Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

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.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Ac28

The 3 primary types of Dispensationalism

Recommended Posts

Ac28

The 3 primary types of Dispensationalism

 

There are 3 general types of dispensationalism. They are named based on when the members think today's Gentile church started. All of the 3 types believe correctly that Christ's ministry was ONLY TO Israel and that Christ didn't come to start a Church. Other than that, there are few similarities. See Mt 10:5, Mt 15:24, Rom 15:8, Jn 1:31, and Mt 3:2 (the sole purpose ofChrist's ministry).

 

(1) Acts 2 dispensationalism. Of the 3 types, this is a good start, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. It is the Darby, Scofield, Clarence Larkin type of dispensationalism. It's a big step up from Fundamentalism, but what isn't. These believe that today's church started at Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit fell on a large group of Jews and they received the gifts of the spirit, for the purpose of witnessing to the Jews that didn't accept Christ as the promised Messiah. There were NO Gentiles present. To the Jews, Gentiles were filthy dogs. They wouldn't go near the Gentiles. The upper room was a totally Jewish event.

 

There are many Baptists that are Acts 2 dispensationalists. I assume that the Acts 2 people really believe that today's Gentile Church started in Acts 2. However, the first Gentile in it didn't happen until 7 years later. Strange. I never spent much time studying Acts 2 dispensationalism because of its obvious errors. I do think that Clarence Larkin was the best chart maker ever - not in content but in execution. You can download his charts free on the internet.

 

(2) Acts 9 or Acts 13 dispensationalism. Both are called mid-Acts dispensationalism. This, as is Ac28 disp., is based on the fact that Paul is THE apostle to the Gentiles and, therefore, Paul is the last word in Gentile doctrine. The mid-Acts group believes that Paul's 14 books, from Romans thru Philemon, are all for the same church. Acts 9 is chosen by some as the beginning of today's Gentile Church because that's when Paul was converted on the Damascus road. The Acts 13 variety picked Acts 13 because that's when Paul started his Gentile ministry. Although I was a professed Acts 13 dispensationalist for about a year, some 30 years ago, I never really bought into it. It always felt too contrived and convoluted for me. During Acts, there was never really a true gentile Church, since the Gentiles, who were not a part of anything until Acts 10 (Cornelius), were grafted into the good olive tree, Israel, for the last 20+ years of Acts. During Acts, the Gentiles always rode on Israel's (who hated Gentiles) coat tail.

 

During Acts, the Jews had the following, Rom 9:4, "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;" In Acts, at that same time, the Gentiles had essentially nothing - Eph 2:12, "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" Why would anyone think a Gentile Church started under those conditions.

 

(3) Acts 28:28 dispensationalism. I became an Acts 28 dispensationalist 30 years and have never looked back. I can't look forward because there's nothing that's that's more advanced than Ac28 Disp. Ac28 Disp. is, without a doubt, the pinnacle of Bible understanding. It is based on the fact that, due to Israel's unbelief in refusing to accept Christ as their promised Messiah, Israel was given up. In Acts 28:25-27, the curse against Israel, from Isa 6:9-10, was given for the 7th and last time in the Bible, Seven is the number of completion. Then, in Acts 28:28, the Salvation of God was taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles, and it remains that way today.

 

Paul, THE apostle to the Gentiles, wrote 14 books, if you count Hebrews, which I do. That's more than half of the NT books. Seven were written during Acts (Rom, Gal, 1&2 Thess, 1&2Cor, and Heb) and the others were written after Acts (Eph, Phil, Col, 1&2Tim, Titus, and Philemon). His Acts books describe a situation where Israel are the head and the Gentiles are the tail. During Acts, the Gentiles had almost nothing and Israel had most everything (see my mention of Rom 9:4 and Eph 2:12 above). The Gentiles were definitely second rate citizens during the entire Acts period. They were tied to Israels coat strings since they were grafted into the good olive tree, which is Israel. The Gentiles couldn't even teach or preach because the service of God belonged to Israel (Rom 9:4). Also note that the covenants belonged to only Israel, which is well-proven by other passages.

