Dangers of Dispensational Rapture Fantasy

[csmuda]

you know what, reading another of good Gerald's long ranting posts (not that there's anything wrong with that) I think dispensationalists are gnostic too. They have this secret knowledge that helps them cling to eschatology that is the baby in the camp as if it is eternal truth. I mean come on. 164 years ago those believers in Glasgow, Scotland decided (for the first time in Church history) to divide the parousia into two seperate events.

Orthodox history said at the end of days Jesus would return literally, visibly, and bodily. Right? I believe so...

So if we dare compare the historical position of western, eastern, and protestant position to the dispensationalists it is inferred we ain't got the Holy Spirit a talkin to us, them...

Isn't that how it worked for the primitive gnostics? They walked, talked, and looked like Christians but they had a experiential knowledge of the truth. Totally subjective, colorful, but not objective. They all had to have inspired writings of there own, still not unreasonable are far as subjective experiences go.

I don't know. It all looks like bozos on this bus to me....I'm sorry.

 

[servent101]

csmuda

I don't know. It all looks like bozos on this bus to me....I'm sorry.

The other train looks like a bunch of toy wind up solders, content on doing whatever their "pastor or priest" tells them too.

Recently I noticed that people who are of an orthodox mindset are extremely threatened when someone speaks of how wonderfully full of intrinsic sense, how awesome the Wisdom of Scripture is, or tells of another Person, or Faith that says the Same thing - as if they have decided by force - that whatever is Written is of God, so therefore no matter what it says - they will obey. If they start to realize what they are missing - it drives SOME of them beyond the bend, and their foundation of sand starts to crumble.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by servent101

csmuda

The other train looks like a bunch of toy wind up solders, content on doing whatever their "pastor or priest" tells them too.

Recently I noticed that people who are of an orthodox mindset are extremely threatened when someone speaks of how wonderfully full of intrinsic sense, how awesome the Wisdom of Scripture is, or tells of another Person, or Faith that says the Same thing - as if they have decided by force - that whatever is Written is of God, so therefore no matter what it says - they will obey. If they start to realize what they are missing - it drives SOME of them beyond the bend, and their foundation of sand starts to crumble.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Servent,

Please try to be coherent, and at least make your posts resemble some type of communication. This is just empty and meaningless. You've actually said nothing at all. You're just rambling. :kookoo:

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by Nimrod

As for questions on post #14, I need to think it over.

At least you're honest... This is the crux of the issue, now isn't it? If there has only been One Universal Gospel, that has never, ever changed, then you have a serious problem with the passages Turbo referenced... You continue,

If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?

Nimrod,

The problem is, us mid-Acts people are constantly misrepresented. The question to be asked should be, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law by faith, did he lose salvation?"

We believe that the means of salvation has never, ever changed. The means of salvation has always been and will always be the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ covers the sin of all mankind from Adam to the eternal state. Where we seem to differ is on exactly how someone gains access to that saving blood, the means of salvation.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism teaches that the method of salvation changes. In other words, God changes the way He asks man to show saving faith in order to have the method (the blood of Christ) applied to him. To make it even more clear:

1. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for us.
2. Man must have faith in God.
3. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith.

So, when you asked, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?" with a correct understanding of our foundation, I say yes... If a Jew did not keep God's Law by faith, he lost his salvation. God even says so...

God outlines the difference between someone who sinned "unintentionally" and the person who sinned "presumptously" (intentionally) and how to handle each instance. Let's read it...

Numbers 15
22 'If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the Lord has spoken to Moses-- 23 all that the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and onward throughout your generations-- 24 then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed, without the knowledge of the congregation, that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering, as a sweet aroma to the Lord, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering. 25 So the priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional; they shall bring their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their unintended sin. 26 It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people did it unintentionally. 27 'And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the Lord, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.

Now, this covers unintentional sins. If a person sinned unintentionally, and by faith brought the required sacrifice, God would forgive that sin.

What if a Jewish person sinned against God presumptously (intentionally)? Can an intentional sin be forgiven?

Numbers 15
30 'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'

Just to be clear, God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell...

