seminary & the A.G. church.  This thinking has spread into a hundred books about the Rapture and Armageddon.  So how about it?  I am trying to gather opinions.  For my opinion, see the videos at:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqes76eRvG3wF8laIS-JzYg

or do a search on you tube for J.D. Kethley Ministries for the page
Take a look.  They are all short & informative, and more are coming.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

No it is not valid. Not because it is new . But because it twist Scripture .. Our theology should fit scripture. Dispensationalism forces the Scriptures to fit its theology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings and Welcome to the forums!

 

3 hours ago, jknbt said:

hello all...a question for you:  Is Dispensationalism a valid way to interpret scripture?

 

The various Dispensational theological systems represent one of the numerous lenses that particular individuals and/or particular groups of people have either willing chosen to view scripture through, or (if one does not happen to believe in free agency/freedom of will) have been predestined/fated to view scripture. I consider Dispensationalism to be one of many opinions that stem from primarily Anglo-Irish theological meta-narratives based on one particular British redaction of early modern English translations and ideas about Holy Scripture.

 

Dispensationalism is neither a valid nor an invalid way to interpret scripture as it never was an actually a method (systematic set of techniques) for interpreting Scripture.

 

4 hours ago, jknbt said:

 Or is it "too new to be true"?  What do you think?

What does age have to do with whether something is true or not?

On, the other hand is anything actually completely new under the sun?

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
13 minutes ago, Ben Asher said:

On, the other hand is anything actually completely new under the sun?

It is if one ignores history!

 

False teachings rise and fall and rise and fall within the history of the church. What did the church believe until the 1900s about the identity of Israel? And what ushered in the doctrine of Dispensationalism?

 

Regarding Dispensationalism I was fascinated in the fact that Dispensationalism took root in a Liberal academic institution called Princeton which contributed to its development.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

Greetings and Welcome to the forums!

 

 

The various Dispensational theological systems represent one of the numerous lenses that particular individuals and/or particular groups of people have either willing chosen to view scripture through, or (if one does not happen to believe in free agency/freedom of will) have been predestined/fated to view scripture. I consider Dispensationalism to be one of many opinions that stem from primarily Anglo-Irish theological meta-narratives based on one particular British redaction of early modern English translations and ideas about Holy Scripture.

 

Dispensationalism is neither a valid nor an invalid way to interpret scripture as it never was an actually a method (systematic set of techniques) for interpreting Scripture.

 

What does age have to do with whether something is true or not?

On, the other hand is anything actually completely new under the sun?

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

Like your comments, Ben Asher. It is just so, that dispensations are not a method of interpreting scripture, or should not be, as some have done. Apart from having read here and there people of some sort of dispensational cult, where they claim there's a Peter gospel, then a Paul gospel, or the gospel changed in doctrine at some point, I "believe" in dispensations. "Believe" is in quotes, as you well point out, dispensations, at the basic Bible study, methodology level, are neutral, are not, of themselves, doctrine, nor do they interfere with doctrine. All they are is a map of the Bible on a timeline of God's progressive dealings with man.

 

I have never seen any doctrine in traditional, major dispensations, don't know where that comes from in people. Here are the major dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1-3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8-8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1-11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1-Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1-Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4-Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4-20:6).

 

All this is saying is Adam and Eve began innocent, then fell, but there was no law yet to live by, rather good or bad conscience, then came government... the law was given, but that could not save, then grace, wherein we live, the Christian era, then a future millennium. I have never seen any doctrine in merely mapping this, of itself. I'd maybe throw in the Tribulation years as a discrete period, between Grace and the Millennial Kingdom, for its change in God's dealings with man and devil, in time, but this not altering doctrine, just that the Church Age ends at the rapture, then the tribulation begins, then the tribulation ends. And you who would say, “I don't believe in the rapture”: well, that's not believing in the rapture, a different issue. For somebody that believes in the rapture scripture teaches, it happens in time and ends the past couple thousand years as we've known them, the plan and the world plunging into something entirely different, in God's plan.

 

To say we had the time of law, before grace, the law only given to Israel, mind you, isn't doctrine, rather a fact. The dictates of under law versus grace are the doctrines. For instance, if you disagree there was a period of law in scripture teachings, before grace, well, you likely haven't read the Old Testament (and ignored Paul in the New Testament). Or that there was no law, before Moses, the same. If you're one of those that don't think there's a millennium, alright then, you disagree that there's a millennium dispensation, but you're disagreeing with the Bible that speaks of a literal, future millennium, where Christ finally reigns over the earth, the point is no fault in dividing these time periods and God's plan for them.

