A Dispensational Dilemma!

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

All that aside, It seems you didn't really read what I said . . . I referred back to when the claim that the Abrahamic Covenant was UNconditional was first raised by Dispenationalists in post #26 on the 6th of October . . not the 11th . .

Any statement I have made since then about the Abrahamic Covenant being conditional is in response to this claim made by Scofield and dispneationalists in this tthread . .

I don't have to prove it, though I have given ample evidence to show that it is indeed conditional.

False.

The mention of Abarhami Covenant as unconditional or not was in the OP on October 2nd.

A Dispensational Dilemma!

Did God give Israel the land He promised them? Scofield didn't think so, and with his lack of faith the foundation of dispensationalism is built:

Scofield: "It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land."

Scripture: "So Joshua took the whole land" (Joshua 11:23).

Scripture: "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein" (Joshua 21:43-45).

Who should we believe?

James

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/BibleTo...boutTheLand.htm

As this OP criticized the belief that it is unconditional, it is up to the him and those that agree with him, to support their view.
I don't see where it was supported. In contrast, despite your claims to the contrary, dispensationism has made it's case.

Frankly, you are just blowing smoke with this.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Since even the OP is being misconstrued and taken out of context in an attempt to support the contention that dispensationalists do not have to prove their doctrines in order to be accepted by others as true (a very illogical claim to make in any case!), I think it is important to look at the OP again and see exactly waht the OP contested out of the quote presetend from Scofield and what he did not:

Did God give Israel the land He promised them? Scofield didn't think so, and with his lack of faith the foundation of dispensationalism is built:


Scofield: "It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land."

Scripture: "So Joshua took the whole land" (Joshua 11:23).

Scripture: "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein" (Joshua 21:43-45).

Who should we believe?

James


​

The concern of the OP is obviously whether or not the land was possessed or not . ..


The OP never touched on the UNconditional claim of Scofield, just on the part of Scofiled's claim that they did not possess the land ..


Again, the first time the unconditonal aspect was brought up was in post #26 by a Dispensationalist as a fundamental argument and proposed as fact in support of Scofields words in the quote. . .


So, on both front's it is up to dispenationalists to prove their claims . .

1) that it is always the responsibility of one making the postive claim to prove it . . and this is a dispenationalist forum, and so, since dispensationalism is being promoted here, it is incumbant upon dispensationalists to prove the validity of their claims when challanged


2) The issue was first raised by a dispenationalist as foundational as a positvie claim (the OP had ignored that aspect of Scofield's quote), so again, the burden of proof rests with the dispensationalists.

​

One has to wonder why some dispensationalists are trying so hard to shift this burden of proof off of themselves . . . especially if they are able to prove what they claim as fact . . .


The logical deduction is because it is too hard to prove, and it is easier to try to shift the burden to other side . . which is not going to work here, and whch I will not accept.


The burden of proof rests with those who defend dispenastionalism and claim its foundational beliefs are factual and true.


When those defending dispensationalism are ready to supply the concrete and solid proof to support such claims of fact, then we can talk further. . .


Until then, all we see are theories and speculations as the foundations of dispenationalism, nothing more . . Apparently some are comfortable with basing a belief system on something that lacks solid proof, rathere on theories and speculations, as elaborate as they can become . . . And if some are, then that is up to them. However, if one is going to present beliefs based on theories and specuation as fact, then one better be prepared to defend against challanges to such claims of "fact".

Personally, I want my beliefs to rest on solid rock



Peace to all!

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Did God give Israel the land He promised them? Scofield didn't think so, and with his lack of faith the foundation of dispensationalism is built:

Scofield: "It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land."

Gen 15:18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river euphrates:19 futher explaination

This has never happened

Scripture: "So Joshua took the whole land" (Joshua 11:23).

said promised to moses in content

Scripture: "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein" (Joshua 21:43-45).

joshau only goes to josh 21:1-24??????

Who should we believe?

????

​

Personally, I want my beliefs to rest on solid rock



Peace to all!

I surely hope so....

 

[thereselittleflower]

I surely hope so....

