Theology Club: If It Be Possible, Let This Cup Pass From Me

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you have an example?

Yes, I asked a question to Tony Garland concerning the beginning of the dispensation and our exchange can be found here:

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/22.htm?x=x

In reply he quoted Charles Ryrie's words here:

"What the ultradispensationalist fails to recognize is that the distinguishableness of a dispensation is related to what God is doing, not necessarily to what He reveals at the time, and least of all to what man understands of His purposes."​

I wrote him back and pointed out at another place in the same book Ryrie contradicted the answer which I was given. Here Ryrie says that before a new dispensation can start a new revelation must be given:

"Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated, since the economy and responsibility changed and the new revealation was given" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Moody Press, 1995],, p.34).​

Of course Tony Garland had no answer so he did not even bother to write me backnor did he correct his web site.

These people are clueless if they think that a new revelation is not necessary in order for a new dispensation to begin but that is exactly what Ryrie teaches here:

"What the ultradispensationalist fails to recognize is that the distinguishableness of a dispensation is related to what God is doing, not necessarily to what He reveals at the time, and least of all to what man understands of His purposes."​

these people are the most arrogant Christians on the face of the earth even though they do not even understand the most basic things in regard to the Biblical dispensational arrangement.

 

[intojoy]

That is so typical of the attitude of the Acts 2 dispensationalists when they have no answer to verses which prove they are wrong.

View attachment 18553

 

[Jerry Shugart]

View attachment 18553

Perhaps you have an answer to my questions which I asked to the Acts 2 dispensationalists here:

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/22.htm?x=x

Seems like they are more interested in defending what is taught at Dallas Theological Seminary than they are in actually coming to the knowledge of the truth.

I wonder if Arnold could provide a better answer than did Tony Garland.

I doubt it!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

they do not even understand the most basic things in regard to the Biblical dispensational arrangement.

Actually most get it, Jerry.

http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/

Just sayin'.

Understanding the dispensationalist:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/

You will like this:
http://www.oocities.org/benwebb.geo/links.html

AMR

 

[bybee]

View attachment 18553

The thing is, often, "verses" like survey's, may be interpreted in more than one way.
I consider what a particular verse meant to me at the age of 15,20, 30,40,50 or in my 70's for me. Meaning has deepened, evolved and been honed over the years of study and prayer.
Often, another person's input will change or enhance what I believe.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Actually most get it, Jerry.

Actually, you are clueless.

 

[intojoy]

The thing is, often, "verses" like survey's, may be interpreted in more than one way.

I consider what a particular verse meant to me at the age of 15,20, 30,40,50 or in my 70's for me. Meaning has deepened, evolved and been honed over the years of study and prayer.

Often, another person's input will change or enhance what I believe.

Disagreed. I have perfect understanding of the doctrines of the entire counsel of the word of God.
There is no portion of scripture I struggle with.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Actually, you are clueless.

The premillennial position holds that the second coming of Christ comes at the beginning of that millennial reign. The problem with this view is that the annihilation of death is not tied to the end of the millennial period per Scripture, but rather to the second coming of Christ.

We see in Revelation 19, the wedding supper of the Lamb is followed by a description of the second coming of Christ, in which the beast and his followers are all cast into the lake of fire. The destruction is total and complete per verses 19-21. Hence, chapter 20 is a recapitulation of chapter 19, not a temporally subsequent chapter.

The remainder of the NT bears out that the judgment occurs when Christ comes back the annihilation of all enemies, and the double resurrection (not first one group and then the next) occurs. Accordingly, the millennial reign happens before Christ’s second coming, not after. To account for these teachings, amillennialism and post-millennialism are the only reasonable viewpoints on the millennial kingdom.

AMR

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Accordingly, the millennial reign happens before Christ’s second coming, not after.

I am right! You are clueless.

The kingdom will not be near at hand until the Lord Jesus returns, and this evidence comes from the Lord Jesus Himself:

"And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (Lk.21:27-31).​

The Lord will not even sit upon His throne until He returns to earth:

" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).​

You have the Lord Jesus' reign happening before He returns to the earth despite all the evidence from the Scriptures which prove that you are wrong!

But when did you ever care about what the Scriptures say?

Never!

 

[intojoy]

Disagreed. I have perfect understanding of the doctrines of the entire counsel of the word of God.
There is no portion of scripture I struggle with.