 

It is important to know the purpose of the 33 year Acts period. In Mt 23:39, Christ says, after Israel refused to believe in Him, "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.", From this, we learn that Christ would not return until Israel, as a nation, accepted Him as the promised Messiah. This rule is still in effect and still hasn't happened. Therefore, the ENTIRE purpose during Acts was to convince Israel to accept Christ. The gifts of the Spirit were given for the sole purpose of witnessing to Israel, through signs and wonders, which Israel required (1Cor 1:22). The only purpose of Gentiles being admitted, starting with Cornelius in Acts 10, was to provoke Israel to jealousy (Rom 10:19, 11:11, 14) so they might repent (change their mind). Even though Paul was THE apostle to the Gentiles, he always went to the Jew first and usually to the Pharisees, since, if they, as the spiritual leaders, repented, the entire nation would follow suite. Everything during Acts had this single purpose, the conversion of Israel. It's interesting to note that, had Israel repented at that time, the New Heavens and New Earth would now be about 1000 years old.

 

But, alas, it didn't happen. When the temple was destroyed in 70AD, 40 years (probably to the minute) had passed since the beginning of Acts in 30AD. 40 days or 40 years are the traditional trial periods for Israel. When the temple went down, the finalization of Israel's loss of national identity occurred. Israel, who must keep the law, could not, without a temple and sacrificies. Israel today and the Gentiles are equal today, according to Eph 2. We all must believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to be saved.

 

Paul's 7 post-Acts books describe a completely different hope for us Gentiles. Before the end of.Acts, no one, in history, ever had a hope of spending eternity in heaven. I know that's strange to hear but, if you search and see, you'll find that to be true. Those Jews and Gentiles during Acts that believed in Christ, had a hope of the New Jerusalem, a city which comes down out of heaven and docks on the New Earth. Before Acts, faithful Jews had a hope of their Kingdom, in the land, on earth. In Paul's post-Acts books, we Gentiles have a hope of spending eternity with Christ where He sitteth at God's right hand, Far above All Heavens. This is said in different ways many times in Pauls post-Acts books. For Example, in Col 3:1-4,

 

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.

3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

 

In Ps 8:1, Glory is said to be above the heavens.

 

The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

 

One thing I should mention is the phrase, "heavenly places. The word "heavenly" appears in other places, but the phrase :"heavenly places", which means the supra-heavens, only occurs in the book of Ephesians

 

What I've said is only the tip of the iceberg. The glories for us Gentiles, shown ONLY in Paul's post-Acts epistles, are infinitely better than any others described in the Bible. However, there are verses that indicate one can only get this hope by faith - you have to see it, believe it, and claim it, like with salvation. To help you do this, Paul shows us the method of right division, in 2Tim 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." This means that, if you want to be approved by God, you must somehow make a straight cut through the Word of God. Phil 1:10 gives more help on how to do this. The words, approve things that are excellent, mean, try or test the things that differ (see margin). It is interesting to note that these 2 rules appear only in Paul's post-Acts epistles, the only place they are needed

 

So, what things do we have to dissect to see the truth in Paul's post-Acts epistles? The most obvious thing is to take away any rules that were given to Israel. This includes the Gospels, the Old Testament, writings by James, Peter, John, Jude, and Paul's 7 epistles written during Acts. I'm not talking about everything in those books, but those dealing with the hopes and callings in those books and the marching orders for the people involved. For some things, like Paul's gospel in 1Cor 15:1-4, we are told that they are carried over into Paul's last 7 books. The rules for today are found only in Paul's last 7 books.

 

One of the hardest thing for people to give up is the rapture, the time of resurrection for those believing Jews and Gentiles in Acts. However, those that have eyes to see the blessed truths in Paul's last 7 books have a better "rapture". It's called the "appearing". At the present, we are hid in Christ and He is hid in God. When Christ comes out of hiding and makes his first appearance to the creation up there, we will immediately "appear" with him. We are the Church which is His literal body, where He is the Head. That's hard to fathom, but that's what it says.

 

There are many books written in an attempt to denigrate dispensationalism. The common terms dreamed up for the denigration of mid-Acts and Acts 28 dispensationalists are hyper-dispensationalism or ultra-dispensationalism. I have read most of these books. Something I find humorous is that, starting with the 1st page, it is obvious that these authors have zero understanding of what these forms of dispensationalism are all about. I've always felt that, if they did really understand and were able to see exactly what's laid out in Paul's last books, they would find that they would be immediately converted to Acts 28 dispensationalism.

