Problems Within Dispensationalism

[Biblewriter]

(continued from post #60

The following is from pages 107- 107 of my book:


These anti-dispensationalists claim that J. N. Darby first became interested in prophecy through a series of conferences at Albury, which began in 1826. And as Edward Irving made presentations at those conferences, they take this as proof that Darby got his ideas from Irving. But in saying this, they ignore the fact that the conferences at Albury were not only also attended by, but in part organized by, Lewis Way, who also made presentations at these same conferences.

It is also critical, in tracing the origins of these concepts, to know that in his “Preliminary Discourse,” Irving said concerning Lacunza that “I do not find him so strong perhaps in the analogies of scripture and Providence, as the author of Basilicus and Palingenesia,...”

So we see that Edward Irving valued the works of Lewis Way. And earlier in this same work, he had said,

“Now let this book be read as a voice from the Roman Catholic Church, and let the Palingenesia and Basilicus’ Letters of my friend be read as a voice from the Church of England, and let the substance of my discourses for the last year, as given above, be read as a voice from the Kirk of Scotland; and when the coincidence of sentiment and doctrine is perceived in the diversity of personal character and particular interpretations, let any one if he dare, reject the whole matter as the ravings and dreamings of fanciful men.”

This statement is important as to dating the time when Edward Irving began to teach these things. For in this 1827 publication, he called his teaching on this subject “my discourses for the last year.” This sets the beginning of Irving’s teaching on this subject in the same year Lewis Way wrote the last of his three works on the subject. But it also shows that the year of the first Albury conference is when Irving first began to teach on this subject, while Lewis Way had already been writing about it for at least five years.

So, even assuming that Darby did indeed get his first dispensational ideas at the Albury conferences, which has been alleged but never proven, who is the more likely source of those ideas, the speaker who had been writing about them for the past five years, or a different speaker who first began to preach on this subject at about that time? This is what makes a study of the Dispensationalism taught by Lewis Way so important. Aside from this question, a study of Way’s Dispensationalism would only be an interesting historical detail. For Way’s thoughts on this subject are not particularly elevated. And his writing style was awkward, to say the least. But he did indeed present a fully developed Dispensationalism. And he presented it years before (or, in the case of his last book on Dispensationalism, the same year as) the first Albury conference. And all of his works on Dispensationalism were published well before either Darby or Irving had published anything on the subject.

 

[Biblewriter]

Continued from post numbers 60 and 61

My book continued, on pages 108 through 111.


The essence of Dispensationalism is that, from time to time, God changes the way in which He deals with mankind. But that these changes have not been random, as it were trials, or attempts to find something that works. Instead, Dispensationalism teaches that these changes have all been part of an overall program that God has had in place from the very beginning. So in view of this basic and essential definition of Dispensationalism, we find that Lewis Way wrote:

“It will be readily admitted that a new aera commenced at the first appearance of Christ, and the promulgation of the Gospel, throughout the Roman Empire, the scriptural designation of which is ‘the fulness of time.’ This expression refers distinctly to the mission and personal office of our Lord himself: and the period which-thus commenced appears to be continued, without any marked interruption, to his second coming; the whole aera being spoken of in this way by himself, and characterized by his Apostles under the general title of ‘the last days,’ in distinction from sundry other times, as the Paradisaical, Patriarchal, or Mosaic dispensationa. But another aera seems to be expressly noticed, and it is specifically entitled ‘The dispensation (or Economy) of the fulness of times:’ under which, scattered parts will be gathered together; disjoined parts united in one great recapitulation of the whole mystery of God: when the detached and manifold gradations of the system hitherto in action will appear to have been working together towards one determinate issue, – the final scheme of man’s redemption in body and soul, as originally conceived and planned in the eternal counsels of Jehovah: when the whole creation, so long groaning and travailing in pain together under the corruption introduced by the Fall, shall be delivered by the power, and subjected to the dominion, of the Son of Man, the second Adam: when the earth, once cursed for the sake of man, shall be blessed again, renewed, and fitter for the habitation of the righteous: when the typical theocracy of the people shall be realized in the kingdom of Israel restored to the risen saints of the Most High: when ‘the Lord shall reign in Mount Zion, and before his ancients gloriously,’ during the time appointed of the Father.”

This, without a doubt, is the very essence of dispensationalism. But many insist that a doctrine is not true Dispensationalism unless it differentiates between Israel and the church. And some insist that it also requires a teaching that some will come to Christ after the end of the church period. So what did Lewis Way have to say about these things? First, as he tended to be rather wordy, it is necessary to make rather long quotations, just to actually see what he was saying.

Looking first at what Way said in 1824, that is, two years before the first Albury conference, he clearly taught that the dead in Christ would arise and “the saints on earth” would be “caught up together with them in the clouds to meet their Lord in air” when Christ would descend “to judge the quick and dead.” He taught this as followed by a thousand year reign on earth by these saints, during which time the wicked would remain dead.