Hi ABIC

I don't understand your quoting in your post above .. It appears to be quoting my post, yet it is not what I posted.

You have edited my post with your comments, yet included it as if your comments are mine . .

Can you edit your post so that your own comments do not appear as though you are quoting someone else?

Otherwise your post makes no sense and it appears you are quoting me out of context. . .. I think you added "quote" codes when you should have closed quotes.


Thanks.


Peace to all!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Since even the OP is being misconstrued and taken out of context in an attempt to support the contention that dispensationalists do not have to prove their doctrines in order to be accepted by others as true (a very illogical claim to make in any case!), I think it is important to look at the OP again and see exactly waht the OP contested out of the quote presetend from Scofield and what he did not:

Did God give Israel the land He promised them? Scofield didn't think so, and with his lack of faith the foundation of dispensationalism is built:


Scofield: "It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land."

Scripture: "So Joshua took the whole land" (Joshua 11:23).

Scripture: "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein" (Joshua 21:43-45).

Who should we believe?

James

​

The concern of the OP is obviously whether or not the land was possessed or not . ..


The OP never touched on the UNconditional claim of Scofield, just on the part of Scofiled's claim that they did not possess the land ..

You left out the link.

The position of Dispensationism has been supported in this thread. Your continued claims that they were not is just your opinion.

And this:
"that dispensationalists do not have to prove their doctrines in order to be accepted by others as true"
is just more smoke and a misrepresentation of what has been said in this thread, as @@Paul@@, et al. have spent a great deal of time discussing it.
One thing I AM saying is that it is NONdispensationists (YOU and the OP) who are trying to put dispensationism on "trial" (YOUR word), and thus have placed YOURSELF as a prosecutor. IT IS YOUR job to prove your case. Comments about platypus, swiss cheese, socalled "direct hits" (wow - that is scholarly ), suggestions of rule breaking ..those things are unimpressive.

Nor have you proved your case. Instead you provide rather silly arguements like this:
"There isnopromise by God that they would ever fully OCCUPY it! I have never found one."

That is an argument that comes off as desperate. God said:
Gen 17:7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Gen 17:8 "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

The Hebrew word for "possession" is achuzzah and means possession, property, occupation, tenure. It is a legal term referring to family holdings, as in an inheritance.

I slightly disagree with @@Paul@@ in that Abraham did make the downpayment for the land by buying a cave for a tomb for himself and Sarah. (Gen. 23:4, 9) . And God made clear that his heir was Issac.

As far as the Abrahamic covenant being unconditional, I will quote this from a dispensationist site:

http://www.dispensationalism.com/
There are two types of covenants: Conditional and Unconditional.

As Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost has observed, within these five specific covenants, there are two types: conditional and unconditional (Ibid, p. 68). A conditional covenant is one in which God has required the people to fulfill certain obligations before He fulfills His promise(s). A key phrase/formula to look for would be one such as "IF you do this...THEN I'll do this" (eg., Exodus 19:5). You could say conditional covenants are "IF Covenants." Conditional covenants are also temporary. They deal with a specific people and duration of time. It is important to note that if a conditional covenant is broken, that is if the receiving party breaks one of the obligations, the covenant itself is broken and the promises do not necessarily have to be fulfilled.

The Mosaic Covenant exemplifies a conditional covenant. Read for yourself; throughout the covenant God made with Moses (Exodus to Deuteronomy) you will repeatedly come across conditional phrases like "IF/THEN" and "WHEN/THEN." It was a temporary contract that detailed God's laws for the nation of Israel, and it was to only continue until the coming of the Promised Seed, i.e., Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). As such, it is not determinative for the endtimes.