 

The last last thing. The Acts 2 dispensationalists, especially, tended to make a big deal concerning the dispensations in the Bible and many formed lists of these. These lists are purely subjective. My meaningless list has 4 dispensations (1) The first eruption of the giants - Gen 1 thru Gen 11 -2000 yrs, (2) All Israel, from Gen 12 thru Acts - 2000 yrs, (3) All Gentiles - Paul's last 7 books - 2000 yrs, and (4) Revelation. I have seen lists with as many as 16 items. Most usually have 7, because the number of completion is 7 and the authors like to be cool - they would force 7 out of that even if there weren't 7.

 

Sorry I was so windy. I just started typing, in my one finger manner, and kept thinking of "just one more thing." If anyone has questions, I will definitely try to answer them.

 

Titus 2:13," Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Edited by Ac28
  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
Disp. is, without a doubt, the pinnacle of Bible understanding. It is based on the fact that, due to Israel's unbelief in refusing to accept Christ as their promised Messiah, Israel was given up.

 

You think the unfaithful unbelieving Jews are the faithful remnant known throughout history as Israel which are now given up on?

 

True Israel is the Church.

 

6F956D79-BC72-4AE2-9784-DFDCBCF981CA.png.f42c2201d42c76839958241566435ffd.png

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist

Welcome to the forum - I hope you take a moment to introduce yourself! Normally, as far as I tell futurists argue about pre/mid/post tribulation rapture - I'm surprised to see that there is disagreement on when 'the church age' began as well.

 

 

There have many books written in an attempt to denigrate dispensationalism.

 

Dispensationalism is self refuting my friend - the inconsistent hermeneutic is enough in MNSHO

 

The common terms dreamed up for the denigration of mid-Acts and Acts 28 dispensationalists are hyper-dispensationalism or ultra-dispensationalism. I have read most of these books. Something I find humorous is that, starting with the 1st page, it is obvious that these authors have zero understanding of what these forms of dispensationalism are all about. I've always felt that, if they did really understand and were able to see exactly what's laid out in Paul's last books, they would find that they would be immediately converted to Acts 28 dispensationalism.

 

OK, good to know, it's our limited ability/ intellect that is the problem, or maybe not - I wonder if perhaps it is your a priori assumptions that cause their arguments to pass right by you.

 

Sorry I was so windy. I just started typing, in my one finger manner, and kept thinking of "just one more thing." If anyone has questions, I will try to answer them.

 

If you have really read all the books, and remain convinced then I'm not sure I have much to add, so maybe just one question, in your mind how long is a biblical generation?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ac28

 

William,

 

God always has a remnant of believing Israelites. The Talmudic Jews, who rely 100% on tradition, certainly are not part of the remnant.

 

I made a list a couple of days ago, of things falsely believed by Fundamentalists and will probably post it later. I'll add "True Israel is the Church" to it, unless you can provide scriptural proof for it. I won't accept scripture from the Gospels, though, because Christ's ministry was only to Israel and not to us Gentiles and, of course, today's Church didn't start in the gospels.

 

What a milky chart. In essence, about half of the right side is meaningless and wrong. Did you make it?

(1) Do you realize that the only Gentile that any of the 12 witnessed to, in the Gospels or Acts, was Cornelius, and the only purpose of that was to give Paul a jump start in his Gentile ministry.

(2) The Gentile church today has one apostle, and that is Paul. The 12 were always ministers to Israel, only, just like Christ.

(3) God hasn't walked among His people in at nearly 2000 years.

(4) The Gentile church today is the literal Body of Christ, where Christ is the Head. The marriage is between Israel, the Bride, and Christ, including us, His body, make up the groom.

(5)Every quote you made from Peter (6), an apostle to Israel only, has absolutely nothing to do with today's Gentile Church, which was started after the end of Acts.

 

What do you say about those saints in Paul's post-Acts books having a hope to spend eternity far above all heavens, where Christ now sits at the right hand of God, when no one else in the entire Bible ever had a hope of spending eternity in heaven? Search and see

 

What about the church in Paul's last 7 books being the only Gentile Church in the Bible? Search and see.

 

I thought that, with all that writing you did on dispensationalism, you would at least know a little bit about it. Of course, I must take into consideration that you are only a Presbyterian. Wow! 7403 Posts! that's a lot of copying and pasting.