“The day of Christ’s appearance, and his reign
When with archangel voice, and with the trump
Of God, he shall Himself again descend
To judge the quick and dead. The dead in Christ,
Once quickened in their souls by faith in him,
Will then receive their bodies rais’d again,
And glorified, like that which he assum’d
When he appeared to Cleophas, made known
In breaking of the bread, and vanishing!
That white apparel, worn by those two men
Who spake of his return on Olivet,
Commission’d for the purpose; or the two
Transfigur’d with their Lord on tabor’s mount,
Who then appear’d in glory; having on
Not this vile body, seat of sin and shame,
But garments like their Lord, of purest white,
Such as no Fuller on earth could make,
Transparent as the light, – The saints on earth
Rapt in a whirlwind, as Elijah was,
In pledge of their translation; will ascend
Caught up together with them in the clouds
To meet their Lord in air. – The dead in sin
Dead, shall not live; deceased, shall not rise,
Until the thousand years are finished.
Blessed and holy they that shall have part
In that Anastasis! The second death
Hath lost all power over those elect
Made like the angels who maintain'd
Their first estate, and shine as sone of God,
Then manifested heirs by sitting down
As Priests of God, with Christ, upon his throne,
According to his promise unto them
Who overcame by faith. A thousand years,
Thus shall they reign with him, and thus on earth,
For temporal reign in heaven there is none,
And this will have an end; for end will come
When even Christ himself shall render up
This kingdom to the Father, and become
Subject to Him, and God be ALL IN ALL.”

 

[Biblewriter]

(continued from posts 60-62
My book continued, on pages 111-116


But concerning the restoration of Israel, in that same work he spoke of those who “confin’d salvation to their own exclusive pale! Exemplifying thus their ignorance of other unaccomplished mystery.” He then went on to speak of the fact “That blindness, partial only, shall befall benighted Israel! – Till Gentile times draw to their end, and Gentile fullness come.” And then he added that “Then out of Zion will come forth again the Great Deliverer, and will turn again ungodliness from Jacob – written thus and sure as everlasting covenant concerning them, and sealed with that blood which cleanseth from all sin!” Thus, he was clearly teaching that the time when “the Great deliverer” would “turn again ungodliness from Jacob,” was after, not before, “out of Zion will come forth again the Great Deliverer.” That is after, not before the Lord comes in power and glory to punish the wicked. This makes the eventual conversion of “Jacob,” that is, Israel, after, not before, the time when the church will be gathered to Christ. For no interpretation of the timing of the rapture places it after the Lord has come in power and glory to punish the wicked.

“Great is that mystery, at sundry times
And divers manners manifest. The Word
Made flesh, and in the spirit justified,
Of angels seen, and unto Gentiles preach’d
And by the world believed on, receiv’d
Up into glory! Other part remains
Mysterious to the Gentile world at large
As once their first admission to the faith
And commonwealth of ancient Israel,
Was to the seed of Abrah’m; insomuch
That till the figurative sheet fell down
Full of all creatures – Peter scarce conceiv’d
A Gentile could receive the Holy Ghost!
How many that have stood in Peter’s place
And sat as they presume in Peter’s chair
Have held same partial doctrine! And confin’d
Salvation to their own exclusive pale!
Exemplifying thus their ignorance
Of other unaccomplished mystery
Which yet their true Apostle bids them know,
Lest self conceited wisdom puff them up,
That blindness, partial only, shall befall
Benighted Israel! – Till Gentile times
Draw to their end, and Gentile fullness come.
Then shall their fullness, as their fall before,
As their diminishing became, the riches
Of the Gentiles and the world.
Then out of Zion will come forth again
The Great Deliverer, and will turn again
Ungodliness from Jacob – written thus
And sure as everlasting covenant
Concerning them, and sealed with that blood
Which cleanseth from all sin! mysterious depth
Of wisdom! And of ways unsearchable
Past finding out! For who hath known the mind
Of God, or been his counsellor; save he,
The WONDERFUL, so call’d – the Prince of Peace?
Who saith ‘I will return unro my place
Till they acknowledge their iniquity
And seek me in affliction!’ They abide
As is written of them ‘Many days
Without a king, a prince, a sacrifice,
Without an image, ephod, terraphim.’
Is it not written also ‘Afterward
They shall return and seek the Lord their God
And their king David in their latter days?’”

So, although he was rather wordy, in 1824, that is, two years before the first Albury conference, Way clearly taught that “the saints on earth” would be caught up and Israel “shall return and seek the Lord their God” at the time the Lord returned.

Turning now to his work of 1826, the same year as the first Albury conference, Way expanded and clarified these concepts. He said:

“The first resurrection is thus immediately connected with the appearance, and kingdom, and coming of Christ ‘with all his saints;’ when ‘he shall change their vile body (or the body of humiliation, σωμα της ταπεινωσως), that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body’ (Phil. iii. 21 —comp. ver. 10, 11): ‘when he will present them faultless before his presence with exceeding joy’ (Jude 24); ‘holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight’ (Col. I. 22): when they who are already risen in spirit with Christ, and are seeking those things that are above, shall also ‘appear with him in glory:’ ‘when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.’ (Acts iii. 19.) The expression in our translation of this passage falls far short of the original word, and seems only its secondary sense: if there be meaning in language, it signifies the times, or seasons, of RE-ANIMATION, restoration of the soul to the body; according to all analogy of diction.”

