Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Correct, but they openly accept the interpretations of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Anderson, Stam, and others.
I was taught Darbyism and Scofield's notes as a student at the Moody Bible Institute. By my second year I saw a lot of inconsistencies. But I do appreciate that I had the opportunity to attend and graduate at Moody. I met my lovely wife of 33 years there.
I was taught Darbyism and Scofield's notes as a student at the Moody Bible Institute. By my second year I saw a lot of inconsistencies.
I was taught Darbyism (dispensationalism) for over 20 years. It wasn't until I joined TOL that I saw all the inconsistencies.
Quote:
But I do appreciate that I had the opportunity to attend and graduate at Moody.
Well, the best way to refute dispensationalism is to know it. IMO, most of the dispies on TOL don't even know what they are signing up for when they subscribe to dispensationalism. Especially the hyper-dispensationalists (MADists)
Why then do you say some "allegorize to the extreme"?
What is the difference between Paul's allegory and the allegory I gave?
The difference?
Paul is an Apostle and he clearly has the authority to label his use of the the literal history to make an allegory to emphasize his point concerning the difference in law and grace. His writing is scripture and within that particular scripture it is distinctly labeled 'allegory'. There is no reason for this to give license for anyone and everyone to apply an allegorical interpretation dogmatically when and wherever they wish.
You, on the otherhand, are not an Apostle, and I believe it is a misuse of scripture to call the Body of Christ 'Spiritual Israel', a term which is nowhere to be found in the scriptures.
Again, we've discussed this before and our paradigms are opposed. I don't anticipate any progress in the reconciling our differences on this subject.
His writing is scripture and within that particular scripture it is distinctly labeled 'allegory'. There is no reason for this to give license for anyone and everyone to apply an allegorical interpretation dogmatically when and wherever they wish.
Do you believe that Paul's allegory in Gal 4 is the only allegory in the Bible, or do you believe there are other allegories in the Bible?
Correct, but they openly accept the interpretations of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Anderson, Stam, and others.
You're painting with a pretty inclusive broad brush there, Tet.
I don't 'openly accept' anyone's commentary as the final word on any subject of scripture.
I've never read Darby, Scofield or Bullinger and have only read just a portion of Stam, which I quickly rejected thirty years ago(maybe I should go back and have another look, ya' think?)
I have read many preterist authors and none are convincing.
Dear steko,
Paul had revelations face to face with Christ.
Quote:
1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 Co 12:1 ¶ It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
I believe that Paul was the man of which he wrote in 2 Co 12. The man of which he wrote had heard things which, like things John heard in The Revelation, he was forbidden to tell. However, he had, also, revelations like the ones John had that he could write.
And he did write them. To presume that Paul wrote as if he were a regular guesser like (MAD guys) is to poison your soul.
People don't realize that when Paul wrote, it was with absolutely no uncertainty.
Quote:
1Co 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
Jesus Christ showed His disciples how to follow God as a dear child.
Jesus Christ sent His disciples to teach the nations how to follow God as dear children.
Following God as a dear child will teach you all the theology you need.
Dear steko,
Paul had revelations face to face with Christ.
I believe that Paul was the man of which he wrote in 2 Co 12. The man of which he wrote had heard things which, like things John heard in The Revelation, he was forbidden to tell. However, he had, also, revelations like the ones John had that he could write.
And he did write them. To presume that Paul wrote as if he were a regular guesser like (MAD guys) is to poison your soul. People don't realize that when Paul wrote, it was with absolutely no uncertainty.
You seem to have gotten the idea that maybe I think that Paul wrote with uncertainty. I don't know where you got that idea.
I agree with everything that you said here concerning Paul and I affirm this constantly.
I disagree with your broadbrushing and slurring 'Mad guys'.
Whataya mean 'people'? Do you think everybody is ignorant of these things? That's quite an assumption.
Do you believe that Paul's allegory in Gal 4 is the only allegory in the Bible, or do you believe there are other allegories in the Bible?
Gal 4 is the only place, as far as I can tell, that it is labeled as such, but as I've said before the 'midrash' was a common practice among the Jews of Paul's day. Scipture also uses tupos, muthos, analogia and musterion, which also must be recognized to understand context. These instances are often disagreed upon by those of different paradigms, as well.
I would dare to say, that I see more 'midrash' in the book of Hebrews than many do, which once again entails different conclusions.
Why is it that only dispensationalists deny the source of their beliefs?
I give Calvinists credit, they at least give credit to the source of their beliefs.
I told you before that I originally came to conclusions on my own from reading the Bible literally, which I found later to align with what 'dispensational' teachers have also concluded.
My stance on a literal Israel as distinct from the church, which I believe is the foundational truth of my position, doesn't derive from others, but from the scriptures themselves. It doesn't matter who else believes it or teaches it. I see it plain in scripture. I'm sorry that you and others don't.
I only label myself as a 'moderate dispensationalist', because it comes the closest to helping others categorize my position. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything that every 'dispensational' teacher affirms.
I do frequently give credit to others, for afterall, not all that I know and understand, whether rightly or wrongly, originates with me.
For instance, I give frequently give credit to R.C.Sproul, with regard to his teaching on church history and classical apologetics, while at the same time, I disagree with his preterism and eschatology.....and some other things.
I've owe a great deal to C.S. Lewis, but I don't agree with him on everything.
The same with Francis Schaeffer, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, William Craig and many others.
And....I have immensely enjoyed reading L.S. Chafer's systematic theology, while on the other hand have immensely enjoyed reading G.T. Shedd and Charles Hodge.
I learn from everybody and when it finally boils down to it.....it is I who must decide, with help from the Spirit of grace and truth, what is and what isn't.
I learn from everybody and when it finally boils down to it.....it is I who must decide, with help from the Spirit of grace and truth, what is and what isn't.
I agree.
I read and listen as much as I can from everybody, and like you, trust that the Holy Spirit will lead me to the truth.
Quote:
My stance on a literal Israel as distinct from the church, which I believe is the foundational truth of my position
Yes, I know, and IMO, this is the single greatest error of dispensationalism.
Slogan/motto:
". . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
Reputation:
May 7th, 2012, 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
Well, the best way to refute dispensationalism is to know it.
Agreed.
Husband and I (unfortunately and ignorantly) spent seven years in a hyper-dispensational church when first saved, before the Lord led us out from their gross errors, through our private bible studies.
Quote:
IMO, most of the dispies on TOL don't even know what they are signing up for when they subscribe to dispensationalism. Especially the hyper-dispensationalists (MADists)
I do not say this lightly . . . but I have observed for over more than 40 years, that those exposed to any form of dispensationalism, are subjected to varying degrees of brain-washing, which is based solely and deliberately upon confusion.
God is NOT the author of confusion, but all forms of dispensationalism depend and (temporally) succeed, only by confusing the Holy Scriptures.
"The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."
"Experience teaches us nothing; revelation teaches all we need to know."
“ Those who proclaim that the sovereignty of God determines what justice is, (do so) by observing what God actually does. Whatever God does is just.”
such an one caught up to the third heaven.
Linear Mode