 

God bless you,

Chris

Edited by Ac28
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Ac28

RB,

 

A Calvinist and a Dunker - that's a pair to draw to.

 

That self-refuting thing was a nice tongue-in-cheek insult. I guess it's permissable to insult others on this forum. Are you like William - do you also know nothing about dispensationalism, the most knowledgeable form of Bible interpretation on the planet.

 

You're right. Your limited ability is what keeps you from learning anything beyond your very limited frozen Baptist doctrine, reformed or not

 

I guess I never wasted any time thinking about about Biblical Generations

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator

This thread is locked for 24 hours. This type of behavior has to stop. I am seeing way too much of it on this forum. You are not going to agree theologically and that is fine but neither of you have to be insulting. Make your arguments, present your evidence, but whatever you do put an end this nonsense.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
theophilus

 

 

True Israel is the Church.

 

6F956D79-BC72-4AE2-9784-DFDCBCF981CA.png.e8ae80ab673fe556e3357ed05873b8d9.png

 

 

 

I can see two differences. In point 12 each has an inheritance but the inheritance given to Israel was on earth; the inheritance of the church is in Heaven.

 

In point 16 Christ is said to be married to both of them. In the Old Testement Israel was often called the wife of the Father. She was often unfaithful to him and had to be judged. In the New Testament the Church is the virgin bride of Christ. Their wedding is still in the future and is described in Revelation 19:6-10.

 

There are many similarities between Israel and the Church but they are not the same.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist

I wish to apologize for any part I have inadvertently played in any unpleasantness - it is not my wish to be overly contentious!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad

Hi ac. 28! Well I read your description of who dispensationalists are and sorry I am a dispensationalist and do not agree with any of the three you write. The one thing I do agree with is that the church started at Pentecost in fulfillment when Jesus told Peter that upon the rock (that Jesus is the Messiah) He WOULD build His church! He used the future tense of raising the church not the present perfect . He did not say He has been building but will build (future) the church!

 

The church is the mystery from of teh kingdom as declared in Acts 13 through parables. It is a new thing for never before has the Holy Spirit indwelt permanently anyone. Also Paul called the church a mystery that in the OT was not revealed but He was appointed to reveal it!

[h=1]Ephesians 3 King James Version (KJV)[/h]

3 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

 

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

 

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

 

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

 

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

 

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

 

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

 

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

 

The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was in fulfilment of the prophecy in the Luke part of teh Olivet discourse as a result of the nation through its leaders committing the unpardonable sin.

 

Paul repeatedly said Israel as a nation has only been temporarily set aside to bring in the gentiles! But at a future day (actually three days before Jesus physically returns), the 1/3 of Israel that is left on teh planet will all receive Christ and ask for His return and say--"Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord".

 

the gospel stills goes out to the Jew! In the church age there has been and will always be a remnant of Israel that is saved!

 

Jesus in Acts 1 even reconfirmed that God will restore the kingdom to Israel one future time!

 

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

 

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

 

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

This would have been the perfect time for Jesus to say that HIm and the father were through with Israel! But instead He says --"NONEYA" That is in the fathers hands- instead when the Holy Spirit comes into you- go be witnesses to the world (the fulfilment of the mystery in the OT)

 

How I would love to do a bible study on the life of Christ focusing on Matthew 12-14 and the enormous change that took place. The rejecitng of teh King- the pulling of the kingdom from that generation to be given to another generation of Jews and the new way Jesus did His ministry and the enormous changes that took place!

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
Disp. is, without a doubt, the pinnacle of Bible understanding. It is based on the fact that, due to Israel's unbelief in refusing to accept Christ as their promised Messiah, Israel was given up.

 

You think the unfaithful unbelieving Jews are the faithful remnant known throughout history as Israel which are now given up on?

 

True Israel is the Church.

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\t6F956D79-BC72-4AE2-9784-DFDCBCF981CA.png Views:\t1 Size:\t415.0 KB ID:\t66769","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"66769","data-size":"custom","height":"670","width":"570"}[/ATTACH]

 

God bless,

William

That is sad that you dump context to try to make the church and Israel the same thing.

 

Yes there are many similarities but enormous differences.