Numbers 15
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

This man chose to disobey God intentionally. God commanded the children of Israel to stone him with stones and kill him. This man died in his sin and will be in hell. You continue,

Here goes Lighthouse circle reasoning.
He now tells us that the people from Moses to Christ lived by the law and they were required to keep the law. Lighthouse comes short, just like most dispensationalist, to say that the Jews were saved by the "keeping of the law". Lighthouse won't admit this, but this is really what he believes when he says the jews were "required to keep the law".

With a correct understanding, we do say that OT saints were required to keep the law, by faith. If they did not keep the law by faith, they would not have the future blood of Christ applied to them. You continue,

I am not a dispensationalist, but I do believe there are dispensations in the history of mankind. I call them covenants. You don't see me bringing a goat to be sacrificed by a Levi priest every week. That has been done away with.

I agree... There are covenants and dispensations in the Bible. What needs to be stressed here is, a dispensational change occurrs when God changes the way He deals with man. God asked the OT saints to keep the law by faith. God asks the body of Christ to trust in the death, burial and resurrection by faith.

In Christ,

Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Lighthouse]

Nimrod-
Do you have a link to where you answered the question?

 

[Nimrod]

King David in hell?

King David in hell?

I am glad you admit, that works were required for salvation.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*


Just to be clear, God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell...


This man chose to disobey God intentionally. God commanded the children of Israel to stone him with stones and kill him. This man died in his sin and will be in hell.

Numbers 15:3131 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'

Jeremy Finkenbinder

To summarize what Jeremy just said->
Jeremy Finkenbinder believes King David is in hell.

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

From Jeremy's logic, King David committed a sin that was intentional. Therefore, is now in hell.

Lighthouse I hope you read this. People like Bob Enyart (who believes King Solomon is in hell.) and others, you need to watch out for.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Re: King David in hell?

Re: King David in hell?

Nimrod,

Let's do some housecleaning and then address your post...

1. First off, you failed to respond to the points presented in my previous post.

2. You misrepresent me out of anger.

3. You still have yet to respond to post #14.

Now, on to your points...

Originally posted by Nimrod
I am glad you admit, that works were required for salvation.

That's a lie that stems from your anger. I expect an apology. Here's what I actually said...

The problem is, us mid-Acts people are constantly misrepresented. The question to be asked should be, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law by faith, did he lose salvation?"

We believe that the means of salvation has never, ever changed. The means of salvation has always been and will always be the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ covers the sin of all mankind from Adam to the eternal state. Where we seem to differ is on exactly how someone gains access to that saving blood, the means of salvation.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism teaches that the method of salvation changes. In other words, God changes the way He asks man to show saving faith in order to have the method (the blood of Christ) applied to him. To make it even more clear:

1. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for us.
2. Man must have faith in God.
3. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith.

So, when you asked, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?" with a correct understanding of our foundation, I say yes... If a Jew did not keep God's Law by faith, he lost his salvation. God even says so...

Instead of addressing what God said in Numbers 15, you get angry and lie. Don't shoot the messenger, but rather, deal with the message... You continue in anger,

To summarize what Jeremy just said->
Jeremy Finkenbinder believes King David is in hell.

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

I said no such thing. Yet another lie stemming from anger... We never discussed David. If you'd like to do so, fine... Just say so...

From Jeremy's logic, King David committed a sin that was intentional. Therefore, is now in hell.

I have never said David is in hell, nor do I believe so... Yes, David did commit a presumptous sin, and deserved death and hell. However, God looks at the heart. God saw that David was "a man after His own heart..."

Unfortunately, you didn't read far enough in 2 Samuel 12...

2 Samuel 12
13 So David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.

Nimrod, why would Nathan say, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die," if David did not deserve the same fate as the man in Numbers 15? Again, God saw David's repentant heart and graced him out... David describes this event in Psalm 32. Paul echoes the Psalm in Romans 4. God pardoned David's sin that did indeed deserve death...

Romans 4
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."

Nimrod, what if the man in Numbers 15 had repented? Would God still have commanded the children of Israel to kill him? I think not. The point still stands... The man in Numbers 15 committed a presumptous sin by not keeping God's law. That same man was unrepentant and died in his sin. Deal with Numbers 15 when you're not so angry...