The remaining four covenants (Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New) are unconditional covenants. More on them in a moment. An unconditional covenant is one in which God does not attach any "IFs" for it to be fulfilled. It is a promise God makes that is not dependent upon the merit of the receiver. A key phrase/formula to watch for is "I WILL... ." This is an important statement. In Hebrew, this phrase appears in the imperfect tense. This means the speaker (in our case, God) is referring to a future action he will certainly complete. As such, an unconditional covenant is eternal, an agreement God promises to eventually yet certainly fulfill regardless of the receiver's actions. Please note that disobedience on the part of the receiver may postpone the full realization of God's promise, but it is a covenant that nonetheless will be fulfilled, based solely on the merit of God's perfect faithfulness (an example of this is found in relation to the Palestinian Covenant, in that while the nation Israel was reborn in 1948, her heart of unfaithfulness to the Messiah prevents her from occupying all the land God promised her. For further details, refer to "The Palestinian Covenant" section of this article). It is this type of covenant that we are concerned with, for an unconditional covenant is eternal, and therefore determines our eschatology.



Evidence for the unconditionality of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants.

As the Mosaic Covenant was shown to be a conditional, temporary covenant, it can be established that the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants are indeed unconditional, eternal covenants. Remember, an unconditional covenant employs the "I WILL..." formula spoken by God, and is eternal. Notice these elements in the following covenants (John F. Walvoord, "Millenial Series," Bibliotheca Sacra, 109:38-40, October 1951; and C. H. Lincoln, The Covenants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX, 1938:29, 181):

Abrahamic Covenant: uses/implies the "I WILL..." formula seven times in Genesis 12:1-3, and is called "eternal" in Genesis 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chronicles 16:17; and Psalm 105:10.

Palestinian Covenant: uses/implies the "I WILL..." formula twelve times in Deuteronomy 30:1-10, and is called "eternal" in Ezekiel 16:60.

Davidic Covenant: uses the "I WILL..." formula seven times in 2 Samuel 7:10-16, and is called "eternal" in 2 Samuel 7:13, 16, 19, and 23:5; 1 Chronicles 17:12 and 22:10; Isaiah 55:3; and Ezekiel 37:25.

New Covenant: uses the "I WILL..." formula seven times in Jeremiah 31:31-40, and is called "eternal" in Isaiah 24:5 and 61:8; Jeremiah 32:40 and 50:5; and in Hebrews 13:20.

You may disagree witht he above, and I expect you will make a "but it is from a dispensationist and not a nondispendationist, so it is biased" type of complaint, but as others in this thread have discussed the unconditional covenant and supported their view, your continued complaints are getting silly.

Again, the first time the unconditonal aspect was brought up was in post #26 by a Dispensationalist as a fundamental argument and proposed as fact in support of Scofields words in the quote. . .

No, it was mentioned in the OP and in the link attached, which questioned the that it was the land that was promised to Abraham:

" Abraham didn't want the physical land of Canaan (Hebrews 11:10, 14-16). He wanted heaven. Who would want a piece of inferior ground just to grow old and die? God promised him heaven and eternal life. He looked for a city with real foundations - built by God, not some temporal city of Canaan. He desired a far better country than Canaan: he desired a heavenly country and the heavenly Jerusalem - even Mount Zion, where his Friend God dwelt (Hebrews 12:22-23)."

Interestingly, it appears that the nondispensationist writer of the link article doesn't disagree that the covenant is unconditional...

So, on both front's it is up to dispenationalists to prove their claims . .

1) that it is always the responsibility of one making the postive claim to prove it . . and this is a dispenationalist forum, and so, since dispensationalism is being promoted here, it is incumbant upon dispensationalists to prove the validity of their claims when challanged​

​

LOL!!!! Now you are creating rules to support yourself.

In court of law, tlf, it is the prosecuters to prove their case. YOU have put the issue on trial - and failed to prove your case. The defense DID provide support for thier position - you just don't like it.

2) The issue was first raised by a dispenationalist as foundational as a positvie claim (the OP had ignored that aspect of Scofield's quote), so again, the burden of proof rests with the dispensationalists.

Your own rule again. I notice that Uzziah (post #26) discussed it and you didn't address for many pages. And your comments seem changeable - as already pointed out.

One has to wonder why some dispensationalists are trying so hard to shift this burden of proof off of themselves . . . especially if they are able to prove what they claim as fact . . .

One has to wonder why a person demands that others answer her questions and argues her points, but fails to answer questions and points herself.

The logical deduction is because it is too hard to prove, and it is easier to try to shift the burden to other side . . which is not going to work here, and whch I will not accept.

