AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Studies (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Dispensational Truth and Error (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1374)

George 06-30-2009 04:42 PM

Re: "Dispensational Truth and Error"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 23047)
Hello GB,

Jesus' Gospel to Nicodemus
John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Peter's Gospel to Cornelius
Acts 10:43 .... whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Paul and Silas' Gospel to the Philippian Jailer
Acts 16:31 ...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved

Paul's Gospel to the Romans
Rom. 10:11 ... Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

GB said,
"Paul obviously preached the gospel of Christ crucified. Nobody denies this fact. This is the same gospel the twelve Apostles to the circumcision preached."
And then said,

"Paul and the apostleship to the circumcism clearly recognized the difference"

This seems contradictory.


Aloha John G,

Please consider the following:

The Lord Jesus Christ"s "Gospel" to Nicodemus {BEFORE His actual death, burial & resurrection}:

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.



The Apostle Paul's "Gospel" in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


Please compare the two "Gospels":

In the Gospel of John (Chapter 3) there is NO specific mention of the Lord's death, burial, and especially His RESURRECTION. And there is NO mention of sin (or sins) HOW can the two "Gospels" be the "SAME" - if there is NO specific mention of the RESURRECTION of the Lord Jesus Christ in the entire Chapter Three of the Gospel of John? HOW can the two "Gospels" be the "SAME" - if there is no mention of Christ dying for "our sins"? {The Jews of Jesus' day were required to BELIEVE in Him - that is they were to BELIEVE that He was their Messiah & King}

In 1Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul's DEFINES his "Gospel" - Christ died according to the scriptures; for our sins; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {From shortly after Paul's conversion up to the present day we are required to BELIEVE Paul's "Gospel": i.e. that the Lord Jesus Christ died for "our sins", and that He was buried, and that he ROSE AGAIN from the dead - all "according to the Scriptures".}

Today, we do not preach a "gospel" without mentioning the fact that "Christ died for our sins"; and we certainly don't omit the fact that He ROSE AGAIN!

I said in another Post:

Quote:

The Lord Jesus Christ NEVER PREACHED TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL HIS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION. {That is Paul's "Gospel" - "the Gospel of the Grace of God"}
For a more detailed explanation please check out the following Link:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=69

I hope this may be of some help in your search for the truth. :)

greenbear 06-30-2009 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 23054)
Greenbear said



Well, to answer your question. I have been a Christian for 44 years, having received Christ as a boy of 11.

I love the way you dispensationalists whether ultra, hyper, or whatever you call yourselves, believe yourselves to have superior knowledge and discernment over other Christians. It is just as several of the articles written by famous men of God have said.

From Dr. H.A. Ironside:



Of course, I'm sure you believe yourself to be far wiser, more knowledgeable, spiritual, and having more discernment than this famous preacher. :rolleyes:

If you would read his 7 chapter article, he will prove with scripture (rightly divided) that your belief system is absolutely full of error. Here is the article if you care (or should I say dare?) to read it.

http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/wrongly1.html

Pastor Ironside was absolutely correct about those who follow this false teaching. They are full of intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent.

I don't hold myself up to be superior to any other christian. Just the opposite is the case. Either way my judgement means nothing because the Lord is the one who will reward us according to our works. What I wrote is what I believe the bible teaches. I believe you are wrong and I wouldn't care if everybody disagreed with me. Show me where I'm wrong, Winman. But you can't because you don't rightly divide the scriptures.

greenbear 06-30-2009 05:33 PM

Winman, chapter 7 doesn't address what I have written. You don't think for yourself you appeal to the authority of other men and let them do your thinking for you. I have to go with what the bible says here. I'm sure I'm not right on every point but it sure lines up with Paul's writings and Acts and the Gospels better than than your one gospel in the history of the world theory.

greenbear 06-30-2009 05:51 PM

George,

I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge of the scriptures. As I've made clear on various posts, I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all. It would be surprising if I was right on everything. I've written what I believe from what I've read and understood. If you think I'm wrong on anything I would be happy to see you respond if you wanted to. I'm just so tired of hearing brother's arguments that aren't even arguments from scripture rightly divided.