 

Dispensations didn't invent Law, Grace or the Millennial Kingdom. Dispensations are not telling me what the Bible teaches, in any way. Dispensations aren't too much more than saying there was Chapter 1 in God's work, then Chapter 2, etc. This way of mapping the Bible has nothing to do with doctrines of the innocence and fall of mankind, salvation and the like. Again, though, I don't speak for the dispensational cults, that slice and dice the one gospel of Jesus Christ, or refuse to acknowledge man isn't under some subset of Mosaic Law, stuff like that, but they're not really what I learned of dispensations, that dispensations are a mere tool, like putting the Bible timeline on a spreadsheet to better visual the whole of God's plan for mankind and the world. You could say, as to the cults, twisting scripture is not involve with any dispensation, rather eisegesis.

 

You that have some problem with proper dispensations, the Bible timeline, I suppose you need take this up with the Lord, as He invented time and decided to slowly reveal His staged plan, right there in scripture. And do try and forgive those of us that have merely put the facts on a spreadsheet. Or take some pity and pray for us, if you think we'll lose our salvation.

 

 

 

Edited by HisNameJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavens! Forgot to add, for those of you that think something is too new to have value, a scripture verse, hmm...

 

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

The Lord to Daniel, "Daniel, are you saying there can, anymore, be anything new learned? Next, you'll be going on about grace or something!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
3 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

Like your comments, Ben Asher. It is just so, that dispensations are not a method of interpreting scripture, or should not be, as some have done. Apart from having read here and there people of some sort of dispensational cult, where they claim there's a Peter gospel, then a Paul gospel, or the gospel changed in doctrine at some point, I "believe" in dispensations. "Believe" is in quotes, as you well point out, dispensations, at the basic Bible study, methodology level, are neutral, are not, of themselves, doctrine, nor do they interfere with doctrine. All they are is a map of the Bible on a timeline of God's progressive dealings with man.

 

I have never seen any doctrine in traditional, major dispensations, don't know where that comes from in people. Here are the major dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1-3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8-8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1-11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1-Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1-Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4-Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4-20:6).

 

All this is saying is Adam and Eve began innocent, then fell, but there was no law yet to live by, rather good or bad conscience, then came government... the law was given, but that could not save, then grace, wherein we live, the Christian era, then a future millennium. I have never seen any doctrine in merely mapping this, of itself. I'd maybe throw in the Tribulation years as a discrete period, between Grace and the Millennial Kingdom, for its change in God's dealings with man and devil, in time, but this not altering doctrine, just that the Church Age ends at the rapture, then the tribulation begins, then the tribulation ends. And you who would say, “I don't believe in the rapture”: well, that's not believing in the rapture, a different issue. For somebody that believes in the rapture scripture teaches, it happens in time and ends the past couple thousand years as we've known them, the plan and the world plunging into something entirely different, in God's plan.

 

 To say we had the time of law, before grace, the law only given to Israel, mind you, isn't doctrine, rather a fact. The dictates of under law versus grace are the doctrines. For instance, if you disagree there was a period of law in scripture teachings, before grace, well, you likely haven't read the Old Testament (and ignored Paul in the New Testament). Or that there was no law, before Moses, the same. If you're one of those that don't think there's a millennium, alright then, you disagree that there's a millennium dispensation, but you're disagreeing with the Bible that speaks of a literal, future millennium, where Christ finally reigns over the earth, the point is no fault in dividing these time periods and God's plan for them.

 

Dispensations didn't invent Law, Grace or the Millennial Kingdom. Dispensations are not telling me what the Bible teaches, in any way. Dispensations aren't too much more than saying there was Chapter 1 in God's work, then Chapter 2, etc. This way of mapping the Bible has nothing to do with doctrines of the innocence and fall of mankind, salvation and the like. Again, though, I don't speak for the dispensational cults, that slice and dice the one gospel of Jesus Christ, or refuse to acknowledge man isn't under some subset of Mosaic Law, stuff like that, but they're not really what I learned of dispensations, that dispensations are a mere tool, like putting the Bible timeline on a spreadsheet to better visual the whole of God's plan for mankind and the world. You could say, as to the cults, twisting scripture is not involve with any dispensation, rather eisegesis.

 

You that have some problem with proper dispensations, the Bible timeline, I suppose you need take this up with the Lord, as He invented time and decided to slowly reveal His staged plan, right there in scripture. And do try and forgive those of us that have merely put the facts on a spreadsheet. Or take some pity and pray for us, if you think we'll lose our salvation.

 

 

 

Asking for a little clarification. Do you believe the OT as well as the NT contain Law and Grace? 

 

Also apart from the nature of each Covenant was the Ordo Salutis always the same? That is, in both OT and NT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, William said:

Asking for a little clarification. Do you believe the OT as well as the NT contain Law and Grace? 

 

Also apart from the nature of each Covenant was the Ordo Salutis always the same? That is, in both OT and NT?

