Revival

[Iosias]

well AV1611 is back and raring for debate. So I thought I will repost links to past debates which may have been forgotten.

1. http://www.christianforums.com/t1137206-opposition-to-dispensationalism.html

2. http://www.christianforums.com/t1135937-some-questions-for-classical-dispensationalists.html

3. http://www.christianforums.com/t1118728-did-the-church-begin-on-the-day-of-pentecost.html

4. http://www.christianforums.com/t933883-acts-dispensationally-considered.html

5. http://www.christianforums.com/t1149170-acts-3-a-reoffer.html

6. http://www.christianforums.com/t979517-the-four-gospels.html

7. http://www.christianforums.com/t1149175-one-baptism.html

8. http://www.christianforums.com/t1131831-kingdom-offerred-kingdom-rejected-kingdom-postponed-when.html

9. http://www.christianforums.com/t1133119-the-difference-between-the-gospel-of-the-kingdom-and-the-gospel-of-the-grace-of-god.html

10. http://www.christianforums.com/t1123003-ultradispensationalism-your-views.html

11. http://www.christianforums.com/t1133796-doctrinal-problems-of-acts-2-dispensationalism.html

12. http://www.christianforums.com/t1123828-baptism-an-alternative-view.html

 

[Iosias]

13. http://www.christianforums.com/t1118409-acts-28-the-dispensational-boundary.html

14. http://www.christianforums.com/t846262-formal-debate-is-there-a-distinction-between-israel-and-the-church.html

15. http://www.christianforums.com/t898516-a-dispensational-look-at-israel-and-their-land.html

16. http://www.christianforums.com/t1089931-dispensationalist-links.html

17. http://www.christianforums.com/t1090039-the-dispensational-position-of-the-book-of-the-acts.html

18. http://www.christianforums.com/t1090058-the-three-commissions.html

19. http://www.christianforums.com/t1083204-acts-28ers.html

20. http://www.christianforums.com/t1070430-the-kingdom-and-the-church.html

 

[eph3Nine]

We arent here to debate Calvinism , but to discuss Dispensational Theology. Happy to have you here, but you wont get much dialogue if all you are after is to diss dispensational thot.

 

[Iosias]

I take it you did not read my old threads.

 

[Iosias]

We arent here to debate Calvinism , but to discuss Dispensational Theology.

http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.htmlhttp://www.christianforums.com/t1070430-the-kingdom-and-the-church.html

 

[eph3Nine]

http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.html

Not interested...thanks a bunch anyway!

 

[Iosias]

Not interested...thanks a bunch anyway!

Well it is an interesting article showing how dispensationalism stemmed from Calvinism.

 

[holdon]

Well it is an interesting article showing how dispensationalism stemmed from Calvinism.

What's going here is that the "Dispensationalism" thread has been almost completely hi-jacked by Hyper Dispensationalists.

Especially this "Eph3nine" person has apparently taken it on herself to host if not dominate the section with words like: "happy to have you here" and the like....

It would be better if a separate section were created were these hyper dispies can exclusively and heartily discuss their peculiar theological concepts.

 

[eph3Nine]

What's going here is that the "Dispensationalism" thread has been almost completely hi-jacked by Hyper Dispensationalists.

Especially this "Eph3nine" person has apparently taken it on herself to host if not dominate the section with words like: "happy to have you here" and the like....

It would be better if a separate section were created were these hyper dispies can exclusively and heartily discuss their peculiar theological concepts.

Isnt it lovely when those who cannot answer questions using scripture then begin to call names ...such as HYPER dispensationalist...LOL

No one has hi jacked anything. This forum is for the discussion of dispensationalism, NOT calvinism, and dispensationalism did NOT come from calvinistic thot, but from God HIMSELF.

I find it simply good manners to welcome folks to the forum...its too easy to hide behind a screen and be mean spirited and ugly to fellow members of His body...and a bit of courtesy and friendliness wouldnt KILL most of us. Name calling, such as hyper dispies is really quite unnecessary. Either prove your point with scripture or stay in your own section.

Once you have stated your case and been shown from scripture rightly divided where you are in error, then it becomes YOUR problem. We are merely ambassadors with Gods message of reconciliation to a dying world. We know which Gospel God is currently in today, and wouldnt dare to present another gospel and another jesus of a different kind to anyone.

 

[TheScottsMen]

Well it is an interesting article showing how dispensationalism stemmed from Calvinism.

It’s unfortunate that most dispensationalists have forgotten their Calvinistic roots and traded the sovereignty of God for a man made tradition known as Arminianism; or a modified version of it.

