Why the Constant Attack?

Biblewriter said:

If the promises referred to in this scripture were the only promises made to Abraham, you would have a point. But other promises were made to Abraham, and further promises were made to Isaac and Jacob. Then later, yet more promises were made to "the children (plural) of Israel," and after that, to Ephraim and to Judah. These promises must of a certainty be kept, or the God that made them either lied or lacked the power to keep them.

Click to expand...

So you are saying Paul was wrong when he interpreted all of the Old Testament promises you listed above as fulfilled in Christ.


God sent His Son, His one and only Son, to live a perfect sinless life and then be tortured to death for rotten sinners like us, so that we might have the gift of eternal life...


And you are saying this was not enough...


And you are saying He left some promises not finished at the Cross of Calvary...

Joh 19:30 After Jesus had taken the vinegar, he said, "It is finished!" Then he bowed his head and died.

.

Biblewriter said:

No, not at all. I am saying that YOU are wrong in interpreting what THE HOLY SPIRIT said through Paul to apply to ALL the promises made to Abraham. You are adding the word "all" to what the Holy Spirit said in Galatians 3:16. But there is no such word in the text.

Are you going to pretend that Genesis 15:13-16 was about Christ?

13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." Genesis 15:13-16

Again, are you going to pretend that Genesis 17:5-8 was about Christ?

5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Genesis 17:5-8

And it is a blatant lie to claim that all the promises of God were fulfilled at Calvary. They will indeed all be fulfilled because of Calvary. But God has made a great many promises that have, to this day, not been fulfilled.

Israel has NEVER had the borders promised in Ezekiel 47, and "all the house of Israel, all of it,: has NEVER been brought back to "the mountains of Israel," with "the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken."

These are only two of a very large number of promises that God has made, which remain to be fulfilled in the future. Your doctrine flatly denies that these promises are true.

Click to expand...

I will have to go with what He said...

He wrote the whole book.

After presenting a sermon, a young preacher asked Charles Spurgeon to evaluate his sermon on a number of points. As the young preacher went through the several points Spurgeon gave his approval. Near the end the young man asked if there was anything he left out. Spurgeon's answer was... "Christ". The young preacher stated that Christ was not in the text. Spurgeon told him that Christ was in every text and it was the preachers job to find it and point it out.

Pastor John Reisinger has compared the Bible to a 3 Act Play.

1. Someone is coming. (Old Testament)

2. Someone is here. (Gospels)

3. Someone is coming back. (Epistles)

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.



Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


On the matter of the land promise on this earth I will have to go with what Joshua said.

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.


On the matter of the eternal land promise I will have to go with the writer of Hebrews.


Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Some Dispensationalists have a habit of claiming that the Church is not found in the Old Testament.
They must have cut Jeremiah chapter 31, Acts chapter 2 and Hebrews out of their Bibles.


Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
.

Biblewriter said:

You can deny what the scriptures say, but you cannot change what they say.

Click to expand...

You would know.

You must deny or ignore the New Covenant promised to Jeremiah, spoken by Christ at the Last Supper, finished at the Cross, joined by 3,000 Israelites on the day of Pentecost and "now" in effect in the Book of Hebrews, in order to get your doctrine to work.

.

Biblewriter said:

You repeatedly display your almost total ignorance of the doctrine you are opposing. Our doctrine not only works with the New Covenant, but is based upon it.

Click to expand...

Then it seems quite strange that I have never heard a sermon on the topic of the New Covenant by a Dispensationalist.

Is it a "TOP SECRET" part of Dispensational Theology?

.

Biblewriter said:

This is typical of a mind blinded by a Satanic lie.

Click to expand...

Do you think the comment above conforms to the rules of this forum?


.

Biblewriter said:

I have noticed that the Dispensationalism sub-forum is filled with attacks and attackers, including everything from denouncing the dispensational interpretation of the scriptures to false allegations about the history of the doctrine. These have often included rules-breaking flames against both the doctrine and its alleged founders.

I do not see such attacks in the Covenant Theology sub-forum, although, as I rarely bother to read the threads there, I do not know that they never happen there.

But my question is, why this one-sided attack? Why do these people find it necessary to continually attack Dispensationalism?

Click to expand...

Well, they should lookout because I have arrived. If I got to hear from God directly, I will on a matter to see the answer.

I have noticed the attack on the founders of dispensationalism.

That attack is irrelevant, because it assumes tradition equates to sound doctrine. Implying if someone discovered the doctrine in the 1800's, it can't be from the Bible. But the problem with that is all protestants have abandonned that line of thinking already, by following in the steps of Calvin and Luther.