 

Jesus told Peter He would build His church not keep building- that is an important difference.

 

Israel is married to Jehovah but the church is still only espoused to Jesus. the church does not marry Jesus until we are all in heaven as shown in Rev. 19: "7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

 

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

 

9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

 

Even John teh Baptist knew He was not part of the body of Christ!

 

 

John 3:28-30 King James Version (KJV)

28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

 

29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

 

30 He must increase, but I must decrease

 

also 6-11 You quote heavily from Peter! In context this was a letter to Jewish believers scattered after the start of the diaspora. While we the gentile wing of the church also have these- context shows that the Jewish believers are fulfilling these OT passages.

 

#14 is also wrong. gods promise to the nation was to walk among them- to the church He dwells in us- not among us!

 

Once again the church belongs to christ--Israel belongs to the Father! This is what the Word of God says without reinterpreting the passages through an allegorical method.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
Welcome to the forum - I hope you take a moment to introduce yourself! Normally, as far as I tell futurists argue about pre/mid/post tribulation rapture - I'm surprised to see that there is disagreement on when 'the church age' began as well.

 

 

There have many books written in an attempt to denigrate dispensationalism.

 

Dispensationalism is self refuting my friend - the inconsistent hermeneutic is enough in MNSHO

 

The common terms dreamed up for the denigration of mid-Acts and Acts 28 dispensationalists are hyper-dispensationalism or ultra-dispensationalism. I have read most of these books. Something I find humorous is that, starting with the 1st page, it is obvious that these authors have zero understanding of what these forms of dispensationalism are all about. I've always felt that, if they did really understand and were able to see exactly what's laid out in Paul's last books, they would find that they would be immediately converted to Acts 28 dispensationalism.

 

OK, good to know, it's our limited ability/ intellect that is the problem, or maybe not - I wonder if perhaps it is your a priori assumptions that cause their arguments to pass right by you.

 

Sorry I was so windy. I just started typing, in my one finger manner, and kept thinking of "just one more thing." If anyone has questions, I will try to answer them.

 

If you have really read all the books, and remain convinced then I'm not sure I have much to add, so maybe just one question, in your mind how long is a biblical generation?

I wish theree was space to show how your first comment is 100% wrong- it is self fulfilling! It takes scriptures at their normal usual meanings unless context demands some other method.

 

But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????

 

I can tell you why a dispensational hermeneutic is vastly superior than the covenant and reformed allegoric hermeneutic.

 

But I will answer your question to ac28 about a biblical generation. there is no one right answer. But if you are referring to Matt. 24:34 that is not referring to a time span but a people group- the Jews alive who see all those things happen! As written about in many other places in the minor prophets, Romans and Revelation.

  • Like 1
  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
reformed baptist
In another thread William posted this:

I can see two differences. In point 12 each has an inheritance but the inheritance given to Israel was on earth; the inheritance of the church is in Heaven.

 

My inheritance might be kept in heaven, but I'm looking forward to a new heaven and new earth :RpS_laugh:

 

In point 16 Christ is said to be married to both of them. In the Old Testament Israel was often called the wife of the Father. She was often unfaithful to him and had to be judged. In the New Testament the Church is the virgin bride of Christ. Their wedding is still in the future and is described in Revelation 19:6-10.

 

I'm not sure about that - aren't the Old Testament references simply to God, rather then any individual within the trinity (although i agree that Israel cannot have been married to Christ as before the incarnation there was no 'Jesus Christ' that is a name given to the God man and not one that should be used of the eternal son prior to the incarnation)

 

There are many similarities between Israel and the Church but they are not the same.

 

I think ti interesting that the new testement writers used a word familiar to them from the LXX to discribe the NT gatherings of believers. It is familiar because of it's use to describe Israel (ecclesia) I wonder why that continuity of terminology if the church is not a continuation of true Israel?

 

Just a few thoughts:RpS_tongue:

 

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
On 3/17/2018 at 7:59 AM, theophilus said:

 

Quote
True Israel is the Church.

 

 

 

 

I can see two differences. In point 12 each has an inheritance but the inheritance given to Israel was on earth; the inheritance of the church is in Heaven.