Here, Way could hardly have been more clear in stating that the resurrection of the saints would take place at the time when Christ appears.

Again, he also said:

“A review and comparison of the different passages of sacred Scripture which have a direct application to these subjects may suggest a somewhat different expectation; which is termed Scriptural, as being exclusively derived from the positive declarations of holy writ, taken from the original, in their most obvious and literal sense: the scope of which will be nearly as follows:—
“That the present system, secular and ecclesiastical (as far, at least, as Christendom and the Roman and Mohammedan empires are concerned), will pass away at the close of a certain period or aera of the world, fixed in the determinate counsel of God, and so far revealed in his written word that its near approach may be anticipated, from specific and infallible tokens contained therein, whenever their real application shall be manifested by existing circumstances, and the palpable fulfilment of the sure word of prophecy concerning the last times of the Gospel;—That a new order of things, and a distinct period or aera of the world, will then commence, to which all preceding times and dispensations have only been preparatory and subordinate, and which is the perfection and consummation of them all;—That the change thus effected in the physical and moral, secular and spiritual state of the world, will be so complete, so general, so extraordinary, as to correspond with the nature and significancy of the expressions by which it is exhibited in Scripture; such as, ‘a new creation’ ‘a new earth,’ making ‘all things new,’ ‘restoring all things,’ &c.”

Here, Way distinctly states “that the present system, secular and ecclesiastical... will pass away at the close of a certain period or aera of the world, fixed in the determinate counsel of God,” and refers to this end as “the last times of the Gospel.” And then he said “That a new order of things, and a distinct period or aera of the world, will then commence.” And in the following passage he clearly taught that this would take place at “the coming of the Lord.”

“When Antichrist is destroyed, and Satan bound; when Babylon falls, and the Beast and false Prophet are cast into the lake of fire; when the man of sin is destroyed, by the brightness of the coming of the Lord; then, his enemies being made his footstool, all things will indeed be made subject: and then the new earth and heaven, spoken of by Isaiah; then the new heaven and earth, wherein righteousness shall dwell, expected by the church, according to St. Peter; then the new earth, γη καινι, of St. John, will appear: and this will not be εν τω νυν αιωνι, in this age, but in that which is to Come, εν τω μελλοντι — εν τω επερχομενω. Into this οικουμενυ, God will bring his Son; and during this αιων, age, his saints will live again, and ‘reign on the earth:’ and when this age of the world shall end, heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of God will not; for unto THE KING ETERNAL (of the ages) there remaineth ‘honour and glory for ever and ever’ (ages of ages), or throughout ETERNITY, properly so called. 1 Tim.i. 17.”

But then, Way went on to very clearly state that Christ’s “mission” “to the Jews” would come at “the second advent... of Christ.” This is therefore a very clear statement that the Jews would be converted after the church had already been gathered to Christ.

 

[Biblewriter]

I am not going to post my entire very long list of quotations from Lewis Way. But I summed them up on page 123 -124 of my book, saying:


This has been a rather long examination of a very wordy presentation. But it has been done to prove that Lewis Way taught, and clearly taught, although in a somewhat wordy fashion, not only the great outlines of dispensationalism, but that the end time expectations of the church and of Israel were entirely different, that the general conversion of Israel would take place after the end of “the Christian dispensation,” and, in actual fact, after the Lord returns to this earth. Thus we see that Lewis Way was already teaching a fully developed Dispensationalism before the first Albury conference, before Edward Irving began to teach on the subject, and before the writings of Manuel Lacuna were first published in English. And since Lewis Way was one of the organizers and speakers at that first Albury conference where Darby supposedly got the ideas of dispensationalism, the claim that Darby got his dispensational ideas from Edward Irving (whom he openly despised) is proven to have no merit whatsoever.

But what do Darby’s own writings indicate as the source of his ideas? It was noted earlier that Darby quoted from Irving’s “Preliminary Discourse.” But this quotation was part of a highly critical review of that document. And later in the same article, Darby spoke very highly of a different earlier writer, saying, “Another subject is the restoration of the Jews to their own land. The calm and judicious Lowth, in a day when nothing but the force of Scripture influenced him, could not withhold assent from the directness of the testimonies to this.”