And this is the type of grandiose statement that I expected. So if you disagree with a person and deny their arguements , you make assumptions??? Sad....and not wise.

The burden of proof rests with those who defend dispenastionalism and claim its foundational beliefs are factual and true.
When those defending dispensationalism are ready to supply the concrete and solid proof to support such claims of fact, then we can talk further. . .
Until then, all we see are theories and speculations as the foundations of dispenationalism, nothing more . . Apparently some are comfortable with basing a belief system on something that lacks solid proof, rathere on theories and speculations, as elaborate as they can become . . . And if some are, then that is up to them. However, if one is going to present beliefs based on theories and specuation as fact, then one better be prepared to defend against challanges to such claims of "fact".

More assumptions, and insinuation and repeating yourself over and over. Appears that as YOU can't prove your points, you have lowered yourself to these negative spectulation and insults.

Don't you remember YOUR words:
"attacking the person you are conversing with does not make your position stronger .. it makes it weaker . . "

Well, attacking a postion of other Christians by questioning thier faith (where they base their belief) does nothing for your position. I believe it is flaming, or close to it!



This is a continuation of what you wrote in an earlier post:
"That is not the type of foundation Christ told us to buld on . . He told us to build on the ROCK, not shifting sand."

And I will repeat my reponse:
Strawman. You are trying to imply we base our faith on dispensationism rather than Christ. Shame on you! (and more nonsense!) No dispensationist bases their faith on anything except Christ, the Rock of our salvation. He alone is the the way and the truth and the life, the ONLY way to God, and He paid the price of our sin so we could have eternal life in Him if we believe.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well, it seems that some think that simply because a link is provided in a post where something is quoted, then the whole text of the linked page is brought in as a claim. The rules of CF do require that when a quote or cite is provided, that the link be also provided if available. The OP specified what point of the quote was being opened for discussion. Unfortunately, some want to add to that and obscure the fact that dispneationalists first made the claim the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, both in time (Scofield) and in this thread. The burden of proof is on them.

Any attempt to shift this burden of proof off dispenationalism and dispensationalists only begs the question why they don't simply offer the concrete and solid proof if it is available, instead of theories and speculation, and insisting that certain passages must be interpreted in only one way when the passage itself, the words used, the type of literature and literary devices employed lend to other possible interpretations as well.

Much is made about the literal interpretation of scripture by dispenationalists. However, the sensus literalis, championed by Martin Luther "as the first principle of biblical hermeneutics, demands that the "letter" of Scripture be interpreted within the context of its genre: poetry as poetry, history as history, and apocalyptic literature as apocalyptic literature. "
Apocalypse Now by Aaron D. Wolfhttp://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/April2003/0403Wolf.html

The ‘literal sense’ is a translation of the Latin sensus literalis which means ‘the sense of, according to the letter’. That is to say, texts are to be read as language and literature according to the rules that ordinarily and appropriately apply to their usage and forms. This means that if the text is poetry, it should be read, according to the letter, as poetry. If the text is historical narrative, recounting events that occurred in a particular time and place, it is to be read as historical narrative. If the text uses forms of speech —symbols, figures, metaphor, simile, comparison, hyperbole, etc. — it is to be read according to the letter, treating such forms in the appropriate manner. The basic idea is that when the biblical texts are read in terms of their literal meaning, they are to be read in accordance with all of the appropriate rules and norms

The Hermeneutic of Literalism
http://www.the-highway.com/premil4_Venema.html
​

What I have seen in this thread and elsewhere is a complete disregard for the context of the genre the verses are extracted from and used to support dispensationalisms foundational doctrines. That is not "solid proof" either.




I think enough time has been given to allow for such "solid proof" to be presented if it exists. All the assertions made that the theories and speculatins, etc presented thus far are such proof don't hold any more water than they did earlier. The constant repetition of these assertions does not turn them into the type of proof I have asked for. So, again, all we have are assertions of theories and speculation.




When dispenationalists are willing to provide solid proof of their claims, or admit such does not exist, we can revisit this whole topic.




Peace to all!

 

[FreeinChrist]

oh, brother!