 

In point 16 Christ is said to be married to both of them. In the Old Testement Israel was often called the wife of the Father. She was often unfaithful to him and had to be judged. In the New Testament the Church is the virgin bride of Christ. Their wedding is still in the future and is described in Revelation 19:6-10.

 

There are many similarities between Israel and the Church but they are not the same.

 

No one ever claims that the type or shadow of things to come is the exact image of those things.

  • Best Answer 1
  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
The one thing I do agree with is that the church started at Pentecost in fulfillment when Jesus told Peter that upon the rock (that Jesus is the Messiah) He WOULD build His church! He used the future tense of raising the church not the present perfect . He did not say He has been building but will build (future) the church!

 

Why do you think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 10:4:

  • And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The church is the mystery from of teh kingdom as declared in Acts 13 through parables. It is a new thing for never before has the Holy Spirit indwelt permanently anyone. Also Paul called the church a mystery that in the OT was not revealed but He was appointed to reveal it!

 

And I have some questions, regarding the type and anti type, and what it means that they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them. What exactly does 1 Corinthians 10:4 convey?

 

Christ is obviously the rock which the Christian church is built. But why the allusion by Paul to OT Israel?

 

But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????

 

I can tell you why a dispensational hermeneutic is vastly superior than the covenant and reformed allegoric hermeneutic.

 

Not asking you about Calvin, but Paul's. About the type and anti type found in 1 Corinthians 4, any comment?

 

Israel is married to Jehovah but the church is still only espoused to Jesus.

 

@theophilus do you have the link to the thread where you posed the question of whether the Holy Spirit too has his own wife to be?

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

Then I stand corrected It has been many years since I have read Calvins Institute so I apologize for my poor memory.-. But then where in God sname do reformed theologians get amillenialism, the idea God is done with Israel, no rapture, that there is no earthly kingdom to come and several other things which defy a normative reading of SCripture?

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
The one thing I do agree with is that the church started at Pentecost in fulfillment when Jesus told Peter that upon the rock (that Jesus is the Messiah) He WOULD build His church! He used the future tense of raising the church not the present perfect . He did not say He has been building but will build (future) the church!

 

Why do you think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 10:4:

  • And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The church is the mystery from of teh kingdom as declared in Acts 13 through parables. It is a new thing for never before has the Holy Spirit indwelt permanently anyone. Also Paul called the church a mystery that in the OT was not revealed but He was appointed to reveal it!

 

And I have some questions, regarding the type and anti type, and what it means that they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them. What exactly does 1 Corinthians 10:4 convey?

 

Christ is obviously the rock which the Christian church is built. But why the allusion by Paul to OT Israel?

 

But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????

 

I can tell you why a dispensational hermeneutic is vastly superior than the covenant and reformed allegoric hermeneutic.

 

Not asking you about Calvin, but Paul's. About the type and anti type found in 1 Corinthians 4, any comment?

 

Israel is married to Jehovah but the church is still only espoused to Jesus.

 

@theophilus do you have the link to the thread where you posed the question of whether the Holy Spirit too has his own wife to be?

 

God bless,

William

Well we know that the OT was filled with types and shadows of things to come.

 

As for 1 Cor. 10:4 also include the meat. They did not eat Jesus nor drink Jesus God miraculously fed the Israelites and give them drink water in the desert! These were provided by God and gave lief to Israel in the wilderness. Jesus let us know that these are also types of HIm to come.

 

John 6: 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

also

 

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

 

So God again used real events to show the types fo things to come which are found in christ.

 

You wrote: " theophilus do you have the link to the thread where you posed the question of whether the Holy Spirit too has his own wife to be?"

 

The Father has a wife- the Lord Jesus has an espoused bride, but the Holy Spirit has none.

 

YOu wrote: "Christ is obviously the rock which the Christian church is built. But why the allusion by Paul to OT Israel?"

 

Well kept in context it is a warning of the consequences of disobedience. The OT saints ate that spiritual food and drank the spiritual water and still died due to rebellion as Paul wrote in verse 11: "11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

 

this has nothing to do with the church existing in the OT, but about the consequences of disobedience.

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

I can totally understand why Origen addresses your claims as a straw man.

