Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Jesus and Paul preach two different gospels.
The church does not participate in the New Covenant.
Paul was the beginning of the Church.
etc.
Scripture was posted each time. How is that an assumption? rulz has the right idea. You need to toss out cliche's when you have no basis for argument. Just say we don't interpret the verse correctly.
Not so much wanting to get involved but more of addressing the question of the OP:
I was reading through the sermons recently of one Hugh Latimer, a bishop of Worschester that was burned at the stake (a disagreement over transubstantiation). Something I observed was the continuity in which his sermons traversed between the Old and New Testaments.
Until Darby, all churches were of a Covenant theological position that taught a unity and continuity to God's plan of redemption with the OT being symbols and precursors to what was to come. Overall, the whole church be they Catholic, Anglican, Eastern, or Reformed was of this persuasion.
Under Covenant theology, it was certainly true that distinctions were seen and made beteen Israel and the church but these distinctions were made on a case-by-case basis. That is, as scripture broached the subject.
Darby was one of the first to 'systematize' these differences but inso doing swung the pendulum too far to see too many distinctions between the OT and the Church.
Hyperdispensationalism is twice removed from this setting in that the systemetizing takes over and it is barely a case by case allowance for the singular plan of God to be coherent throughout. Agree or not with this brief assessment of mine (and others), it is why there is contention between Covenant theology and MAD as well as even Darby-dispensationalism and MAD. Because MAD is so far removed from each, of course there is going to be friction and opposition.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Scripture was posted each time. How is that an assumption? rulz has the right idea. You need to toss out cliche's when you have no basis for argument. Just say we don't interpret the verse correctly.
The problem is that scripture is used to try to prove an assumption rather than scripture being the foundation of the doctrine.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Scripture was posted each time. How is that an assumption? rulz has the right idea. You need to toss out cliche's when you have no basis for argument. Just say we don't interpret the verse correctly.
Dispensationalism assumes that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted into God's plan for Israel.
There is no scripture that supports this theory, it is an assumption.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Israel was put on "hold", then a secret dispensation was inserted, then God picks up with Israel again when the secret dispensation ends.
Slogan/motto:
"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Ro 3:26
Reputation:
May 8th, 2012, 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
Dispensationalism assumes that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted into God's plan for Israel.
There is no scripture that supports this theory, it is an assumption.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Israel was put on "hold", then a secret dispensation was inserted, then God picks up with Israel again when the secret dispensation ends.
C'mon tet. You know that is not true. Lets at least be intellectually honest.
Your issue is one of AUTHORITY. All heresy starts and ends where a person sets themselves above God's Word and becomes their own authority. It is disguised as "textual criticism" and "scholarship". All of it ends where the first lie began "Hath God Said?"
From the outside it looks like MAD makes sense from the inside.
But from the outside if you don't have MAD viewpoint your usual proof scriptures get nowhere near making the point you think they do.
I was actually saying though I disagree I have a logical argument with you, and i can see that internally your way of reading the bible holds together.
Others on here seem to of lost touch with reality entirley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M
Scripture was posted each time. How is that an assumption? rulz has the right idea. You need to toss out cliche's when you have no basis for argument. Just say we don't interpret the verse correctly.
Scripture was posted each time. How is that an assumption? rulz has the right idea. You need to toss out cliche's when you have no basis for argument. Just say we don't interpret the verse correctly.
You have a wrong paradigm, principles, and proof texts.
One Christ, one cross, one church, one gospel (post-cross/NT). Judaism vs Christianity, not Judaism, circ C., and uncirc. C.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Dispensationalism assumes that a secret parenthetical dispensation was inserted into God's plan for Israel.
There is no scripture that supports this theory, it is an assumption.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Israel was put on "hold", then a secret dispensation was inserted, then God picks up with Israel again when the secret dispensation ends.
They are right about dispensational principles, but wrong about hyper-dispensational extremes.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
This is a legit diagnosis. Calvinism and MAD have issues with wrong paradigms (determinism; two gospel Pauline vs Christocentric ideas) that affects how they interpret the text. Proof texts out of context are used to support the preconceived idea (eisegesis) rather than exegesis and all relevant verses and right paradigms/principles leading to right conclusions (wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions).
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
May 8th, 2012, 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by One In Christ
Methinks grulz only knows how to talk in chiches
The problem is your negative proof texting void of exegesis in context. We must formulate a chronology based on all the relevant verses. Look at all relevant verses without a wrong paradigm.
I can spam tired cliches, that say nothing, just as well as this man worshiipping "god"rulz, who thinks he is impressing others on this site with these alleged "scholarly disertations." That is his act on this site.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Linear Mode
