The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

[His student]

I get tunnel vision but I always go back to re-examine because I know I am not an island to myself.

Me too.

I've been a Christian for some 62 years now and a bit of a theologian for some 4+ decades and I am still in the habit of reexamining my beliefs from time to time.

All too often I have found that even one of my strongly held beliefs has been either wrong or has not been achieved through a really thorough examining of other ways of seeing things.

Certainly that is true concerning eschatology. (But it's hardly been limited to that area.)

 

[His student]

Notice what the post (my post) you are referring to says .
Does it look to you as if it is a rebuttal ?

Yes, without doubt - it appears to be a rebuttal to what you thought I was saying about not witnessing for Christ and the gospel.

You even gave a quotation from my post first so as to allow for no mistake about what statement that I made you were rebutting.

All of the scriptures in your post have to do with openly witnessing for Christ and spreading the gospel to the world (and are not addressed to the context of some folks falsely telling people what others supposedly believe in order to misrepresent those beliefs, i.e. creating straw men).

Thus it is obvious that you thought I had been referring in my previous post to not witnessing for Christ rather than lying about or misrepresenting the beliefs of others as the context clearly showed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, without doubt - it appears to be a rebuttal to what you thought I was saying about not witnessing for Christ and the gospel.

oops, without a "doubt" is wrong, and the rest must be wrong too, eh?

It was not at all a rebuttal,

but simply what God Says about "telling others", simple.

 

[His student]

oops, without a "doubt" is wrong, and the rest must be wrong too, eh?
It was not at all a rebuttal,
but simply what God Says about "telling others", simple.

OK- if you say so. I won't argue with you about it.

If you wanted to just tell folks that they should witness for Christ and not be ashamed then you should have just gone ahead and done so. That's a good thing.

But then you shouldn't have referred to my statement as a heading and the particular statement you were addressing in your post.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE= ]OK- if you say so. I won't argue with you about it.

If you wanted to just tell folks that they should witness for Christ and not be ashamed then you should have just gone ahead and done so. That's a good thing.

But then you shouldn't have referred to my statement as a heading and the particular statement you were addressing in your post.[/QUOTE
=====================================
Why?

 

[jerry kelso]

Me too.

I've been a Christian for some 62 years now and a bit of a theologian for some 4+ decades and I am still in the habit of reexamining my beliefs from time to time.

All too often I have found that even one of my strongly held beliefs has been either wrong or has not been achieved through a really thorough examining of other ways of seeing things.

Certainly that is true concerning eschatology. (But it's hardly been limited to that area.)

hisstudent,

1. Well, one thing I’ve learned is the variables in life.
When we’re younger many times we are real sure we are so right though we lack experience and look back and find we didn’t have It alright like we thought.
The older we get we can be stuck in the rut by being set in our ways which can run the risk of tunnel vision.
In the middle of those years we might feel like we are right and try to win a debate at any cost.
Of course this is not always the case with rightly dividing the word because of consecration to Christ and studying and prayer you can be spiritually mature at most any age.

2. Doctrine wise about salvation and the Lord’s coming back whether pre, mid or post and basics of grace and mercy and love most of the church would agree on among other things.

3. Eschatology is sort of subjective in the fact that certain things would not hinder salvation.
In the overall scene of interpretation of eschatology one can divulge one’s hermeneutical view concerning rightly dividing the word and what theological view they hold.
Also, depending on the hermeneutical view can divulge multiple views of a passage.

4. After 50 years of being a Christian and as much as I have learned I realize how much I don’t know.
I think I have a better and clearer way to word it now as long as I don’t get in a rush or my neurotransmitters are working properly LoL! God bless everyone in the search for God’s truth. Food for thought. Jerry Kelso

 

[His student]

Why?

I've never had any problem with your attitude toward me in the past. You've misunderstood a few things. But your attitude has been good.

That all seems to have changed. You are being argumentative and frankly I don't have the time to deal with it or at least I won't continue to do so.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've never had any problem with your attitude toward me in the past. You've misunderstood a few things. But your attitude has been good.

That all seems to have changed. You are being argumentative and frankly I don't have the time to deal with it or at least I won't continue to do so.