JOHN G 06-30-2009 05:54 PM

Greenbear..
 
Good evening GB,
Winman wanted you to read Mr. Ironside's 7 chapter article as opposed to chapter 7 of the article. It seems you didn't rightly divide Winman's comment.:)

chette777 06-30-2009 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 23054)
Well, to answer your question. I have been a Christian for 44 years, having received Christ as a boy of 11.

I am glad to see you sharing a little more about yourself. but being a Christian for 44 years proves nothing as far as wisdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 23054)
I love the way you dispensationalists whether ultra, hyper, or whatever you call yourselves, believe yourselves to have superior knowledge and discernment over other Christians. It is just as several of the articles written by famous men of God have said.

you again accuse people of being superior intellectually while you yourself are being superior in being able to judge others and their hearts, and placing yours and the knowledge of others as more superior than Greenbears, Chette and George. I think Jesus had a name he called people like you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 23054)
Of course, I'm sure you believe yourself to be far wiser, more knowledgeable, spiritual, and having more discernment than this famous preacher. :rolleyes:

here again you make a clear judgement of Greenbears heart as being "far more wiser and knowledgeable, spiritual and having more discernment" than a FAMOUS man. A Christian celebrity which doesn't prove he had the smarts enough to teach the Bible. And you are exalting the knowledge of a man over the Bible truth and facts, as shown by many scriptures George and others have tired to show. Ironside is just as weak and frail as you or I. Beware of man worship it is subtle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 23054)
If you would read his 7 chapter article, he will prove with scripture (rightly divided) that your belief system is absolutely full of error. Here is the article if you care (or should I say dare?) to read it.

Pastor Ironside was absolutely correct about those who follow this false teaching. They are full of intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent.

Ironside is correct you are full of intellectual and spiritual pride. He speaks into a mirror of judgement. Ironside makes the same blind judgement as you, and his study is flawed by the fact of his Theological Slant. I have Ironside's commentary on John. It is easy to look back into historical writings and impose more recent knowledge on it and make it say something other than it did when it was inspired and penned.

This exactly the error of Ironside, you and many others. you make the Gospel of Grace retroactive into the narratives of the four Gospel writers and the Old Testament. They did not and could not have presented the gospel of grace in the life of Christ prior to the revealing of the mystery to Paul. (you have been shown all the scriptures already in many threads and posts)

This is part of Dominion, Replacement and Covenant Theology's technique to read into previous writings the Gospel of Grace. it is a flawed premise and a twisting of scriptures to placate their religious practice today.

chette777 06-30-2009 06:05 PM

John G,

We are not commanded to rightly divide the posts of Winman or any man. the command is to rightly divide the word of truth.

JOHN G 06-30-2009 06:38 PM

Good discussion
 
Thanks for your courteous reply Bro. George. No doubt, I still have a lot to learn.

I must contend, however, that Nicodemus already believed in a resurrection.
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

I also think they Nicodemus should have realized [and I believe he eventually did] the powerful loaded terms the Lord Jesus was using. The “Son of man” and Moses and the serpent references should have sent alarms off in Nicodemus’ head to see the Truth sitting before him.
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Num 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

Here is Paul before Agrippa and Festus…..

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


Nicodemus, being a master of Israel, should have seen Him coming.

Good discussion…

greenbear 06-30-2009 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 23063)
Good evening GB,
Winman wanted you to read Mr. Ironside's 7 chapter article as opposed to chapter 7 of the article. It seems you didn't rightly divide Winman's comment.:)

Just for you and Winman I will read chapters 1-6. :)

greenbear 06-30-2009 11:14 PM

Winman,
Thanks for your concern in recommending Ironside's article. I read chapter 7, then 1-3. Unfortunately, I feel it's a waste of my time to continue so I won't. In my opinion, Ironside resorts to character assassination, name-calling, fear-mongering, straw-man arguments, faulty reasoning, wrong interpretation of scriptures and he doesn't seem very strong in eschatology, either. Attempting to influence opinion by labeling those who disagree as a heretic by the "orthodox" consensus is the oldest trick in the book. I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework. If people want to label me as something or other because I may agree on some points, oh well.