Sorry, but I don't really understand the nature of your question, find aspects of this on the obvious side?  My belief, and this clear of scripture, is the Old Testament IS also Jesus Christ. There is the suffering Messiah, that would pay for our sins, in the Old Testament, hundreds of prophecies of Christ, from His virgin birth to Calvary, beginning clear back in Genesis, that the Lord Jesus would fulfill. So, on Christian hindsight, we've learned He was always there in the Old Testament, as well God's plan of grace prophesied, albeit more shrouded, at least that suffering Messiah, by the Lord's intent, more mysterious than the plain gospel declarations of the New Testament. Obviously, there was also grace in the Old Testament, seeing that the New Testament is clear the Old Testament believers were also saved by faith, trusting the Lord and looking forward to their King and their eternities, though one could only suppose details of grace weren't necessarily clear to those of the era of law, a trust in the Lord, but mysteries yet to be fully revealed in the New Testament. I see the Bible as seamless Jesus Christ, His program for man and the world, becoming clearer and clearer, Genesis to Revelation. Again, bottom line as to what you seem to be asking, since the faith of the Old Testament believers was counted as a state of grace, obviously, grace was always there.

 

I do doubt Abraham fully understood this verse, that's stunning as to the Lord's plan, Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. That's the King James, but we now know it's Himself a lamb. Just thought I'd mention that, find this such a stunning prophecy, such genius in the phrase. (One of the proofs of God is no man could write such a perfect Book, of supernatural genius. I've often been struck, if one were to, hypothetically, entirely discount future prophecy as proof, that the very wisdom, down to such phrasing, is beyond man.)

 

Anyway, near the whole ball of wax is in the Old Testament, the New Testament plain those of God of the Old Testament were under grace. Actually, it would seem stupid to think any differently, which would imply, otherwise, absent grace, that the faithful of the Old Testament had nothing to trust in or to look forward to, yet God would incessantly ask for their trust, and clear into the future kingdom? Grace had to always be there. Yes, it's there, plainly, in the Old Testament, one could say by common sense, even.

 

Hope that's what you're looking for. If not, sorry, but that's about all I could think of on the subject, and not having ever gone in for "schools of theology" sorts of arguments I find unnecessary, even tiring, long ago developed a single view that there is only "thus saith the Lord" of scripture, and that we either get it by the Spirit, or don't: there are no opposing truths. Those things that remain mysteries to many, especially details of eschatology, even these things, to be debates, is rather silly, since everybody needs to admit they only have their most plausible explanation. I point this out, seeing arguing going on here, in a number of threads, that, as the New Testament points out the negative of, I don't go in for these pages of disputes and going around and around, over anything, rather am of the mind to agree to disagree, and leave it there, just thought I'd make that clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

Heavens! Forgot to add, for those of you that think something is too new to have value, a scripture verse, hmm...

 

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

The Lord to Daniel, "Daniel, are you saying there can, anymore, be anything new learned? Next, you'll be going on about grace or something!"

Another verse to consider, in terms of things new, is the very Lord Jesus stating things would come to a point of clarity, in time, Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

 

Also, one could hardly argue, vis a vis centuries of bad Christian thought that led to the likes of Preterism and Replacement Theology errors, that Israel, reforming again, as a nation, did not change everything to a clearer understand of eschatology, in only these modern times. So, to say that there can't be a new and clearer view seems, even, obtuse. I mean, could you claim there was some date in Christian theological history where learning stopped? Is there anybody that can say they have nothing more to see, to grasp, of the Holy Bible, as we speak?  Does anybody here have nothing new to learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
3 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

Sorry, but I don't really understand the nature of your question, find aspects of this on the obvious side?  My belief, and this clear of scripture, is the Old Testament IS also Jesus Christ. There is the suffering Messiah, that would pay for our sins, in the Old Testament, hundreds of prophecies of Christ, from His virgin birth to Calvary, beginning clear back in Genesis, that the Lord Jesus would fulfill. So, on Christian hindsight, we've learned He was always there in the Old Testament, as well God's plan of grace prophesied, albeit more shrouded, at least that suffering Messiah, by the Lord's intent, more mysterious than the plain gospel declarations of the New Testament. Obviously, there was also grace in the Old Testament, seeing that the New Testament is clear the Old Testament believers were also saved by faith, trusting the Lord and looking forward to their King and their eternities, though one could only suppose details of grace weren't necessarily clear to those of the era of law, a trust in the Lord, but mysteries yet to be fully revealed in the New Testament. I see the Bible as seamless Jesus Christ, His program for man and the world, becoming clearer and clearer, Genesis to Revelation. Again, bottom line as to what you seem to be asking, since the faith of the Old Testament believers was counted as a state of grace, obviously, grace was always there.

 

I do doubt Abraham fully understood this verse, that's stunning as to the Lord's plan, Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. That's the King James, but we now know it's Himself a lamb. Just thought I'd mention that, find this such a stunning prophecy, such genius in the phrase. (One of the proofs of God is no man could write such a perfect Book, of supernatural genius. I've often been struck, if one were to, hypothetically, entirely discount future prophecy as proof, that the very wisdom, down to such phrasing, is beyond man.)