You made this a mountain - I did not. I don't know why you even made an issue of it at all.
And then, although it could well be resolved peaceably, you
took umbrage (or ? ) , even though there was nothing at all against you in "telling others" as the topic/ posts/ and so on.
i.e. you assumed something not in evidence, and I don't know why.

 

[His student]

you assumed something not in evidence, and I don't know why.

I've explained why in great detail. Go back to the first post in question and, as I suggest, read it more carefully.

If that doesn't help you see why I corrected you then I can't help you more on that.

Any "umbrage" only came as you doubled down on your mistake rather than own it.

That will be my last word on the subject.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE=]I've explained why in great detail. Go back to the first post in question and, as I suggest, read it more carefully.
If that doesn't help you see why I corrected you then I can't help you more on that.
Any "umbrage" only came as you doubled down on your mistake rather than own it.
That will be my last word on the subject.[/QUOTE]
========================================
Starting with assuming something false, you then proceeded to build on that assumption , totally without foundation.

You did not show that I made any mistake at all, and you did not correct any mistake - you just assumed something, a false premise, and went on and on from there "EXPLAINED IN GREAT DETAIL" for no reason at all - there was nothing at all to it.'
THUS "a mountain" (out of nothing/ "a mole hill") ...
There was no "word on the subject" to start with - all empty air because of the false starting premise/ false assumption you started with (and from what you posted (of past experience with me/ no problems) in a later post you should have known better).

 

[Dale]

dale,

1.
a). Parenthesis doesn’t have nothing to do with a plan b in redemption of the cross for redemption came in despite the Jewish nation rejecting Christ.
Genesis 3:15 was the first Messianic prophecy about redemption at Calvary.
b). Parenthesis has nothing to do with God having to think of another plan because of Israel’s failure to receive the Messiah.
The church was predestined before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:3.
Israel was only prophesied to reject the Messiah Isaiah 53:3; and was confirmed by the forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist John 1:11.
c). Parenthesis has nothing to do with God changing his mind about the end of the world.
In the Garden of Eden Adam was given rule over the physical garden and had the spiritual rule of God in his heart for he was sinless.
Eve was tempted by the serpent who Satan used to work through though Adam was given the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before Eve came to be Genesis 2:17.
Adam was there with Eve when she was tempted Genesis 3:6.
God gave the judgement on the serpent, woman and man Genesis 3:14-19.
Genesis 3:22-24 shows they had to be kicked out of the garden so they wouldn’t eat of the tree of life and live eternally in sin without a chance to be saved.
So the physical and spiritual rule had to be restored.
The Jewish nation was chosen of God to bring forth the Messiah through Abraham Genesis 12:1-3; Isaac Genesis 17:19; Jacob Genesis 28:1-4.
Israel did bring the Messiah in Matthew 1; Galatians 4:4.

2. Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost Luke 19:10.
The Kingdom of Heaven physical earth Matthew 4:17 and the spiritual Kingdom of God Matthew 6:33 Luke 17:20-21 had to be restored.

3. Jesus taught this message to the Jewish nation in line with the prophecies concerning the eternal covenants of Abraham Genesis 12:1-3-15 and David 2 Samuel 7:13-16; 1 Chronicles 28:1-8. These are eternally unconditional as will come to pass but conditional to repentance which they will do in the future Romans 11-25-29.

4. The spiritual kingdom was restored at Calvary Matthew 26:28.
The physical kingdom of creation is still groaning Romans 8:22 and will not be restored until the millennial kingdom when the kingdoms of this world have become the Lord’s Revelation 11:15.

5. The KoH physical offer was bonefide because Jesus offered it Matthew 4:17 and the KoG spiritual was the way for them to gain entrance into it.
This is Israel’s earthly calling concerning their position in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth Isaiah 2:2-4;9:6-7; Ezekiel 37:16-28 etc.
Jacob’s trouble Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21; Revelation 12 etc. is about and separate from the church’s heavenly calling which is earthly 2 Timothy 2:12 and Heavenly Colossians 1:16 universal rule.
As far as what would have happened if Israel would have accepted the offer as a nation is neither here more there because it was only prophesied Israel would reject Christ Isaiah 53:3; and confirmed by John; John 1:18.
Matthew 21:43 shows that the KoG spiritual would be given to another nation who would bring forth the fruits which would be the church Romans’ 11:11. They fell and we are to provoke them to jealousy so they will come back to Christ.