Let me clarify this statement .
I don't presume to know everything. However, I do not doubt the teachings I've learned and I'm confident that I have kept with a literal approach and in that keeping I've not run into anything in the scriptures that I have open questions about. I'm sure some areas of the bible that God left out are debatable matters but I disagree with the spirit of bybee's comment that's presents the viewpoint of one that approaches the scriptures as a book that is beyond man's ability to understand fully and completely.

In my approach to studying the bible I understand God intended for us to be able to fully comprehend His written word. There is no reason to think that we would not be able to fully understand what is written.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

While He walked the earth the Lord Jesus was certainly aware of the prophecies which foretold of His death. In fact, He said the following about His impending death and burial:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt.12:40).​

Yet despite the prophecies concerning His sufferings and His own words concerning His death on the eve of the crucifixion we see Him praying to the Father in the following way:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

So we can see that with the Lord Jesus the necessity to be crucified arose, not because of an irrevocable prophecy of the past, but instead from the sovereign will of the Father.

The Lord Jesus did not think that it was impossible that He might be spared from the sufferings so He did not think the future was closed.

So we can know with absolute certainity that the future is open.

 

[journey]

Jerry,

You've used this same example multiple times. Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God. The man side of Jesus Christ didn't want to die a cruel and horrible death - the God side of Jesus Christ knew he would go to the Cross. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit also knew that Jesus Christ would go to the Cross to the exact hour.

The future is open/unknown for us because we don't know what God knows and we have FOREKNOWLEDGE of nothing. God has FOREKNOWLEDGE of all and Jesus Christ was/is God, so He knew with 100% certainty that He was going to the Cross.

 

[intojoy]

While He walked the earth the Lord Jesus was certainly aware of the prophecies which foretold of His death. In fact, He said the following about His impending death and burial:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt.12:40).​

Yet despite the prophecies concerning His sufferings and His own words concerning His death on the eve of the crucifixion we see Him praying to the Father in the following way:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

So we can see that with the Lord Jesus the necessity to be crucified arose, not because of an irrevocable prophecy of the past, but instead from the sovereign will of the Father.



The Lord Jesus did not think that it was impossible that He might be spared from the sufferings so He did not think the future was closed.



So we can know with absolute certainity that the future is open.

We know for certainty you will be judged for falsely teaching this

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You've used this same example multiple times. Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God. The man side of Jesus Christ didn't want to die a cruel and horrible death - the God side of Jesus Christ knew he would go to the Cross.

So we are supposed to believe that during the Lord Jesus' entire existence of which there was no beginning that He knew things were set in stone and He just forgot that?

I find that impossible to believe!

 

[intojoy]

So we are supposed to believe that during the Lord Jesus' entire existence of which there was no beginning that He knew things were set in stone and He just forgot that?



I find that impossible to believe!

Yeshua had to be taught the by the Father everything that He knew about the bible. He had to be taught this because He limited Himself by taking the form of a man.

 

[intojoy]

The Memra of God became flesh and dwelt among us. He became a man and grew up as a man with all of the limitation of a man except He could not sin as a man could sin and no man could take His life from Him, He had to give His life up on His own which He did.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yeshua had to be taught the by the Father everything that He knew about the bible.

Then if you are right we must believe that the Father forgot to tell Him that all things are set in stone.

Is that your argument?

 

[intojoy]

Then if you are right we must believe that the Father forgot to tell Him that all things are set in stone.



Is that your argument?

Why would God forget anything? Is that your view of God's omniscience? That He has Alzheimer's ?

Lol

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why would God forget anything? Is that your view of God's omniscience? That He has Alzheimer's ?

I said the following:

Then if you are right we must believe that the Father forgot to tell Him that all things are set in stone.

Is that your argument?​

If you are right then we must believe that the Father forgot to tell the Lord Jesus that things are set in stone.

 

[intojoy]

The reason that Yeshua was able to confound the teachers on His twelfth birthday was He was taught a twilight bible study in the wee hours of the mornings by His real Father as a youth. That knowledge according to Isaiah was taught to the Messiah.

From that passage we know for certain that within the humanity of the Son of God before He was glorified He had limited knowledge - Jerry my good man.

This is the explanation why Messiah said that only the Father knew the hour of His return.