 

Anyway, near the whole ball of wax is in the Old Testament, the New Testament plain those of God of the Old Testament were under grace. Actually, it would seem stupid to think any differently, which would imply, otherwise, absent grace, that the faithful of the Old Testament had nothing to trust in or to look forward to, yet God would incessantly ask for their trust, and clear into the future kingdom? Grace had to always be there. Yes, it's there, plainly, in the Old Testament, one could say by common sense, even.

 

Hope that's what you're looking for. If not, sorry, but that's about all I could think of on the subject, and not having ever gone in for "schools of theology" sorts of arguments I find unnecessary, even tiring, long ago developed a single view that there is only "thus saith the Lord" of scripture, and that we either get it by the Spirit, or don't: there are no opposing truths. Those things that remain mysteries to many, especially details of eschatology, even these things, to be debates, is rather silly, since everybody needs to admit they only have their most plausible explanation. I point this out, seeing arguing going on here, in a number of threads, that, as the New Testament points out the negative of, I don't go in for these pages of disputes and going around and around, over anything, rather am of the mind to agree to disagree, and leave it there, just thought I'd make that clear. 

Thanks for clarifying!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point @HisNameJesus !!!

6 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

Those things that remain mysteries to many, especially details of eschatology, even these things, to be debates, is rather silly, since everybody needs to admit they only have their most plausible explanation.

Yes, Yes, and Yes! I believe there would be a lot less division in Christendom today if more people would realize the point above and admit it!

 

6 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

Also, one could hardly argue, vis a vis centuries of bad Christian thought that led to the likes of Preterism and Replacement Theology errors

On one hand I believe to a certain extent we are all 'partial preterist' in that we do believe that the prophecy concerning the Jesus/Yeshua's role as the 'suffering servant' have been completely fulfilled. But, it is also pretty clear that the world (or this age) has not ended as of yet.

 

On the other hand similarly to you I personally reject replacement theology (or Supercessionism) or at least thus far I personally have found the arguments for that opinion on the so called meaning of scripture to be highly unpersuasive.

 

6 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

could you claim there was some date in Christian theological history where learning stopped? Is there anybody that can say they have nothing more to see, to grasp, of the Holy Bible, as we speak?  Does anybody here have nothing new to learn?

Very well said!

 

On 7/1/2019 at 2:19 AM, HisNameJesus said:

Like your comments, Ben Asher. It is just so, that dispensations are not a method of interpreting scripture, or should not be

Thank you for kind comments and even more so for taking the time to articulate your understanding here on these forums.

 

Grace and Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/30/2019 at 3:47 PM, William said:

It is if one ignores history!

Agreed!

I recall my high school history teacher remarking "History doesn't repeat its self, it rhymes" . The same people aren't reincarnated again and again to do the exactly some things, but people with very similar (or even identical) ideologies continue to pop up throughout history to do virtual the same types of things often while thinking they have come up with something original.

 

On 6/30/2019 at 3:47 PM, William said:

False teachings rise and fall and rise and fall within the history of the church.

Yes and Yes! False teachings (or teachings contrary to Scripture) as well as various differing opinions are present within any local congregation as well as Christendom otherwise there would not be nearly as many denominations of Christianity as there are today.

On 6/30/2019 at 3:47 PM, William said:

What did the church believe until the 1900s about

I doubt that there was ever a time in history when 'the Church' or rather earthly Christendom were totally in agreement.  Individuals who try to persuade me to accept the Pope's authority often use a very similar argument "what did the historic Church believe until the reformation when it broke up into thousand of denominations?" . However those individuals forget or over look the fact that there was something called The great East–West Schism of 1054. When the Roman Catholic church and the eastern Orthodox churches officially went their separate ways.  Leading up to the great Schism there were numerous discussions and debates at the various councils and even in the NT times everyone even among the faithful did not agree.

 

While it is good and even a must to learn from Christian continuity or the Christian stream of thought throughout the ages I will never blindly accept everything wholesale just because some in history may have believed XYZ for just as we are of various opinions today so was the early congregations. For example before, the 1900's those in the churches seem to have believed Slavery was okay, does not mean that we should accept slavery because some Christians in the past did? Even after the 1900's some in the church continued to look down on other races because of their interpret the so called 'curse of ham'. Does that then mean we should do the same? Of course not! (at lest in my opinion). For, Just as we continue to see in part today so did the early congregations. And just as our interpretations of scripture can be fallible today so could those of the early Christians. Now, in matters like these I tend to lean more on what for lack of a better name I call Ad Fontes (literally: to the sources) than I do on the creeds, confession, theologies or on what the church did in the past.

 

Grace and Peace

Edited by Ben Asher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, William said:

Thanks for clarifying!

 

You're most welcome! Sometimes, even I can be clear! (Running a fever, some would have said... thanks for not offering aspirin.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

 

Yes, Yes, and Yes! I believe there would be a lot less division in Christendom today if more people would realize the point above and admit it!