6. I don’t know what you mean by a two tier scheme of salvation.
There is only one New Covenant concerning redemption which Matthew 26:28 calls the New Testament in his blood and New Covenant in Hebrews 8:6-7.
It was originally made with Israel first Jeremiah 31:31-34 because there was no New Testament church then.
It was rejected by Israel Matthew 23:37-39 in Jesus ministry.
The mystery of the church was ratified at Calvary Ephesians 2:14-15 though not fully manifested till Acts 10 when Peter was given the vision of the clean and unclean and more fully in Paul’s ministry to the gentiles Ephesians 3:1-6.

7. Israel as a nation is backslidden and will not be fully saved until the time of the gentiles be come in Romans 11:25.
Jacob’s name was changed to Israel Genesis 32:28; and his twelve sons were named the tribes of Israel and Jacob told them what would befall them in the last days Genesis 49:1-28. Ezekiel 37 :16-28 shows how Israel and Judah will become one stick with David as their king.

8. So, no matter what you think Chafer said or meant or didn’t like his usage of words you highly miss the overall context of the subject according to the truth of the scriptures. Jerry Kelso

Jerry Kelso: << Adam was there with Eve when she was tempted Genesis 3:6.
God gave the judgement on the serpent, woman and man Genesis 3:14-19.
Genesis 3:22-24 shows they had to be kicked out of the garden so they wouldn’t eat of the tree of life and live eternally in sin without a chance to be saved. >>


Do you have to be a Creationist to be a Dispensationalist?

 

[jerry kelso]

Jerry Kelso: << Adam was there with Eve when she was tempted Genesis 3:6.
God gave the judgement on the serpent, woman and man Genesis 3:14-19.
Genesis 3:22-24 shows they had to be kicked out of the garden so they wouldn’t eat of the tree of life and live eternally in sin without a chance to be saved. >>


Do you have to be a Creationist to be a Dispensationalist?

dale,

1. I don’t know any dispensationalists
personally that doesn’t believe in creationism unless they believe in allegorical interpretation which would go against the hermeneutical rule of literal as possible in order to be consistent and realistic in accordance with reality of history, not like the spiritual school which is more like a spiritual truth and leave the literal happening of man out.

2. If you’d like to share with me your reasoning on this question would be helpful. Thanks Jerry Kelso

 

[Guojing]

This is poor exegesis. This statement was made before the old law had become obsolete. Jesus kept all of the Jewish law and commanded that it be kept while it was still in effect. Paul explains, after the resurrection obviously, that going back to the law to keep even one commandment, circumcision being discussed, cursed a person to keep the whole law. And how can you keep that law when the ultimate sacrifice for sins has already occurred, making any animal sacrifice, the atonement of sin under that covenant, ineffective?

Its also poor exegesis to "anticipate revelation". Stop bringing in Paul when Paul's revelation did not exist in Matthew.

My original question to you was in an earlier post. Have you addressed it?

You have to ask yourself a simple question, "If the Law of Moses was indeed no longer required immediately after the death burial and resurrection of Jesus, why didn't Jesus tell his disciples that?"

Instead he commanded them to teach others to "obey everything he had commanded them to do", which in the context of Matthew, Jesus enforced the Law of Moses and even amplified it.

My point is that the Jews still had a one year extension to accept him as their Messiah, aka the Gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus prophesied it in Luke 13:6-9.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Its also poor exegesis to "anticipate revelation". Stop bringing in Paul when Paul's revelation did not exist in Matthew.

"Stop bringing in the scriptures!"

"If the Law of Moses was indeed no longer required immediately after the death burial and resurrection of Jesus, why didn't Jesus tell his disciples that?"

He did. "It is finished." He also said, in Matthew, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Well before Paul wrote about the doing away of the old law, Jesus himself told his apostles that his death would usher in a new covenant.

Instead he commanded them to teach others to "obey everything he had commanded them to do", which in the context of Matthew, Jesus enforced the Law of Moses and even amplified it.