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

So Nolidad you admit you have no idea why reformed theologians, and by the way it is not only reformed theologians, hold an amillennialism view, do not believe in the rapture etc. Now that is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

Well I have read several reformed writers (Loraine Boettner the main for reformed eschatology.), I also have a 1400 page text that compares side by side both reformed or allegorical eschatology and Israelogy with dispensational eschatology and Israelogy And I still do not understand why you reject a physical kingdom on earth when it is plain in Scripture, and all the rest we disagree on. I know what you believe but not why

 

As for not knowing what the allegorical hermeneutic is: While a summation- correct me if it has changed "Allegorical interpretation of the Bible is an interpretive method (exegesis) that assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense, which includes the allegorical sense, the moral (or tropological) sense, and the anagogical sense) as opposed to the literal sense.

 

Dispensationalists understand there are three ways we learn from scripture-- That God wrote literally (and that includes symbolism), that we can expand doctrine from passages, and that we can learn personal application as to how God works among men! All passages do not contain all three but those ar ethe ways we learn from Scripture. I Reject the deeper meanings. That smacks of secret bible codes and requires great subjectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

William:

 

A straw man is creating a false argument by design. Mine was from faulty memory of Calvins positions.

Share this post


Link to post
nolidad
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

Hi Origen:

 

Yes I do not know why anyone who claims the bible to be the inerrant infallible and authoritative Word of God that was fully inspired can hold to amillennialism, no "rapture" and that God is done with HIs covenanted nation. As for Israel we are now in the time of the veiling as Paul said- but Paul also declared that once the full number of Gentiles have entered the body of christ- Then all Israel will be saved!

 

These are prophecies that had no conditions attached to them.If God put no condition on their ultimate fulfilment why should any man???

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

A straw man is creating a false argument by design. Mine was from faulty memory of Calvins positions.

 

And its projecting that false argument onto your opponent. It is best to say, "I do not know" rather than pretend to know. You'll last long on this board if you do not hold others to your own personal standard. I notice you have a tendency to declare others "wrong" and yet do not rightly acknowledge the argument, school of thought, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
But let me ask you one question. You hold to a reformed theology which goes back to Calvin- why is His allegorical interpretations more authoritative than say the Mormons or the JW's???? What makes your allegorical view of Scripture more authoritative than theirs????
Your view suffers from at least two problems. First, you clearly don't know what allegorical interpretations is. While that in and of itself is a problem, either you do not understand Calvin or you have never read Calvin. Before I get to the point let me inform you I am not a Calvinist. I am, however, concerned with accuracy as I am sure you are well aware.

 

Calvin did not accept allegorical interpretations. He makes this very clear.

 

Commentary on Daniel

I am aware of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. I am not captivated by these enticements myself, and I wish all my hearers to be persuaded of this, — nothing can be better than a sober treatment of Scripture.

 

 

Commentary On Galatians

Origen, and many others along with him, have seized the occasion of torturing Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense. They concluded that the literal sense is too mean and poor, and that, under the outer bark of the letter, there lurk deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. And this they had no difficulty in accomplishing; for speculations which appear to be ingenious have always been preferred, and always will be preferred, by the world to solid doctrine.

 

With such approbation the licentious system gradually attained such a height, that he who handled Scripture for his own amusement not only was suffered to pass unpunished, but even obtained the highest applause. For many centuries no man was considered to be ingenious, who had not the skill and daring necessary for changing into a variety of curious shapes the sacred word of God. This was undoubtedly a contrivance of Satan to undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true advantage. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when he suffered the pure meaning of the Scripture to be buried under false interpretations.

 

Scripture, they say, is fertile, and thus produces a variety of meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions, which lead us away from the natural meaning.

Calvin had an extreme dislike for allegorical interpretations. Thus your claims about Calvin are straw men and let me remind you this is coming from a non-Calvinist. There are only two choices. Accept what Calvin says on the matter or accept your straw man claims about Calvin.

Yes I do not know why anyone who claims the bible to be the inerrant infallible and authoritative Word of God that was fully inspired can hold to amillennialism, no "rapture" and that God is done with HIs covenanted nation.

 

Stawman - yet again.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
Yes I do not know why anyone who claims the bible to be the inerrant infallible and authoritative Word of God that was fully inspired can hold to amillennialism, no "rapture" and that God is done with HIs covenanted nation.
Well, now you do. Note that your comments are not evidence or even an argument but merely your subjective opinion.
  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

×
×
  • Create New...