 

[In Christ Forever]

FIC

The position of Dispensationism has been supported in this thread. Your continued claims that they were not is just your opinion.

And this:
"that dispensationalists do not have to prove their doctrines in order to be accepted by others as true"
is just more smoke and a misrepresentation of what has been said in this thread, as @@Paul@@, et al. have spent a great deal of time discussing it.
One thing I AM saying is that it is NONdispensationists (YOU and the OP) who are trying to put dispensationism on "trial" (YOUR word), and thus have placed YOURSELF as a prosecutor. IT IS YOUR job to prove your case. Comments about platypus, swiss cheese, socalled "direct hits" (wow - that is scholarly ), suggestions of rule breaking ..those things are unimpressive.

HI TLF. I am afraid you are battling up to at least 4 or more types of dispensationalists and I didn't realize there were so many after reading this site some more. So I will just bow out of trying to refute it as it appears they have their own differences to contend with, just as the differences in doctrines/beliefs in the churches, those of Islam and even differences in Judaism doctrines/beliefs in Israel. What a mess. God bless.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=653

"Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking. So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place. My own experience bears witness to the truth of what I say. "

4 major types of dispenstionalism

The most consistent and thus extreme form of dispensationalism is what is commonly known as ultradispensationalism or "Bullingerism." This movement had its origins as a distinct movement in the work of Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837-1913).59 Bullinger distinguished Israel and the church in an even more radical manner than Darby. He contended that because Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the body of Christ, the church, until his imprisonment in Rome, his prison epistles are, strictly speaking, the only portion of Scripture given to members of the body. All of his other epistles were written in a previous dispensation, during the transition period between the dispensations of law and grace. The historical description of that interim is given in the book of Acts. Hence, in the book of Acts we do not have the ekklesia (church) described by Paul as the body of Christ, but a different ekklesia altogether. This earlier church is simply an extension of the kingdom. Likewise, the seven churches of the book of Revelation have nothing to do with the present body of Christ, but are Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.

A second group of dispensationalists might be labelled (in a non-pejorative sense) "hardline" dispensationalists. In terms of consistency these dispensationalists are the closest to ultradispensationalism. They do not exclude the book of Acts and the non-prison epistles in toto from this present dispensation. But they rigorously seek to engage in "rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15 KJV). That is, according to their interpretation of these words, they carefully separate the parts of the Bible that relate to the different dispensations. Like Scofield they regard the Sermon on the Mount as "legal ground" (cf. Scofield on Matt. 6:12).

The third type of dispensationalist is the modified dispensationalist or neo-dispensationalist. Those from this school of thought would generally embrace the first four of the five developments outlined above: the denial of two ways of salvation, the refusal to separate Israel and the church in eternity, the willingness to speak of secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy to the church, and the recognition of the cumulative and progressive character of revelation.

In the fourth place are what may be termed one-people-of-God dispensationalists. These interpreters would assent to all five of the developments presented above. In the thinking of these dispensationalists the church not only makes application of but also actually participates in the promises made to God's ancient people even if only in a preliminary way. To begin with, Israel and the church are distinct. But ultimately their destiny is one.

Because of the variety that exists among dispensationalists it is not always easy to identify a particular dispensationalist with one of the four categories delineated above. But our purpose has not been to enable the reader to make such a decision in each case. Rather, we have sought to present the two extremes (ultradispensationalism on one end and one-people-of-God dispensationalism on the other) and the various positions on a sliding scale between.

 

[thereselittleflower]

HI TLF. I am afraid you are battling up to at least 4 or more types of dispensationalists and I didn't realize there were so many after reading this site some more. So I will just bow out of trying to refute it as it appears they have their own differences to contend with, just as the differences in doctrines/beliefs in the churches, those of Islam and even differences in Judaism doctrines/beliefs in Israel. What a mess. God bless.