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe being part Preterist is a little like being part pregnant? I didn't know that, never thought of it, suppose there are fundamentals most have difficulty denying, I mean, especially what has already past. (Easier to claim the future is up for grabs, in other words? That God did a swapperroo against the literal, for anything still future? Makes sense to me!) I haven't actually studied Preterism at length, or most -isms I reject, have, actually, in terms of things outside the circle of doctrinal truths, spent more time studying the Satanic "theology" and mind, to better know the fallen world of scripture that can be hard to understand, reconcile, with any reason or sanity, in cases of inexplicable evil: more useful to study evil and know your enemy, than crackpot theology. But some of these theological schools I reject I've never found a reason to study: what the point is of digging into the details of error? I have this notion the heart and mind are much like a computer, garbage in, garbage out, and why stuff your mind with details of nonsense, when you can be mining for details of truth? Or studying something you can actually use? Perhaps a better use for time, in the first place? It's like philosophy, which I used to study: the philosophies never end. There's even a multi-volume encyclopedia of philosophy, and most of what's in it less useful than a telephone book. Why bother with secular philosophers, that try to explain away anything and everything, sans God? After you've read, studied a lot of what amounts to fiction, what have you accomplished? See what I mean? Same with most arguments, where everybody and their brother have, as if, private truths, that is, very often both sides wrong! And have you once seen agreement reached? I don't know if I even recall anybody spouting nonsense saying, "Hey! The Bible does say something different. Thanks!"

 

As to your comment above, sometimes I've been left a little flabbergasted over this. (Hmm... people say this, but isn't flabbergasted some extreme? Can we even be "a little" flabbergasted? There are all sorts of mysteries...) So very many put forth interpretations, especially of eschatology, that have enough scripture holes to strain spaghetti, yet never say "in my opinion", or "it seems", rather speak in absolutes of their views. I have never been able to see this in terms of some Christian humility, or, more importantly, simple honesty. You see this often in arguments, as if somebody is intent on stuffing dubious things into peoples' hearts, maybe desperately needs somebody to agree with them, that even contradict some scripture, or defy scripture extrapolations and common sense.

 

Speaking of opinions, and must hasten to say I don't know, only God knows, but I perceive there's tare activity, perverting scripture, by some, though most difficult to KNOW this, as in an epignosis sense, of people you don't very well know, Hebrews 4:12, too lofty for my paygrade to go there! In any event, for whatever reasons, whether brainwashing, delusions or evil intent, one can't make the case the Spirit is in error, at least we can thus conclude. Vain disputing, of itself, is scripture prohibitive, 1 Timothy 6:3-5. (I'm almost certain there's a Web James Bible these verses and some others have been redacted from.) I've tended to avoid most of it, as, when you indulge the behavior, you're actually promoting their platform, being a catalyst to expanding their errant views, by the very arguing. Actually, if I can find it appropriate, I most like to, hands down, just show a bunch of scripture verses, let the Holy Bible speak for itself, my favorite approach to differing opinions, where some fundamentals are disputed.

 

In any event, thank you, too, for the insights, and peace in the Lord to you!

 

 

Edited by HisNameJesus
Because, obviously, everything I post is perfect, the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @HisNameJesus  

 

18 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

Maybe being part Preterist is a little like being part pregnant?

I use the term simply to refer to the belief that the messianic texts referring to the Moshiach Ben Yosef (or the suffering servant) have been completely fulfilled, but the the Messianic texts referring to Moshiach Ben David, have not yet been entirely fulfilled or rather entirely come to realization.  I may be using and defining the term partial preterism very differently that how the Theologians use the term.

 

18 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

There are all sorts of mysteries...) So very many put forth interpretations, especially of eschatology, that have enough scripture holes to strain spaghetti, yet never say "in my opinion", or "it seems", rather speak in absolutes of their views. I have never been able to see this in terms of some Christian humility, or, more importantly, simple honesty.

Excellent point. In my opinion we would all do better if we all acknowledge that we each continue to only see in part. My assumption (like the one you expressed) is that the understanding we have about God, the Scriptures, and theology continues to be finite.

 

18 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

I most like to, hands down, just show a bunch of scripture verses, let the Holy Bible speak for itself, my favorite approach to differing opinions

In my opinion people in general can  'at some level' can read and comprehend translations of the scripture in their native language provided that they are literate and posses some sort of analytical skills. However, even when confronted with the same pericope of scripture, It is my experience that, people can come to vastly different understandings and or conclusions about the pericope. One example of this phenomenon might  be how various members on these forums disagree on the interpretation of Romans chapter 11 especially verse 11:25 to 36. Even though I am not reformed I find myself in agree with the Westminster Confession on this matter:

Quote

"All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"

Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.

21 hours ago, HisNameJesus said:

In any event, thank you, too, for the insights, and peace in the Lord to you!