What I find interesting is, those who argue "faith alone" fail to define their terms. They usually say, "Yep, we are saved by faith alone," but fail to tell us where their "faith alone" is based. Nimrod, I have argued that all are saved by "faith alone" in God. What you failed to address was the fact that God changes the way He asks man to show faith. All who are saved by "faith alone" must have faith in whatever God asks them to believe. God did not ask the man in Numbers 15 to have "faith alone" in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God commanded that man to have "faith alone" in His law. If that man attempted to keep God's law by faith alone he would be righteous before God. That man chose to reject God's law and went to hell, his guilt upon him.

Riddle me this Nimrod... If a person has faith alone in God, but rejects the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, can that person be saved today? I didn't think so...

Take a deep breath and respond to the points presented when you're not so angry. I'm still waiting for your answer to post #14...

--Jeremy

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Nimrod,

Did you quit on me? Are you still angry?

 

[Lighthouse]

Re: King David in hell?

Re: King David in hell?

Originally posted by Nimrod

Jeremy Finkenbinder believes King David is in hell.

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

From Jeremy's logic, King David committed a sin that was intentional. Therefore, is now in hell.

Lighthouse I hope you read this. People like Bob Enyart (who believes King Solomon is in hell.) and others, you need to watch out for.

Enyart believes that King Solomon is in hell? I have read the Bible, and I have read David's repentance over the murder, fornication and deception [and whatever else took place in that]. I have no reason to believe that God did not forgive David. And, FYI, I'm not an Enyart follower. I do see where He's coming from, and I do agree with Him on some things, but I'm not a fan...:shut:

 

[kidd94]

The problem with most eschatalogical models are the fact that the models come first then the method is applied later.

Rather the method, consisiting of proper hermeneutics, should be first, then we can somewhat come up with a proper Model.

 

[csmuda]

kidd94,
God Bless you in the name of Jesus Christ! but, no I don't thnk proper hermeneutics will carry the day. Indispensable no doubt. but historical understanding is critical, I think. And the whole motely bunch of Dispylanders seem to completely ignore theological history which IS a big dangerous thing. If we taught our children historical theology they wouldn't get bumped from pillar to post when the snake-oil salesman show up.

Although, my humble attempt to apply sound hermeneutics brought me to the big suprise that one can study the NT and see all references to the second coming as one event at the end. It took me almost a year of study to realize that the Coming for the saints verses Coming with the saints is an wrong division of that blessed event.

Every position claims to be rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think Nimrod ran away. :dog:

 

[geralduk]

Hystorical theology?

is God dead then that we need to look at the past like rome for our foundation?
Should we not rather beleive God who has promised that when the HOLY SPIRIT has come HE SHALL LEAD you into all truth"?
Of course if you believe that the HOL;Y SPIRIT came 2000 YEARS AGO and that was it.
Then there is a serios problem.
Seeing that you must also believe that the HOLY SPIRIT is dead also?
For in that those who recived HIM then died then so too did He who came to them die with them?
But clearly thjis is not the case.
How then is it believed that seeing that those "earthen vessels" having been 'broken' and long gone and the SPIRIT as it were has left them.
That we made of the same clay and without God as in DARKNESS even as they were.
Yet even as thjey were enlightened by the HOLYT SPIRIT (even as SAUL WAS) so then must we be.
Thus if we would REALY know the truth as God intends we MUST also be FILLED with the HOLY SPIRIT even asd they.
Perhaps then that is why there is so much ewrror and confusion in the church for He is OUTSIDE the church knocking at the door and seekign entrance.
It is then to ther WHOSOVER will open the door will He come to.
or if any church will humble themselves and pray and be of ONE mind and heart there too will God command the blessing.
We are LED into all truth.
and ARRIVE at a knopwldge of the truth.
Just because w eknow the SCRIPTURE does not mean we know the truth!
You say the scripture is the truth?
Who denies it.
But what does the scripture say?
"The WORD is a SEED"!
That seed needs then to be SOWN in the heart of GOOD SOIL and then IS quickned by the HOLY SPIRIT to our understanding to the transformation of our minds even as we put it into PRACTICE.
Therefore historical theology albeit perchance of "of sound doctrin" is but the dead letter.
and what of the SCRIPTURES are THEY not the FOUNDATION of ALL sound doctrin?
"For ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God for..........."
I would 'argue' that too many have thier theology as a CLOAK which was another mans garment but is not yet thier own.
and because they hold to that doctrin they think they have life.
and because they coem from a particular 'school' of theology they have life.
Men do not have life because they hold to this or that doctrin.
But they have life because they 'have' the Son or in truth The SON has them.
it is good to know church history and the great men of God who worked great things for God.
and to study thier life and doctrin.
But if they are of God then we should FOLOW them not just get knowldge of them.
But let it be understood that the HOLY BIBLE is the ROCK and FOUNDATION of faith IN God and by its UNDERSTANDING we get a LIVELY faith IN God.
This can ONLY come about if we honour Him who RESTED on the WORD made flesh as He came out of the waters of baptism.
For NOAH sent out the dove twice.
The first time it found no resting place.
This pertains to the children of ISREAL and the prophets.
But when HE who was promised came to fullfill all the law there ther HOLY SPIRIT found His eternal RESTING PLACE.
Therefore we are "BORN of the water(THE WORD) and the SPIRIT"
AND SO FIND REST FOR our souls in Him the SPIRIT of God witnessing with our spirit that we are the sons of God.
The Word of God is an inexhaustable well of living water.
Go to THAT well then and you will never thirst again.
Drink from anothers and you will find no eternal satisfaction and rest.