Yes, it is very true, there are many different types of dispensationalism and they do not agree even on some basic doctrines, though there are usually some basic elements that are the same, and those basic elements don't stand up when tested to see if they are based on fact, solid proof or theories, speculation, conjecture and assumptions.. . . Your quote was a good one:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=653


"Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking. So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place. My own experience bears witness to the truth of what I say. "

4 major types of dispenstionalism

The most consistent and thus extreme form of dispensationalism is what is commonly known as ultradispensationalism or "Bullingerism." This movement had its origins as a distinct movement in the work of Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837-1913).59 Bullinger distinguished Israel and the church in an even more radical manner than Darby. He contended that because Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the body of Christ, the church, until his imprisonment in Rome, his prison epistles are, strictly speaking, the only portion of Scripture given to members of the body. All of his other epistles were written in a previous dispensation, during the transition period between the dispensations of law and grace. The historical description of that interim is given in the book of Acts. Hence, in the book of Acts we do not have the ekklesia (church) described by Paul as the body of Christ, but a different ekklesia altogether. This earlier church is simply an extension of the kingdom. Likewise, the seven churches of the book of Revelation have nothing to do with the present body of Christ, but are Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.

A second group of dispensationalists might be labelled (in a non-pejorative sense) "hardline" dispensationalists. In terms of consistency these dispensationalists are the closest to ultradispensationalism. They do not exclude the book of Acts and the non-prison epistles in toto from this present dispensation. But they rigorously seek to engage in "rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15 KJV). That is, according to their interpretation of these words, they carefully separate the parts of the Bible that relate to the different dispensations. Like Scofield they regard the Sermon on the Mount as "legal ground" (cf. Scofield on Matt. 6:12).

The third type of dispensationalist is the modified dispensationalist or neo-dispensationalist. Those from this school of thought would generally embrace the first four of the five developments outlined above: the denial of two ways of salvation, the refusal to separate Israel and the church in eternity, the willingness to speak of secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy to the church, and the recognition of the cumulative and progressive character of revelation.

In the fourth place are what may be termed one-people-of-God dispensationalists. These interpreters would assent to all five of the developments presented above. In the thinking of these dispensationalists the church not only makes application of but also actually participates in the promises made to God's ancient people even if only in a preliminary way. To begin with, Israel and the church are distinct. But ultimately their destiny is one.

Because of the variety that exists among dispensationalists it is not always easy to identify a particular dispensationalist with one of the four categories delineated above. But our purpose has not been to enable the reader to make such a decision in each case. Rather, we have sought to present the two extremes (ultradispensationalism on one end and one-people-of-God dispensationalism on the other) and the various positions on a sliding scale between.

​

Peace in Him!

 

[Moma E]

I agree...

For solid proof on the necessity of a yet FUTURE restoration of Israel > read this entire post.

...there has been no solid proof to refute the dispensational arguments presented in this thread.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I agree...



...there has been no solid proof to refute the dispensational arguments presented in this thread.

There need be none . . ours is not the positive claim . . ours is not the burden of proof . . all we have to do is show the scriptures used can be understood in at least one different way and the so-called "scriptural proof" for disepnsationalists claims, fails, and then becomes apparent for what it really is, theory, speculation, conjecture . . .

None of the sciptures put forth by dispensationalists to support their claims in this thread HAVE to be understood as they claim - this has been demonstrated time and time again in this thread . . That fact is what destroys the doctrines that dispenationalism claims are absolute and factual.

They are not factual they are not objective . . . they are subjective interpretations to fit a belief system . . not the other way around.


Peace to all!

 

[FreeinChrist]

...there has been no solid proof to refute the dispensational arguments presented in this thread.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I agree...

For solid proof on the necessity of a yet FUTURE restoration of Israel > read this entire post.

...there has been no solid proof to refute the dispensational arguments presented in this thread.

If you would like to point us to the actual post you seem to be referring to, then I would be happy to examine it for the solid proof you claim is there.

None has been provided as of yet . . .

This is the dispensationalist forum, so I hope dispenastionalists are up to backing up their claims with solid proof.


Peace to all!

 

[BT]

Pretend I have a MOD hat and I'm wearing it (please).


This thread is CLOSED while the Moderators review it.

Let's try to keep things civil and reflect the grace of our Lord when dealing with differing opinions.

This thread will be REOPENED soon.


MOD hat off (whatever that means )

 

[BT]

Moderator Review