Here, J. N. Darby explicitly referred to the writings of the much renowned William Lowth, B. D., Prebendary of Winchester Cathedral. This man was born in 1661, just fifty years after the King James translation of the Bible was published. He penned what became for many years England’s most widely circulated series of commentaries on the Old Testament prophets. This included a commentary on Isaiah published in 1714, followed by one on Jeremiah and Lamentations in 1718, on Ezekiel in 1725, and finally on Daniel and the twelve minor prophets in 1726. These dates are important in comparison with the 1731 birth date of Manuel Lacunza, who, as we noticed earlier, is often claimed to be the original source of Darby’s ideas. For this entire series was published before Lacunza had even been born. Yet Darby not only mentioned these works, but praised their author and commented that he had advanced the same ideas he was teaching.

 

[Biblewriter]

So, as I said before, If you had actually bothered to go back and study the historical documents involved, you would have known how badly your highly prejudiced "informer" had misrepresented even the basic facts of the case.

 

[Clare73]

First, the only conclusive proof provided is in your own mind because I don't find it the post "proof" of anything. Watson's book examined elements of what later became Dispensationalism. He did not prove Dispensationalism's prior existence.

Second, When a doctrine comes along that ignores and openly defies 20 centuries worth of long-held, well-established Church doctrine that is a problem and a legitimate concern for those relying on scripture, not consensus. When the outlying doctrine is reached solely through an entirely new and different hermeneutic, that too is rational and legitimate reason for concern.

Third, God didn't make unconditional promises. That is just one of the many wrong teachings found within Dispensationalism. It is assumed because no conditions were mentioned the first time God initiated His covenant with Abram that none exist. That is an argument from silence and the facts of scripture are that in all other mentions of that covenant conditions are clearly stated. You use the word "stated" but Dispensationalism constantly teaches its adherents to ignore what is stated. DPism teaches a literal reading of scripture but is much more inconsistent with that precept then most.

While I am 110% in agreement with you, this needs a little improving.

Unilateral covenants, being made by one party only, are unconditional, because there is no second party to agree to any conditions.
Bilateral covenants, made between two parties, are conditional on agreed terms.

God made two covenants with Abraham, the unconditional unilateral covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) of the land grant with its specific boundaries (likewise made with Isaac and Jacob, personally) as an everlasting inheritance (Genesis 13:15, Genesis 17:8), and the conditional bilateral covenant to be their God (Genesis 17:7), conditioned on their total consecration (Genesis 17:9), signified by cutting/putting off the flesh in circumcision (Genesis 17:10; Colossians 2:11-12).

That unconditional land promise was fulfilled in stages:
1) their initial limited possession of the land (Numbers 34:3-12; Deuteronomy 34:1-4) which due to its size, they were not to possess/occupy all at once (Exodus 23:29-30; Deuteronomy 7:22),

2) full possession, and then full occupation (2 Samuel 8:3) of the entire land promise from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21-25).

So the land promise of the covenant of Genesis 15:9-21 has been fulfilled.
There is no Biblical warrant for a second fulfillment.

Then what about the "everlasting inheritance"?
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were given no inheritance, they never possessed a foot of ground there (Acts 7:5).
We learn in Hebrews 11:13-16 that God fulfilled his promise to Abraham of an everlasting inheritance in the heavenly land.
So the promise to Abraham and his descendants of an "everlasting inheritance" was not a literal promise of earthly land, but a spiritual promise of heavenly land.

There is no land promise of ancient Canaan remaining to be fulfilled.
The only land promise remaining is of the earth to the redeemed (Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:11; Romans 4:13).

 

[BABerean2]

If you had bothered to go back and actually read the source documents, instead of simply believing what is being propagated by unquestionably prejudiced people, you would understand things far better.

Here are pages 105-107 from my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth:"

Appendix
The source of J. N. Darby’s
Dispensational Concepts

Anti-dispensationalists often claim that the that the doctrine cannot be truth because the origins of dispensationalism have a double taint. For they claim that J. N. Darby, who is well known to have popularized the doctrine and is widely (but incorrectly) thought to be its originator, actually got his ideas from a widely disparaged writer by the name of Edward Irving. And they claim that Irving in turn got these ideas from a Jesuit priest named Manuel Lacunza, who had written a book titled “The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty.” Lacunza had published this book under the pen name of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, claiming to be a converted Jew. Edward Irving had translated it into English and published it, adding a very long “preliminary discourse.” And as Darby quoted from this “preliminary discourse,” and thus we know he read it, these people claim that this book is where Darby got the idea of Dispensationalism.

But Darby himself clearly stated the source of his first understanding of dispensational concepts. Speaking of the prophecies of Isaiah, he said:

“But I must, though without comment, direct attention to chapter 32 of the same prophet; which I do the rather, because it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will concerning it throughout - not by the first blessed truths stated in it, but the latter part, when there shall be a complete change in the dispensation, the wilderness becoming the fruitful field of God's fruit and glory, and that which had been so being counted a forest, at a time when the Lord's judgments should come down, even great hail, upon this forest; and the city, even of pride, be utterly abased. That the Spirit's pouring out upon the Jews, and their substitution for the Gentile church, become a forest, is here adverted to, is evident from the connection of the previous verses.”
Further, in 1874 the famous church historian Andrew Miller, who is well know to have been a member of Darby’s close-knit group, the Plymouth brethren, traced the beginnings of nineteenth century dispensational thinking in the following words:

“The study of prophetic truth was greatly revived in the early part of this century. In the year 1821 a short treatise, entitled ‘The Latter Rain,’ by the Rev. Lewis Way, made its appearance. The main object of the writer is to prove from scripture the restoration of Israel, and the consequent glory in the land. His poem entitled, ‘Palingenesia,’ or ‘The World to Come,’ appeared in 1824. Thoughts on the ‘Scriptural Expectations of the Church,’ by Basilicus, followed it in 1826. The author takes a wider range in this book than in the former, though the kingdom of Israel occupies a prominent place. In 1827 the Rev. Edward Irving endeavoured to arouse the professing church, but especially his brethren in the ministry, to a sense of their responsibility as to the truth of prophecy. He translated the work of Ben Ezra, a converted Jew, on ‘The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty,’ with a long preliminary discourse. This book was originally written in Spanish, and first published in Spain in the year 1812.”

So Andrew Miller did not trace the origins of nineteenth century dispensational doctrine to either J. N. Darby or to Edward Irving, but to Lewis Way.

I will continue in my next post.

Lewis Way did have a dream of modern Orthodox Jews returning to the Middle East.
He also dreamed of their mass conversion to Christ.

Can you show us where Lewis Way claimed God has Two Peoples, the Church and Israel, which is one of the chief claims of modern Dispensational Theology?


Reverend Lewis Way (1772 - 1840) | People, High Street | Barford Heritage


Why did Darby leave out the fact that the book "Coming of Messiah..." was not in fact written by "Ben Ezra, a converted Jew", but was written instead by Manuel Lacunza, a Jesuit priest? Did Darby know the difference?

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Lewis Way did have a dream of modern Orthodox Jews returning to the Middle East.
He also dreamed of their mass conversion to Christ.

Can you show us where Lewis Way claimed God has Two Peoples, the Church and Israel, which is one of the chief claims of modern Dispensational Theology?


Reverend Lewis Way (1772 - 1840) | People, High Street | Barford Heritage


Why did Darby leave out the fact that the book "Coming of Messiah..." was not in fact written by "Ben Ezra, a converted Jew", but was written instead by Manuel Lacunza, a Jesuit priest? Did Darby know the difference?

.

I have already demonstrated that even the ancient writers saw that the scriptures fortell a different future for “the Jews” and for the church.

I am not certain that Darby even knew the real author of “The Coming of Messiah…” He did not seem to know it at the time he commented on it. And I do not remember him ever returning to the subject.

But you are totally off base in saying that Way “dreamed” of Orthodox Jews returning to the Holy Land and experiencing a mass conversion. This was not a “dream.” He simply realized that the scriptures EXPLICITLY say that both of these will happen. The ancient Christian writers understood this before the year 200. William Lowth understood it in the early 1700s. Lewis Way understood it 15-20 years before either Irving or Darby understood it. And anyone who denies this today is denying explicitly stated scripture.

 

[BABerean2]

I have already demonstrated that even the ancient writers saw that the scriptures fortell a different future for “the Jews” and for the church.

Anyone who ever claimed that modern Orthodox Jews would come to salvation outside of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ, did not find that concept in the Bible.

The idea is a form of Dual-Covenant Theology not found in the Bible.

There is no Plan B of salvation based on race found in the New Testament.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Anyone who ever claimed that modern Orthodox Jews would come to salvation outside of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ, did not find that concept in the Bible.

The idea is a form of Dual-Covenant Theology not found in the Bible.

There is no Plan B of salvation based on race found in the New Testament.

.

There is not even one statement, anywhere in the Bible, that salvation is only available "in the church." Salvation is in Cbrist, not in "the church."

And Dispensationalisn most certainly does NOT teach that there is a "plan B" for salvation. So, as usual, your accusation is false.

 

[Biblewriter]

There is no land promise of ancient Canaan remaining to be fulfilled.
The only land promise remaining is of the earth to the redeemed (Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:11; Romans 4:13).

This is a flat contradiction of ALL of the following explicitly stated scriptures:


“And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, ‘O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because the enemy has said of you, 'Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession,” ’ therefore prophesy, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because they made you desolate and swallowed you up on every side, so that you became the possession of the rest of the nations, and you are taken up by the lips of talkers and slandered by the people”--therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken, which became plunder and mockery to the rest of the nations all around--therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave My land to themselves as a possession, with whole-hearted joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open country.’ ” Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel, and say to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, and the valleys, “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I have spoken in My jealousy and My fury, because you have borne the shame of the nations.’ Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘I have raised My hand in an oath that surely the nations that are around you shall bear their own shame.
“But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are about to come. For indeed I am for you, and I will turn to you, and you shall be tilled and sown. I will multiply men upon you, all the hiuse of Israel, all of it; and the cities shall be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt.” ’ ” (Ezekiel 36:1-10)
Here, we need to notice the words, “all the house of Israel, all of it.” In the Hebrew text, the word “כֹּל,” “kol” in our alphabet, is doubled, stressing that the meaning is ABSOLUTELY ALL of “the house of Israel.” Yet the return from Babylon was only a very small part of “the house of Judah.”
We also need to notice that the promised return was to “the mountains of Israel,” along with “the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken, which became plunder and mockery to the rest of the nations all around.” (Ezekiel 36:4) And eleven chapters later, God went so far as to define the future borders of that land.
“Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the borders by which you shall divide the land as an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel. Joseph shall have two portions. You shall inherit it equally with one another; for I raised My hand in an oath to give it to your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your inheritance. This shall be the border of the land on the north: from the Great Sea, by the road to Hethlon, as one goes to Zedad, Hamath, Berothah, Sibraim (which is between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath), to Hazar Hatticon (which is on the border of Hauran). Thus the boundary shall be from the Sea to Hazar Enan, the border of Damascus; and as for the north, northward, it is the border of Hamath. This is the north side. On the east side you shall mark out the border from between Hauran and Damascus, and between Gilead and the land of Israel, along the Jordan, and along the eastern side of the sea. This is the east side. The south side, toward the South, shall be from Tamar to the waters of Meribah by Kadesh, along the brook to the Great Sea. This is the south side, toward the South. The west side shall be the Great Sea, from the southern boundary until one comes to a point opposite Hamath. This is the west side.’ ” (Ezekiel 47:13-20)
This is nothing less than the definition of a specific PLOT OF REAL ESTATE, first by description (chapter 36) and then by precisely specifying its borders. (chapter 47) Some people demand why we are so interested in a mere plot of real estate on the other side of the world. And the answer, of course, is, because God is so interested in it. We can hardly overstress the fact that God has EXPLICITLY promised this specific PLOT OF REAL ESTATE to a PARTICULAR “nation.” And that promise is UNCONDITIONAL
And in the following chapter, our God EXPLICITLY said how this {LOT OF REAL ESTATE would be divided among the twelve tribes of Israel.:
“Now these are the names of the tribes: From the northern border along the road to Hethlon at the entrance of Hamath, to Hazar Enan, the border of Damascus northward, in the direction of Hamath, there shall be one section for Dan from its east to its west side; by the border of Dan, from the east side to the west, one section for Asher; by the border of Asher, from the east side to the west, one section for Naphtali; by the border of Naphtali, from the east side to the west, one section for Manasseh; by the border of Manasseh, from the east side to the west, one section for Ephraim; by the border of Ephraim, from the east side to the west, one section for Reuben; by the border of Reuben, from the east side to the west, one section for Judah.” (Ezekiel 48:1-7)
“ ‘As for the rest of the tribes, from the east side to the west, Benjamin shall have one section; by the border of Benjamin, from the east side to the west, Simeon shall have one section; by the border of Simeon, from the east side to the west, Issachar shall have one section; by the border of Issachar, from the east side to the west, Zebulun shall have one section; by the border of Zebulun, from the east side to the west, Gad shall have one section; by the border of Gad, on the south side, toward the South, the border shall be from Tamar to the waters of Meribah by Kadesh, along the brook to the Great Sea. This is the land which you shall divide by lot as an inheritance among the tribes of Israel, and these are their portions,’ says the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 48:23-29)
The usage of the area between these sections is defined in Ezekiel 48:8-22.


ALL of this is not INTERPRETATION of the MEANING of what God said. It is what He EXPLICITLY said, in PLAIN. CLEAR words.

 

[BABerean2]

There is not even one statement, anywhere in the Bible, that salvation is only available "in the church." Salvation is in Cbrist, not in "the church."

Your statement above is nonsense, because every person who comes to salvation based on their faith in Christ's work at Calvary is a member of Christ's Church.

What did Christ say below about this fact?


Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


The Capitol "C" Church, as we use the word today, is not found in the entire Book of Revelation. Individual church bodies in ancient Asia Minor are found.
In the passage below we find those under the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, they must be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.
We also find in the passage that at least part of the tribulation period is the wrath of Satan upon the people of God.


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.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Your statement above is nonsense, because every person who comes to salvation based on their faith in Christ's work at Calvary is a member of Christ's Church.

What did Christ say below about this fact?


Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


The Capitol "C" Church, as we use the word today, is not found in the entire Book of Revelation. Individual church bodies in ancient Asia Minor are found.
In the passage below we find those under the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, they must be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.
We also find in the passage that at least part of the tribulation period is the wrath of Satan upon the people of God.


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.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.


.

My statement was not only not nonsense, it was HARD FACT. But it was designed to expose the DISHONESTY of your oft repeated pretension that we teach that people can be saved "outside of the church." You are willfully trying to persuade people that we teach things that you personally know we do not teach. Such dishonesty is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE

 

[BABerean2]

My statement was not only not nonsense, it was HARD FACT. But it was designed to expose the DISHONESTY of your oft repeated pretension that we teach that people can be saved "outside of the church." You are willfully trying to persuade people that we teach things that you personally know we do not teach. Such dishonesty is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE

My post above (#72) contains the words of Christ.