I think it’s horrible that so many on this forum claim to bring the truth of the Word of God by rightly dividing it, and yet are completely blind when it comes to the truth of the doctrine of soteriology. Sometimes it seems that those that claim to know the truth and lead the blind seem more blind than those they are trying to lead. They expect others to read what they write and the links they post, than they belittle those who do not do so and claim they just don't know the truth. Now, if you were to ask them to read what you wrote and follow the links you post, they will not go read nor go look: hyprocasy! It's these type of people that are not students of the Word, but students of men they beleive know the Word.


Anyways, it’s good to see you back! I'm looking forward to reading your post and doing some good old fashion debating.

TSM

 

[Iosias]

It’s unfortunate that most dispensationalists have forgotten their Calvinistic roots and traded the sovereignty of God for a man made tradition known as Arminianism; or a modified version of it.

dispensationalism did NOT come from calvinistic thot, but from God HIMSELF.

 

[eph3Nine]

I dont believe in Arminianism, but in dispensationalism, which IS a biblical word. My roots are NOT in Calvinism nor have I traded Gods sovereignty for any counterfeit or manmade tradition.
So, I find the comments made by TSM to be inflamatory and definitely NOT so.

Smacks TSM topside the head , and forgives him anyway!

 

[TheScottsMen]

I dont believe in Arminianism, but in dispensationalism, which IS a biblical word. My roots are NOT in Calvinism nor have I traded Gods sovereignty for any counterfeit or manmade tradition.
So, I find the comments made by TSM to be inflamatory and definitely NOT so.

Smacks TSM topside the head , and forgives him anyway!

Haha Trinity is not a biblical word and yet we believe in it; rapture is a not a biblical word, and yet we believe in it.

I used to think a lot like you in regards to salvation and mans free will; so I know where your coming from. But I also know how much I took for granted what I thought was in the Bible about mans free will, about election, atonement, and other subjects.

It wasn't until someone challenged me to really study out these subjects, to go scripture by scripture and decide for myself what God said, not what man told me. It was from this study that I realized how much tradition was interpreting scriptures that I was studying, and not scripture interpreting scripture; this was most evident in the doctrine of man's free will.

You can't go into a real study of scripture or doctrine with the intention of proving it wrong, if you do, you will always find a reason to disagree and be blinded by your own preconceived notions; or tradition. That's one of the problems with this forum, a lot of time we go into a discussion trying to prove someone wrong, and not first to understand them. I'm sure you can bare witness to this in regards to the Mid-Acts position. How many times you have started a topic that pertains to our Apostle and a doctrine that was revealed only to him; then to have another user start flaming away at that topic without even knowing anything about the Mid-Acts position and why we believe as we do. How can someone attempt to argue with another person on a topic that they have never really studied out? It's pointless! You can write or talk until your blue in the face, but if the person your writing or talking to has never taken the time to study out your position, then nothing you say will ever change their mind. Again, I'm sure you can bare witness to that.


What I'm getting at is this same problem is found in the Mid-Acts position and Calvinism. Most Mid-Acts believers have never studied out the doctrine of sovereign grace and have simply written it off as something that was conceived by man. But how would they know? Have they studied it out? I can respect a person who studies out a subject and disagrees with it, but someone who simply disagrees with a subject and has never studied it is no better than those they argue with.


Did you find out about the Mid-Acts position one day by reading the same scripture again and again? I doubt it. Our tradition told us that Paul preached the same message that the twelve preached, that there is no difference between Paul and the twelve; tradition told us this and interpreted those biblical passages that refer to Paul's unique apostleship and turned them on their head. Did someone give you a book that kicked out that tradition? That made you look at those scriptures again? To realize that what we thought was there: wasn't? This too can be said about Arminianism. Most people do not realize that they hold to the Arminian tradition about man's free will, universal atonement, conditional election, and etc.. Most people do not realize that it is the Arminian tradition interpreting these scriptures, and not scripture.


I don't expect you to realize that what you believe in is a modified version of Arminianism, as I didn't either, but it is tradition. This Arminian tradition tells you that man has free will in his dead state, that you worked out your salvation in cooperation with God , that Christ blood was shed for those who perish: this isn't biblical, it's tradition.


This tradition has plagued the Church for centuries.


I've ranted enough on this topic and work awaits me; I better get to it.


TSM

 

[eph3Nine]

TSM stated:

What I'm getting at is this same problem is found in the Mid-Acts position and Calvinism. Most Mid-Acts believers have never studied out the doctrine of sovereign grace and have simply written it off as something that was conceived by man. But how would they know? Have they studied it out? I can respect a person who studies out a subject and disagrees with it, but someone who simply disagrees with a subject and has never studied it is no better than those they argue with.

I HAVE studied it out, and therefore dont fit into that category.