While the law was still in effect, Jesus obeyed the law and taught people to keep it. He did away with that law through his sacrifice. The things he commanded his apostles to do was the New Covenant he was about to die for in order to bring about. His commands to them regarding this New Covenant were taught them over 3 years and Luke does not specify every command. But we know repentance, baptism and the Lord's supper were specific commands mentioned in the gospels as having to do with this new covenant. Acts and the epistles clarify all that Jesus taught, first named "the apostle's doctrine" in Acts 2.

Paul spent three years learning the facts:

Galatians 1:15

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

My point is that the Jews still had a one year extension to accept him as their Messiah, aka the Gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus prophesied it in Luke 13:6-9.

They had years to accept him. That didn't make the law that they obeyed of any merit or effect however. Jesus declared it obsolete on the cross.

 

[Guojing]

"Stop bringing in the scriptures!"



He did. "It is finished." He also said, in Matthew, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Well before Paul wrote about the doing away of the old law, Jesus himself told his apostles that his death would usher in a new covenant.




While the law was still in effect, Jesus obeyed the law and taught people to keep it. He did away with that law through his sacrifice. The things he commanded his apostles to do was the New Covenant he was about to die for in order to bring about. His commands to them regarding this New Covenant were taught them over 3 years and Luke does not specify every command. But we know repentance, baptism and the Lord's supper were specific commands mentioned in the gospels as having to do with this new covenant. Acts and the epistles clarify all that Jesus taught, first named "the apostle's doctrine" in Acts 2.

Paul spent three years learning the facts:

Galatians 1:15




They had years to accept him. That didn't make the law that they obeyed of any merit or effect however. Jesus declared it obsolete on the cross.

So you don't agree that the Gospel of the Kingdom was still valid for one year after he was crucified on the cross, as explained in Luke 13:6-9?

Okay we will leave it as that.

By the way, Peter obviously understood Jesus different from you, his words in Acts 10 will make no sense he "knew" in Matthew 28 that the Law of Moses was done away at the cross.

But if you are going to anticipate revelation you can make it say anything you want.

 

[Al Touthentop]

So you don't agree that the Gospel of the Kingdom was still valid for one year after he was crucified on the cross, as explained in Luke 13:6-9?

Okay we will leave it as that.

That parable says absolutely nothing about a one year time limit. Jews even today could accept the gospel. Nowhere is there a time limit placed on God's grace and Paul himself says he wished (some 10 years after this alleged time limit would have expired) that the Jews would obey the gospel. Now, if they died not having obeyed the gospel, the time was up.

 

[Guojing]

That parable says absolutely nothing about a one year time limit. Jews even today could accept the gospel. Nowhere is there a time limit placed on God's grace and Paul himself says he wished (some 10 years after this alleged time limit would have expired) that the Jews would obey the gospel. Now, if they died not having obeyed the gospel, the time was up.

I said the Gospel of the Kingdom, which expired after 1 year, not the gospel of grace.

Don't lump them together.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I said the Gospel of the Kingdom, which expired after 1 year, not the gospel of grace.

Don't lump them together.

The gospel of the kingdom is the gospel Jesus preached. It had no time limit. You can obey the gospel today.

 

[Guojing]

The gospel of the kingdom is the gospel Jesus preached. It had no time limit. You can obey the gospel today.

I can understand better why you are able to freely lumped Paul's revelations together with what Peter and the others "knew" during Matthew-Acts.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I

I can understand better why you are able to freely lumped Paul's revelations together with what Peter and the others "knew" during Matthew-Acts.

We know for certain that the apostles didn't know the whole story until after Jesus was resurrected. It wasn't until he "opened their hearts to the scriptures" that they understood and even after that, there was more to learn.

They were confused even on the night of his murder. And he told them that what they were not yet ready to understand would be delivered to them by the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13

I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you.…

Then we read of Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost when the apostles "received power" as Jesus had promised them. Peter explains that Jesus' kingdom was spiritual rather than earthly. Otherwise, he'd be sitting on a throne in Jerusalem.

Acts 2:34

“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

He was now sitting on God's throne. King of the heavenly realm - the kingdom of God.

That was the first sermon preached. Paul did not preach a different gospel. Ever.