This response contains the words of a man attempting to make his man-made Bible doctrine work, without any scripture.


God said, vs. man said.


.

 

[Clare73]

There is no land promise of ancient Canaan remaining to be fulfilled.
The only land promise remaining is of the earth to the redeemed (Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:11; Romans 4:13).

This is a flat contradiction of ALL of the following explicitly stated scriptures:

“And you, son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel, and say, ‘O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because the enemy has said of you, 'Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession,” ’ therefore prophesy, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because they made you desolate and swallowed you up on every side, so that you became the possession of the rest of the nations, and you are taken up by the lips of talkers and slandered by the people”--therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD! Thus says the Lord GOD to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken, which became plunder and mockery to the rest of the nations all around--therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Surely I have spoken in My burning jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave My land to themselves as a possession, with whole-hearted joy and spiteful minds, in order to plunder its open country.’ ” Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel, and say to the mountains, the hills, the rivers, and the valleys, “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I have spoken in My jealousy and My fury, because you have borne the shame of the nations.’ Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘I have raised My hand in an oath that surely the nations that are around you shall bear their own shame.

“But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are about to come. For indeed I am for you, and I will turn to you, and you shall be tilled and sown. I will multiply men upon you, all the hiuse of Israel, all of it; and the cities shall be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt.” ’ ” (Ezekiel 36:1-10)

And that was fulfilled in the return from exile, none of which you can demonstrate did not occur in that return, and much of which is shown in Nehemiah.
According to God's own statement, that is a prophetic riddle, not spoken clearly (Numbers 12:8), and subject to more than one interpretation.

Nehemiah, as well as Ezra, did not view Ezekiel's instructions from the Lord (Ezekiel 44:5) regarding the High Priest and the division of the land (Ezekiel 44:15-16, 45:1-8) as literal instruction or regarding Israel, and did not follow them, they being a prophetic vision (Ezekiel 40:2), like Daniel's, foretelling what God would ultimately do on the earth and with mankind; i.e., wrathful judgment of rebellious, obstinate, stubborn (Ezekiel 2:3-4) fallen human race (Ezekiel 1-32), with restoration in the new creation (Ezekiel 33-48).

Here, we need to notice the words, “all the house of Israel, all of it.” In the Hebrew text, the word “כֹּל,” “kol” in our alphabet, is doubled, stressing that the meaning is ABSOLUTELY ALL of “the house of Israel.” Yet the return from Babylon was only a very small part of “the house of Judah.”
We also need to notice that the promised return was to “the mountains of Israel,” along with “the hills, the rivers, the valleys, the desolate wastes, and the cities that have been forsaken, which became plunder and mockery to the rest of the nations all around.” (Ezekiel 36:4) And eleven chapters later, God went so far as to define the future borders of that land.

That is your literal interpretation, which instructions Ezra and Nehemiah did not see as literal or regarding Israel, and did not follow them.

“Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the borders by which you shall divide the land as an inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel. Joseph shall have two portions. You shall inherit it equally with one another; for I raised My hand in an oath to give it to your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your inheritance. This shall be the border of the land on the north: from the Great Sea, by the road to Hethlon, as one goes to Zedad, Hamath, Berothah, Sibraim (which is between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath), to Hazar Hatticon (which is on the border of Hauran). Thus the boundary shall be from the Sea to Hazar Enan, the border of Damascus; and as for the north, northward, it is the border of Hamath. This is the north side. On the east side you shall mark out the border from between Hauran and Damascus, and between Gilead and the land of Israel, along the Jordan, and along the eastern side of the sea. This is the east side. The south side, toward the South, shall be from Tamar to the waters of Meribah by Kadesh, along the brook to the Great Sea. This is the south side, toward the South. The west side shall be the Great Sea, from the southern boundary until one comes to a point opposite Hamath. This is the west side.’ ” (Ezekiel 47:13-20)
This is nothing less than the definition of a specific PLOT OF REAL ESTATE, first by description (chapter 36) and then by precisely specifying its borders. (chapter 47) Some people demand why we are so interested in a mere plot of real estate on the other side of the world. And the answer, of course, is, because God is so interested in it. We can hardly overstress the fact that God has EXPLICITLY promised this specific PLOT OF REAL ESTATE to a PARTICULAR “nation.” And that promise is UNCONDITIONAL
And in the following chapter, our God EXPLICITLY said how this {LOT OF REAL ESTATE would be divided among the twelve tribes of Israel.:
“Now these are the names of the tribes: From the northern border along the road to Hethlon at the entrance of Hamath, to Hazar Enan, the border of Damascus northward, in the direction of Hamath, there shall be one section for Dan from its east to its west side; by the border of Dan, from the east side to the west, one section for Asher; by the border of Asher, from the east side to the west, one section for Naphtali; by the border of Naphtali, from the east side to the west, one section for Manasseh; by the border of Manasseh, from the east side to the west, one section for Ephraim; by the border of Ephraim, from the east side to the west, one section for Reuben; by the border of Reuben, from the east side to the west, one section for Judah.” (Ezekiel 48:1-7)
“ ‘As for the rest of the tribes, from the east side to the west, Benjamin shall have one section; by the border of Benjamin, from the east side to the west, Simeon shall have one section; by the border of Simeon, from the east side to the west, Issachar shall have one section; by the border of Issachar, from the east side to the west, Zebulun shall have one section; by the border of Zebulun, from the east side to the west, Gad shall have one section; by the border of Gad, on the south side, toward the South, the border shall be from Tamar to the waters of Meribah by Kadesh, along the brook to the Great Sea. This is the land which you shall divide by lot as an inheritance among the tribes of Israel, and these are their portions,’ says the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 48:23-29)
The usage of the area between these sections is defined in Ezekiel 48:8-22.