If a doctrine seemingly to arise in the 1800's is false because it was not taught previously from scripture, then so too is all deviations from "original faith"... which if we are to say is solely the religious order tradition handed from one generation to next, and not scripture, then it would be Eastern Orthodoxy.

But the problem with all such religion EO or Catholic, is that they themselves deviated from the doctrines handed to them. And all Christianity did with dispensationalism, was go back to original doctrines, which had been renounced by man's doctrines very early on.

The original founders of the church believed in Millennialism... so should we.

"During the first centuries after Christ, various forms of chiliasm (millennialism) were to be found in the Church, both East and West.[1] It was a decidedly majority view at that time, as admitted by Eusebius, himself an opponent of the doctrine [The History of the Church, Book 3:39]. Nevertheless, strong opposition later developed from some quarters, most notably from Augustine of Hippo. "- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Early_church

So there is the issue with saying our foundation for the belief is bad because it was a recent invention. The church deviated for a thousand years or more, and then returned to the doctrine when we began studying scripture profusely.

So the invention is ancient and goes back to the first generations of the church, but most of the organizations which exist today, are ultimately corrupted forms of that original belief. That corrupted belief occurred early, and so it seems to have stayed congruent for a long period, but that is irrelevant if it disagrees with the teachings of the Jewish Apostles or the Gentile Apostle Paul.

And the reason the early church held this view of Millennialism, is because that is what they originally heard when the first ministers were sent out to spread the word. Then later came rigid organizations dictating doctrines instead of faith.

----------------

Also of note:

Millennialism was taught by various earlier writers such as Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea in a form now called premillennialism.[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Early_church

The Apostle Paul was the first to preach Dispensationalism. How many times did he use the word Dispensation?

Razare said:

Well, they should lookout because I have arrived. If I got to hear from God directly, I will on a matter to see the answer.

I have noticed the attack on the founders of dispensationalism.

That attack is irrelevant, because it assumes tradition equates to sound doctrine. Implying if someone discovered the doctrine in the 1800's, it can't be from the Bible. But the problem with that is all protestants have abandonned that line of thinking already, by following in the steps of Calvin and Luther.

If a doctrine seemingly to arise in the 1800's is false because it was not taught previously from scripture, then so too is all deviations from "original faith"... which if we are to say is solely the religious order tradition handed from one generation to next, and not scripture, then it would be Eastern Orthodoxy.

But the problem with all such religion EO or Catholic, is that they themselves deviated from the doctrines handed to them. And all Christianity did with dispensationalism, was go back to original doctrines, which had been renounced by man's doctrines very early on.

The original founders of the church believed in Millennialism... so should we.

"During the first centuries after Christ, various forms of chiliasm (millennialism) were to be found in the Church, both East and West.[1] It was a decidedly majority view at that time, as admitted by Eusebius, himself an opponent of the doctrine [The History of the Church, Book 3:39]. Nevertheless, strong opposition later developed from some quarters, most notably from Augustine of Hippo. "- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Early_church

So there is the issue with saying our foundation for the belief is bad because it was a recent invention. The church deviated for a thousand years or more, and then returned to the doctrine when we began studying scripture profusely.

So the invention is ancient and goes back to the first generations of the church, but most of the organizations which exist today, are ultimately corrupted forms of that original belief. That corrupted belief occurred early, and so it seems to have stayed congruent for a long period, but that is irrelevant if it disagrees with the teachings of the Jewish Apostles or the Gentile Apostle Paul.

And the reason the early church held this view of Millennialism, is because that is what they originally heard when the first ministers were sent out to spread the word. Then later came rigid organizations dictating doctrines instead of faith.

----------------

Also of note:

Millennialism was taught by various earlier writers such as Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea in a form now called premillennialism.[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Early_church

Click to expand...

Charles Spurgeon would agree with your view of the millennium.

However, he was completely opposed to the doctrine of John Nelson Darby.

A future time when people will come to salvation outside of the New Covenant Church is not found in the New Testament.

The New Covenant Dispensation began at Calvary and is "everlasting" based on Hebrews 8:6-13, Hebrews 12:24 and Hebrews 13:20.

It is still found at Revelation 12:11. A person cannot be under the Blood of the Lamb and not be under the Grace of the New Covenant.


Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

.

Biblewriter said:

This statement is typical of the willful deception being continually attempted by this poster. He is relying upon the technical definition of the word "church," as understood by Dispensationalists, as an excuse to pretend that they are denying essential Christian doctrine.

This poster is well aware that Dispensationalists teach, and not only teach, but insist, that all future believers will be saved under the New Covenant. That is whay he ALWAYS adds the weasel word "Church," whenever he makes this accusation.