 

[Lighthouse]

Some excellent points, geralduk.

 

[csmuda]

You go geralduk.
so much division seen in the Christianity of the world. so many denominations and divisions. yet in the church epistles we are strongly asked to think one thing and be of one mind. So all the 1000+ denominations might think that they, and they alone, hold the key to "the whole truth" or the like. so many fundamentalists get their flock all hepped up on their own little slant without any shred of church history. How many of us are versed in the main reason for Luther and Calvin's disagreement?

A whole understanding of the history of christian eschatology will force the student to acknowledge that "rapture" is only 160 years old compared to 2000 years of church thought. Granted the many a-sides in the Faith had many people waiting on some hill top for the event and nothing happened.

I've never ever understood why in Christianity I have to choose between my brain and my heart.

the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. why should she? it's hopeless. When I was excited about all this I was even more excited about learning how brothers-and-sisters thought about these things in the different centuries.

300 hundred years ago Christians in america really really thought that america was central to God's plans. They thought that from America the Word would sound out over the planet and the spread of God's Kingdom would move out and make the world new again. They were as passionate as present day dispensationalists. How can truth evolve like that? Only by not looking at it can we pretend this reinvention is not so. That's the danger: ignorance and passion mixed. :nono:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by csmuda

the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. why should she? it's hopeless.

Where did you get an idea as absurd as that one? Dispensationalism of any sort teaches no such thing. Calvinism does, but dispensationalism does not. I care very much about the world around me, and I believe that the law was definitely for the dispensation of the law, in the times of the OT. The only thing that applies to the current dispensation is morality. And that is attained by faith in God. And is given by His grace.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by csmuda the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her.

The most politically active Christian group in America in the past 50 years was Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" which was made up almost entirely of dispensationalists. How do you explain that?

 

[billwald]

No point polishing brass on the Titanic, right? Only thing matters is getting people into the life boats. Heard this a million times in a million variations.

 

[Lighthouse]

Falwell is a tool of Satan.

 

[csmuda]

Lighthouse, I don't know enough about calvinism but I find it hard to believe that that theology cared little about the world. Didn't Calvin care so very much about life that he set up in (?) geneva the proper way to live? Even to the point of having a unitarian sentenced to death? I got the idea that dispy's don't care because I've heard flesh-and-blood Christians speak that way. for example, to be politically active is a time waster because the world will continue to be controlled by you-know-who.

Jefferson, very good point regarding the Moral Majority. Still, the very attitude that the world is going to hell in a handbasket still means in the dispy's heart-of-heart she doesn't think there is any hope of seeing Christ's church reign on earth. Don't the MM really wanna just set up a refuge from the "coming storm" if you will?

lighthouse, those are good things to believe in. I believe you when you say you care very much about the world. Perhaps I was too severe. I apologize. I was coming from what billwald referred to. "polishing the brass on the titantic" I believe that actually came from a sermon somewhere. And it shows, I think, how the mind set shifted in protestantism. Instead of a deep confidence in some relentless spread of God's kingdom on earth through the church, it is every man, woman, and group for themselves 'cause when the stick really hits the fan we (the chosen) get to vertically fly out of here and just the losers get left behind.