ALL of this is not INTERPRETATION of the MEANING of what God said. It is what He EXPLICITLY said, in PLAIN. CLEAR words.

And nowhere in Ezekiel 45-48 is the city called Jerusalem or the land called Canaan, because that is not to what the figurative prophecy refers, Ezra and Nehemiah knowing it was not literal instruction or regarding Israel and, therefore, not following them.

 

[Biblewriter]

And that was fulfilled in the return from exile, none of which you can demonstrate did not occur in that return, and much of which is shown in Nehemiah.
According to God's own statement, that is a prophetic riddle, not spoken clearly (Numbers 12:8), and subject to more than one interpretation.

Nehemiah, as well as Ezra, did not view Ezekiel's instructions from the Lord (Ezekiel 44:5) regarding the High Priest and the division of the land (Ezekiel 44:15-16, 45:1-8) as literal instruction regarding Israel, and did not follow them, seeing it as a prophetic vision (Ezekiel 40:2), like Daniel's, foretelling what God would do on the earth and with mankind; i.e., wrathful judgment of rebellious, obstinate, stubborn (Ezekiel 2:3-4) fallen human race (Ezekiel 1-32), with restoration in the new creation (Ezekiel 33-48).

That is your literal interpretation, which instructions Ezra and Nehemiah did not see as literal regarding Israel, and did not follow them.

And nowhere in Ezekiel 45-48 is the city called Jerusalem or the land called Canaan, because that is not to what the figurative prophecy refers, Ezra and Nehemiah knowing it was not literal instruction for Israel and, therefore, not following them.

There was nothing "figurative" about these EXPLICITLY STATED prophecies.

It is nothing short of unbelief to even try to pretend that a return of less than 50,000 members of just the tribes of Judah and Benjamin was a fulfillment of a promise that explicitly said "all the house of Israel, all of it."

And there can be zero question that the nation of Israel NEVER had the boundries so SPECIFICALLY defined in Ezekiel 47. Nor was the land EVER divided in the way so EXPLICITLY STATED in Ezekiel 46.

Your denunciation of taking these prophecies "literally" is nothing short of claiming it is wrong to simply BELIEVE what God said.

Well, I believe God, not you.

 

[Clare73]

It is nothing short of unbelief to even try to pretend that a return of less than 50,000 members of just the tribes of Judah and Benjamin was a fulfillment of a promise that explicitly said "all the house of Israel, all of it."

My unbelief of your literal interpretation, or your unbelief of God's own statement that he gives prophecy in riddles and not clearly (Numbers 12:8).

Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah viewed the prophecy as literal regarding Israel and, therefore, did not follow its instructions.

 

[Biblewriter]

My post above (#72) contains the words of Christ.

This response contains the words of a man attempting to make his man-made Bible doctrine work, without any scripture.


God said, vs. man said.


.

Actually, your post, although it indeed contained the words of Christ, not even one of the passages you quoted even implied the false doctrine you advanced, that a person can only be saved outside of "the church." You cannot post even one scripture that says that, because the scriptures say no such thing. I CORRECTLY pointed out that salvation is through Christ, not through "the church."

 

[BABerean2]

Actually, your post, although it indeed contained the words of Christ, not even one of the passages you quoted even implied the false doctrine you advanced, that a person can only be saved outside of "the church." You cannot post even one scripture that says that, because the scriptures say no such thing. I CORRECTLY pointed out that salvation is through Christ, not through "the church."

Are you denying that every person who comes to salvation through faith in Christ is a part of His New Covenant Church?


.

 

[Biblewriter]

That would be unbelief of your literal interpretation.

Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah viewed the prophecy as literal regarding Israel and, therefore, did not follow its instructions.

Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah even implied that the promises made in Ezekiel had been fulfilled. They would not have said any such thing, because they KNEW that these promises had NOT been fulfilled. The promise they were saying had been fulfilled was the promise made in Jeremiah that Judah would return after 70 years. That was a different promise than the ones I quoted from Ezekiel.