I dont find it to be tradition at all, and simply disagree as to what is meant by DEAD. I dont think that DEAD means brain dead, but dead spiritually. UNBELIEF is what brought us into said condition, and BELIEVING is what gets us OUT. The first Adam dragged us all with him thru identification, and the SECOND Adam allows all to change our STATUS thru identifying with HIM in His death, burial and resurrection. God has done it ALL, and we have the privilege of BELIEVING it to be TRUE...taking God at His Word that He indeed DID finish what needed to be done to secure our separation from sin and death through a circumcision NOT made with hands.

I appreciate your explaining your position to me. I SEE it, and simply dont think that is what scripture teaches at all. So its NOT a matter of fluffing you off, but of serious study and coming to a different conclusion.

I consider you a brother in Christ, and am certain that God will indeed straighten us both out when we are in His presence. In the meantime, ONE of us should employ a :"metanoia moment", and tis up to the HOLY SPIRIT to bring that about! NOT my job....nor is it yours, right? Wink and huugs

 

[xenia]

TSM stated:

I HAVE studied it out, and therefore dont fit into that category.

I dont find it to be tradition at all, and simply disagree as to what is meant by DEAD. I dont think that DEAD means brain dead, but dead spiritually. UNBELIEF is what brought us into said condition, and BELIEVING is what gets us OUT. The first Adam dragged us all with him thru identification, and the SECOND Adam allows all to change our STATUS thru identifying with HIM in His death, burial and resurrection. God has done it ALL, and we have the privilege of BELIEVING it to be TRUE...taking God at His Word that He indeed DID finish what needed to be done to secure our separation from sin and death through a circumcision NOT made with hands.

I appreciate your explaining your position to me. I SEE it, and simply dont think that is what scripture teaches at all. So its NOT a matter of fluffing you off, but of serious study and coming to a different conclusion.

I consider you a brother in Christ, and am certain that God will indeed straighten us both out when we are in His presence. In the meantime, ONE of us should employ a :"metanoia moment", and tis up to the HOLY SPIRIT to bring that about! NOT my job....nor is it yours, right? Wink and huugs

Hooray! Eph and I agree about something!

 

[eph3Nine]

Hooray! Eph and I agree about something!

Yes...aint it great???? Huuuuugs

 

[JM]

I don’t know what all the fuss over eph3nine is about, she makes posts that show the inconsistency of Acts 2 dispensational hermeneutics and everyone jumps on her. After reading her posts I’ve come to agree with her/them (husband and wife team) with the logical outcome of there conclusions.

For the Calvinistic dispensationalists, I’d like to know how your reconcile full 5 point Calvinism with dispensational teaching. This isn’t a challenge to debate, I’ve just never seen it done. I’m interested in knowing how the Church/plan B because Israel rejected the Kingdom, is reconciled with God in control of all things.

Thanks eph3nine.
Peace.

 

[xenia]

I’m interested in knowing how the Church/plan B because Israel rejected the Kingdom, is reconciled with God in control of all things.

That is an excellent question which I have asked before and found the answers to be unsatisfying. I don't see how the two can be reconciled with each other, for the very reason given.

The Calvinist's "B" list and the Dispensationalist's "Plan B" seem mutally exclusive.

 

[eph3Nine]

I don’t know what all the fuss over eph3nine is about, she makes posts that show the inconsistency of Acts 2 dispensational hermeneutics and everyone jumps on her. After reading her posts I’ve come to agree with her/them (husband and wife team) with the logical outcome of there conclusions.

For the Calvinistic dispensationalists, I’d like to know how your reconcile full 5 point Calvinism with dispensational teaching. This isn’t a challenge to debate, I’ve just never seen it done. I’m interested in knowing how the Church/plan B because Israel rejected the Kingdom, is reconciled with God in control of all things.

Thanks eph3nine.
Peace.

You are more than welcome! You made my day by the way, so THANK YOU!

As to your question...

I’m interested in knowing how the Church/plan B because Israel rejected the Kingdom, is reconciled with God in control of all things.

Let me see if I understand what you are asking here, and correct a misconception for both you and my friend xenia, too.

The church, which is His body wasnt PLAN B!

It was a "mystery kept SECRET since the world began".

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

It also was known by God since the beginning of the world, but NOT revealed by Him until due time.

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Paul was the due time TESTIFIER, and when it WAS time, this plan that was in Gods mind all along, but NOT revealed, was given to him.


1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Is the question you are asking how we , the church of THIS age of Grace, can reconcile God being in control of all things? Is that what you are asking?

 

[JM]

I'm asking simply this, how could God or God's plan be rejected by fallen, dead in sin, man (which we do before regeneration) and God not have the power to do anything about it? Does God have to up with different plans to 'get around' mans freewill and have His way?