For Dispensationalists define the word "church" to mean only those believers that turn to Christ after the time of the cross and before the time of the rapture. So he capitalizes on this fine point of Dispensational doctrine to make it seem that they teach that future people will be saved outside of the New Covenant.

As we have repeatedly corrected him on this point, we justly charge him with willful deception in repeatedly posting this charge.

Click to expand...

Are animal blood sacrifices for atonement part of the New Covenant? I say no, but Dispensational teacher Tom Ice says.....
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-WhySacrificesinTheMi.pdf

My view on this is that of Michael Blume.
::: THE HERESY OF LITERAL ANIMAL SACRIFICES IN A MILLENNIUM :::

Biblewriter said:

So some think the constant attack is justified by the fact that they imagine that we Dispensationalists teach serious false doctrine. But this does not justify their bad behavior.

Click to expand...

True. And true.

I have found the best way to counter covenant or replacement theology adherents is to have them prove their case not only from the NT, but also from the OT. The Bereans only had the OT, and they searched the scriptures daily to confirm what Paul was teaching them. And they were commended for doing so.

The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Both together follow the Mosaic Law principle of legal decisions... that any issue must be confirmed by the testimony of at least two witnesses. We have those two witnesses with the OT and the NT. Any position should be confirmed in both. We are commanded to use the entirety of scripture, not just one the NT.

Israel has never possessed all the land that was promised. That has yet to be fulfilled. Solomon came the closest. The land promised to Abraham goes from the Nile to the Euphrates, and it has been promised that the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would one day possess all of it. That is a physical covenant that has nothing to do with the Church, which is a spiritual distinction.

I am a businessman. I find it rather goofy for one to concern themselves with assuming physical covenants made with Israel when the believer has a better covenant in the Messiah. Jesus said He was going to prepare a place for those that trust in Him, and He would return to gather the believers together to be where He is. and I look more favorably on that as opposed to claiming a patch of dirt in the Middle East.

John 14:1-3 (NKJV) 1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

That sure sounds a lot better than proclaiming that the Church is now Israel and has assumed the covenants made with Israel in the OT. Those that think that way, by all means, stick around here if that trips your trigger. I am looking forward to a much better deal. But again, I am a businessman and concentrate on the best deals. And the deal that Jesus made in those verses is one killer deal!

Biblewriter said:

I have noticed that the Dispensationalism sub-forum is filled with attacks and attackers, including everything from denouncing the dispensational interpretation of the scriptures to false allegations about the history of the doctrine. These have often included rules-breaking flames against both the doctrine and its alleged founders.

I do not see such attacks in the Covenant Theology sub-forum, although, as I rarely bother to read the threads there, I do not know that they never happen there.

But my question is, why this one-sided attack? Why do these people find it necessary to continually attack Dispensationalism?

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind what one of the greatest minds said, who was also a prolific commentator on scripture and eschatology. I am privileged to be in like company:

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies of the Bible and insist on a literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition"
- Sir Isaac Newton

Oh... and as a side note, Newton was in the camp well over one century before Darby was. Oh boy, that sure shoots those ideas out the water.

Copperhead said:

I have found the best way to counter covenant or replacement theology adherents is to have them prove their case not only from the NT, but also from the OT. The Bereans only had the OT, and they searched the scriptures daily to confirm what Paul was teaching them. And they were commended for doing so.

Click to expand...

"Replacement Theology" replaces the One Seed, with the many seeds in Galatians 3:16.

Jer 31:31　 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:　
Jer 31:32　 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:　
Jer 31:33　 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.　
Jer 31:34　 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.　


Heb 8:6　 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.　
Heb 8:7　 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.　
Heb 8:8　 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:　
Heb 8:9　 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.　
Heb 8:10　 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:　
Heb 8:11　 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.　
Heb 8:12　 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.　
Heb 8:13　 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.　


Mat 26:28　 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.　


Heb 12:22　 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,　
Heb 12:23　 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,　
Heb 12:24　 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.　



Mat 1:1　 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.　



Gal 3:16　 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.　



Rom 9:8　 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.　


Mat 21:42　 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. THIS WAS THE LORD'S DOING, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES' ?　
Mat 21:43　 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
　

Pe 2:4　 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,　
1Pe 2:5　 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.　
1Pe 2:6　 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHIEF CORNERSTONE, ELECT, PRECIOUS, AND HE WHO BELIEVES ON HIM WILL BY NO MEANS BE PUT TO SHAME."　
1Pe 2:7　 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE,"　
1Pe 2:8　 and "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.　
1Pe 2:9　 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;　
1Pe 2:10　 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.　

.