For the record, I never said the church/body of Christ/bride of Christ didn't start with the Jewish church. At this time, to the best of my understanding, I see it as same body, 2 dispensations. Not 2 bodies, 2 dispensations. Definitely not 1 body, 1 dispensation.

If some choose to let other men do their thinking for them and use every kind of argument including appeal to some man's authority rather than sound scriptural ones then that's their business. We all have to face the judgement seat of Christ. I choose to study to show myself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. If that causes some to accuse me of spiritual and intellectual pride then so be it. I'm not the judge.

I will endeavor to follow after charity in my posts: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Charity never faileth

1 Corinthians 13:4-5.

greenbear 06-30-2009 11:56 PM

Brother Chette and Brother George,

Thank you both for your kindness in supporting me against false accusations, scripture wresting and unreasonable arguments. It's encouraging to see a "friendly face" sometimes. If we have occasion to differ on this forum I'd probably find it refreshing to argue with you.

Jennifer

chette777 07-01-2009 05:11 AM

also a common trait in H A Ironside's commentaries I have is that he says things like, this word would be better translated or the Hebrew or Greek word can be translated differently than what it is in the KJV.

Ironside was not a KJV is a perfect complete without errors kind of guy. where he could he would change the KJV Bible. not only that his commentaries are full of just comments about things more than "what Sayeth the Lord".

he blended every thing into one gospel from Adam to today. He failed to rightly divide. He is a nice guy and famous person but he was not a very good at rightly dividing.

JOHN G 07-01-2009 07:36 AM

Hey Bro. Chette,

You said,

Quote:

We are not commanded to rightly divide the posts of Winman or any man. the command is to rightly divide the word of truth.
I am not 100% doctrinally pure by any means. I have a lot to learn and am thankful for you and others here for the insight I have gained here or varying issues. However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless. Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
GB said,
Quote:

I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all
I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

Diligent 07-01-2009 09:30 AM

I figure this is a good place to suggest a book that helps clarify what right dividing is.

One Book Rightly Divided

Every objection to Dispensationalism I have read in this thread is answered by Brother Stauffer in this book.

I've started and stopped several replies to posts by Winman because it gets so tiring to constantly answer objections that have already been dealt with in other threads, but perhaps reading a book by an author not on the forum, where no personal animosity exists, would be helpful.

Winman, if you're willing to consider the writings of Ironside to help you define your understanding, perhaps you should give a few hours to someone else to hear the other side of the matter.

greenbear 07-01-2009 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 23082)
Hey Bro. Chette,

You said,



I am not 100% doctrinally pure by any means. I have a lot to learn and am thankful for you and others here for the insight I have gained here or varying issues. However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless. Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
GB said,

I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

JOHN G Quote
Quote:

Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
Quote: greenbear
I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes, it is a shame to you that a woman back to reading her bible for six short weeks after a ten year lapse is obedient to the Lord in rightly dividing His word of truth and you aren't.

George 07-01-2009 01:59 PM

Re: "Dispensational Truth and Error"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 23062)
George,

"I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge of the scriptures. As I've made clear on various posts, I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all. It would be surprising if I was right on everything. I've written what I believe from what I've read and understood. If you think I'm wrong on anything I would be happy to see you respond if you wanted to. I'm just so tired of hearing brother's arguments that aren't even arguments from scripture rightly divided."


Aloha sister Jennifer,

You are doing JUST FINE (without any "guidance" from me). :D Your husband (johnlf) should be proud. :) The only thing that I will I recommend is that you continue to follow his headship.

I believe, that in your heart, you sincerely want to know the truth - and that's what counts (NOT how much "knowledge" we have!). It''s the HEART - it's always "where the heart is" that really and truly matters. [Proverbs 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.]

I have read most of your Posts and am in agreement with most of what you have said. There are always going to be some differences between genuine Bible believers, but so far I haven't read anything that you have written that is worth "fightin over" (at least not on my part).