And thank you this is a lot fun

 

GRACE and PEACE

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
30 minutes ago, Ben Asher said:

I use the term simply to refer to the belief that the messianic texts referring to the Moshiach Ben Yosef (or the suffering servant) have been completely fulfilled, but the the Messianic texts referring to Moshiach Ben David, have not yet been entirely fulfilled or rather entirely come to realization. 

@Ben Asher

 

I believe you ought to explain the "Messiah ben Joseph" (Messiah ben Ephraim) and "Messiah ben David" theological terminology and what it means.  I don't think many here know anything about dual Messianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
On 7/2/2019 at 10:25 AM, HisNameJesus said:

Maybe being part Preterist is a little like being part pregnant?

  Isa 53:3  He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 
Isa 53:4  Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 
Isa 53:5  But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 
 

 

Did the Cross happen, Did His resurrection happen?  if you believe so you are a part preterist 

 

Mat_17:23  And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry. 

What part of Isa


Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bibleas events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.[citation needed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Origen said:

@Ben Asher

I believe you ought to explain the "Messiah ben Joseph" (Messiah ben Ephraim) and "Messiah ben David" theological terminology and what it means.  I don't think many here know anything about dual Messianism. 

With pleasure  @Origen  

 

Some of early readers of the Hebrew Bible (OT) felt a contention (and what seemed to be almost a contradiction) between prophetic texts accepted as being Messianic in nature. To resolve the contrasting threads of though in the Messianic text they then grouped the prophetic texts into what they considered to be two main types prophetic texts referring to the Messiah. Those two types of text were described as being  Messiah (Moshiach) Ben Yosef texts and Messiah (Moshiach) Ben David texts.

 

Messiah Ben Yosef texts  are those that refer to a particular suffering servant who vicariously suffers in place of the people of Israel and others.

The name Yosef (Joseph) was chosen (I believe) because the Biblical Joseph suffered because of his brother's actions and through no fault of his own. The Lord was with Joseph and although he suffered ever thing he did prospered and eventual be because 2nd only to the Pharaoh, and the Pharaoh ruled through him in many ways. God also saved Joseph's family and people through Joseph.

 

Messiah Ben David texts are those that refer to a particular individual in Israels who comes triumphantly and victoriously in the name of YHWH the Lord.

The name David was chosen (I believe) because the name David is used in a lot of the Messianic prophecies even though it is clear that the texts can not be speaking of King David, and also because of the role Kind David represented.

 

Historical most interpreters (but not all) thought of Messiah Ben Yosef and Messiah Ben David as being two different Messiahs, but Christians know that there is only one Messiah who fulfills both roles without contradiction. It is also interest that Jesus/Yeshua's adoptive father name was actually Joseph/Yosef.

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
9 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

With pleasure  @Origen  

 

Some of early readers of the Hebrew Bible (OT) felt a contention (and what seemed to be almost a contradiction) between prophetic texts accepted as being Messianic in nature. To resolve the contrasting threads of though in the Messianic text they then grouped the prophetic texts into what they considered to be two main types prophetic texts referring to the Messiah. Those two types of text were described as being  Messiah (Moshiach) Ben Yosef texts and Messiah (Moshiach) Ben David texts.

 

Messiah Ben Yosef texts  are those that refer to a particular suffering servant who vicariously suffers in place of the people of Israel and others.

The name Yosef (Joseph) was chosen (I believe) because the Biblical Joseph suffered because of his brother's actions and through no fault of his own. The Lord was with Joseph and although he suffered ever thing he did prospered and eventual be because 2nd only to the Pharaoh, and the Pharaoh ruled through him in many ways. God also saved Joseph's family and people through Joseph.

 

Messiah Ben David texts are those that refer to a particular individual in Israels who comes triumphantly and victoriously in the name of YHWH the Lord.

The name David was chosen (I believe) because the name David is used in a lot of the Messianic prophecies even though it is clear that the texts can not be speaking of King David, and also because of the role Kind David represented.

 

Historical most interpreters (but not all) thought of Messiah Ben Yosef and Messiah Ben David as being two different Messiahs, but Christians know that there is only one Messiah who fulfills both roles without contradiction. It is also interest that Jesus/Yeshua's adoptive father name was actually Joseph/Yosef.

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

 

Reminds me of the Church Militant and Church Victorious. Rather than having two different identities the Church Victorious encompasses the Church Militant under the headship of Christ Jesus which suffered and is victorious.

 

Church Militant: believers here on earth. These believers are called to fight the good fight of faith in the midst of suffering trials and temptations.

Church Victorious: made up of believers who ran the course to be with the Lord.

Note: These are not 2 different identities but 1 Church as a united assembly.

  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
9 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

With pleasure  @Origen  

 

Some of early readers of the Hebrew Bible (OT) felt a contention (and what seemed to be almost a contradiction) between prophetic texts accepted as being Messianic in nature. To resolve the contrasting threads of though in the Messianic text they then grouped the prophetic texts into what they considered to be two main types prophetic texts referring to the Messiah. Those two types of text were described as being  Messiah (Moshiach) Ben Yosef texts and Messiah (Moshiach) Ben David texts.

 

Messiah Ben Yosef texts  are those that refer to a particular suffering servant who vicariously suffers in place of the people of Israel and others.

The name Yosef (Joseph) was chosen (I believe) because the Biblical Joseph suffered because of his brother's actions and through no fault of his own. The Lord was with Joseph and although he suffered ever thing he did prospered and eventual be because 2nd only to the Pharaoh, and the Pharaoh ruled through him in many ways. God also saved Joseph's family and people through Joseph.

 

Messiah Ben David texts are those that refer to a particular individual in Israels who comes triumphantly and victoriously in the name of YHWH the Lord.

The name David was chosen (I believe) because the name David is used in a lot of the Messianic prophecies even though it is clear that the texts can not be speaking of King David, and also because of the role Kind David represented.

 

Historical most interpreters (but not all) thought of Messiah Ben Yosef and Messiah Ben David as being two different Messiahs, but Christians know that there is only one Messiah who fulfills both roles without contradiction. It is also interest that Jesus/Yeshua's adoptive father name was actually Joseph/Yosef.

Thank you Ben.

 

9 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

Christians know that there is only one Messiah who fulfills both roles without contradiction.

Also thank you for making that clarification.

  • Yay 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2019 at 5:46 PM, Ben Asher said:

 

In my opinion people in general can  'at some level' can read and comprehend translations of the scripture in their native language provided that they are literate and posses some sort of analytical skills. However, even when confronted with the same pericope of scripture, It is my experience that, people can come to vastly different understandings and or conclusions about the pericope. One example of this phenomenon might  be how various members on these forums disagree on the interpretation of Romans chapter 11 especially verse 11:25 to 36. Even though I am not reformed I find myself in agree with the

 

 

Hi, again! A matter has weighted on my mind, regarding this. I'd like to preface this by stating I am not referring to the baby Christian, or even the intermediate Christian, that still has much digging to do, but let's say of Christians a decade or two on, anyway, that sort of thing. Is it not alarming that there are those, of mature Christian status, that cling to errors? In recent years, this verse keeps coming to mind:

 

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

Perhaps we should also add:

 

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

The question arises as to how there are many that are not led into ALL TRUTH, with regard to a number of fundamental truths, for instance, that deny hell, or subscribe to the Preterism we discussed, I forget the number but greater than 50% of U.S. "Christians" believing there are many ways to God, or many believing, if you're basically more on the good side, behaviorally, you're alright, believe in homosexual "loving" relationships? All over the web, you have armchair theologians of their own, homegrown religions, hammering away at theology and insisting they have a lease on truth, but that are out in left field. Still, they quote scripture, out of context, by the bushel. They at least know what's in the Bible, the words, have studied to some real degree. Many of these are senior citizens. (Anymore, you need to ask why the Episcopal Church hasn't been abandoned, "evolving" into acceptance of homosexuality, just rip Romans 1 from the scripture, et al, if most of its congregation is really born again, of the Spirit?) 

 

So what do we have going on, when you think about it? Put it this way: has the Holy Spirit failed these people, that they are led into SOME TRUTH, or some truth and big errors? Again, not speaking of Revelation 12 or such, but basic doctrines, like hell, like the rapture, Christ's full deity, a large body of scripture not ambiguous or mysterious, that states things quite literal these people will deny, even when you show them the Bible is literally and clearly saying the opposite of what they're claiming. Does the power of the Holy Spirit fail, was the Lord Jesus blowing smoke, did He ever blow smoke on anything, when He said ALL TRUTH, or, in fact, do these people not have the Spirit to spiritually discern? In fact, do they simply reject some truths?

 

Coupled with the narrow way and few chosen, one must really fear for what amounts to the mass of Christendom, even mega-churches of partial, lukewarm gospels that attract thousands, to a message that's world friendly, James 4:4. We all know of the yellow smiley face guy that doesn't believe in bumming his congregation out, by talking about sin or hell. The dude could fill a stadium, and I find that very alarming, Revelation 3:16. Think of this: a most fundamental work of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin, John 16:8. And here we have preachers that say, "Not that scripture. Not my job." Just rip some pages from the Holy Bible that aren't politically correct? Anything that isn't smiley and prosperous?

 

It's not for us to know hearts and minds, as God knows, to sit in judgement of anybody's salvation, that at least seems to have half a confession. But the fact of the matter? I trust nobody that is off the reservation in a pretty long list of basic doctrines you can line up, around the block, Spirit-filled Bible teachers, you're sure of, that all agree in what these people don't agree upon. Also, the devil is very subtle, will mainly employ truth, with deceptive hooks, such that:

 

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

For my part, I can simply no longer trust any "Christian" that's of the belief system and, as if, debating against scripture of the fashion, "Yes, that's what it says, BUT...". Is that, actually, a rather old playbook, Genesis 3:1-5? Just so, what would you expect a tare to be getting up to, anyway?

 

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

 

Edited by HisNameJesus
Added a scripture verse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2019 at 8:01 PM, Becky said:

 

Did the Cross happen, Did His resurrection happen?  if you believe so you are a part preterist 

 

 

Personally, I don't, in any form, see myself as a Preterist, any more than a Mormon, Adventist, Hebrew roots, etc. That one can agree with even cults on some basics doesn't make one of their congregation or ilk. I neither am of the devil, because we agree on any basic facts, or even many. My view is one is of truth or not, the whole truth, therefore reject being labelled any sort of Preterist, myself, just as rejecting being labeled of any cult or Satanism, hardly believe we're even on the same planet. For instance, I'm neither a part Catholic, for believing in the Trinity, nor would it be proper to call me one..

Edited by HisNameJesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

MY my my  so you are saying anyone who has preterist views is  equal to a satanist?  Yet you do believe Christ and His Cross? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings @HisNameJesus                                                    

On 7/6/2019 at 1:04 AM, HisNameJesus said:

I'd like to preface this by stating I am not referring to the baby Christian, or even the intermediate Christian, that still has much digging to do,

Thanks for the added preface for clarification. I haven't done run any surveys nor done any research to verify the average level of Christian maturity, Biblical knowledge, or theological education amongst Christian in your country (I assume the USA) nor that matter those in the country I live in. However I am curious as to what percentage of Christendom is made up of 'advanced Christians' or 'Christians of mature status'?has on

 

I can only speak for myself as one who still has a lot more digging to do I know my journey into all truth has only just begun.

 

 

On 7/6/2019 at 1:04 AM, HisNameJesus said:

debating against scripture of the fashion, "Yes, that's what it says, BUT...".

If, the above represents what people are actually saying then it hard to fathom how those arguments could actually be persuasive. 

 

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 8:05 PM, Ben Asher said:

I haven't done run any surveys nor done any research to verify the average level of Christian maturity, Biblical knowledge, or theological education amongst Christian in your country (I assume the USA) nor that matter those in the country I live in.

 

Hi, Ben Asher! Actually, I don't do surveys, either, the survey referred to one taken many years ago, in the U.S., by some national organisation I heard of on the radio news, mainstream news, was written up in Christianity Today, and, subsequently, saw here and there popping up for a time, where some number of "evangelical Christians" over fifty percent (again, can't recall the exact number, but it was over half) believed there are many ways to God. I also recall another survey with a shocking number of "Christians" that believe all you need to do is be mainly a good person to be saved. It has been years now, but, at the time, the story on the many ways was making its rounds in some pulpits, too, pastors that found this a shocking statistic. I just did a web search, and a more recent study, circa 2016, found, "46% of Evangelicals agree that God accepts the worship of all religions." Still another, from Pew Research, "65% of all 'Christians' believe there are multiple paths to Heaven." Again, we have a number indicating ballpark half of people who call themselves Christians in serious, fundamental error. (Another interesting result, "Only half of all the teenagers who grew up in a Christian home had regular family conversations about God." Now, if a Christian is supposed to love God, the Lord, above all other things, care to explain His absence in half the homes?) 

 

In any event, this "many ways" belief doesn't reconcile with Sunday school Christianity! You would think those that believe many ways to God would have to conclude Christ was therefore pointless, a necessary extrapolation believing in Him unnecessary for salvation. Myself, I can't understand how anybody truly Christian would not see that Jesus Christ is the only way, as scripture also teaches, just by common sense of the most basic gospel of Jesus Christ. Put it this way, how pointless would the atonement be, how huge a mistake the cross, if the likes of Zeus or Buddha would have always sufficed? How can anybody that believes many ways to God account for the notion there's, therefore, really no need to account for sin, before Holy God, and no need to be born again? See how crazy ignorant the necessary implications get? This one error, and grotesque error, negates a whole body of basic doctrines of the Christian faith, dismisses them. If you believe there are many ways to God, you don't believe in Jesus Christ, period, are paying no attention to what He and the apostles made clear of the one way to God, even making God a liar. I would love to hear the rationale how the Holy Spirit is leading these people into all truth, would settle for an explanation how they're of the Spirit and oblivious to the most basic of gospel truths, while wearing the Christian label. But, yes, there are a number of rather shocking results from surveys of purported Christians. On the other hand, the Bible teaches of tares, the lukewarm, those suffering religious illusions that seem right, false prophets, deluded friends of the world, not as if we should be surprised by what is well prophesied, but I have found the numbers staggering in scope, to be within mainstream, fundamentalist church walls, even if we were to dismiss the cults and their special errors, entirely. It's all rather sad and alarming.

 

Matthew 7:13-20 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

 

Revelations 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...