I also agree with your assessment of Harry Ironside in your Post #50:
Quote:

Winman,
"Thanks for your concern in recommending Ironside's article. I read chapter 7, then 1-3. Unfortunately, I feel it's a waste of my time to continue so I won't. In my opinion, Ironside resorts to character assassination, name-calling, fear-mongering, straw-man arguments, faulty reasoning, wrong interpretation of scriptures and he doesn't seem very strong in eschatology, either. Attempting to influence opinion by labeling those who disagree as a heretic by the "orthodox" consensus is the oldest trick in the book. I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework. If people want to label me as something or other because I may agree on some points, oh well."
Ironside, like so many commentators of his day, would not hesitate to "CORRECT" the King James Bible, wherever it ran afoul of his "personal beliefs". WHY do so many people on the Forum keep recommending other men? - other men's books, tapes, cd's, video's, articles, etc., etc., instead of encouraging people to "search the Scriptures"?

I also agree with your "assessment" (your Post #18) of "Pastor" Lee Spencer's essay on Dispensationalism
Quote:

"His argument about dividing the body of Christ, starving ego, recognition as a teacher, one-upmanship doesn't hold water for me. That is the argument of the status quo. It has no bearing on the truth; it's irrelevant."
His points are mostly the "parroting" & "regurgitation" of numerous "commentators" who came before him - and most of whom did a much better job of defending their beliefs than he has done. But the most damaging part of his article is where he CHANGES the Holy words of God in order to prove his point! {Whenever a man does this to my Bible I write him off as just one more proud, vain, and egotistical man who believes that he has the "right" to "CORRECT" God's Holy word whenever he "DISAGREES" with it; and who "THINKS" he knows better than God!}

I find it interesting that Winman posts another man's article (on Dispensationalism), rather than posting his own words. and upon reading "Pastor" Lee Spencer's essay, it becomes crystal clear that Winman not only let's other people "speak" for him, but they also do his "thinking" for him also! {Check my Link: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...4&postcount=49 to see where "Pastor" Lee Spencer runs to "THE UNHAMPERED HEBREW TEXT" (his "words" - NOT mine!) and ADDS to the Holy Bible and CHANGES God's Holy word to prove a "theological point"!} :tsk: Oh well - WHAT'S NEW? Winman does it all the time! :( And Winman "recommends" this man? :confused:

It never cease to amaze me how enthusiastic people can get over the "words" of mere men, but show so little love and devotion for the Holy "words" of God!

I guess for today's Christians (steeped in Humanism) "A little leaven" doesn't really "leaven the whole lump"! [Galatians 5:9] WHY does a child of God "NEED" to "sift" through a garbage dump (leaven = corruption) in order to find some gold or silver - when we have the GOLD MINE at our finger tips? WHY does a genuine Bible believer "NEED" to check out these oh so wise Bible correcting commentators for precious "gems", when we have the DIAMOND MINE sitting at home on a coffee table? Hmmm? :confused:

Let's take a look at Harry Ironside's quotes (Chapter 7) and see where he would place me on his neat little "Dispensational Scale".

Harry Ironsides’ quotes:
Ironsides’
Quote:

Briefly, then, what are the outstanding tenets of Bullingerism and its kindred systems? For one needs to remember that a number are teaching these ultra-dispensational things who declare that they are not familiar with the writings of Dr. Bullinger, and repudiate with indignation the name of "Bullingerism." There are perhaps six outstanding positions taken by these teachers:

First, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was "a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers," it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church, the Body of Christ. All might not put it quite as boldly as this, but certainly their disciples go to the limit in repudiating the authority of the Gospels.

I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this first point. As a Bible believer I do not “consign” the Four Gospels as being only for the Jews (“entirely Jewish) without any “real message for the church”; but what I try to do is obey God’s commandment concerning the study of His word: [2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.] That means I do NOT “divide” the “BOOKS” of the Bible as being either for the Jews or for the church. I am told to rightly divide the “WORDS” – NOT the “BOOKS”!

The Bible clearly says:


2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


The Lord Jesus Christ emphatically stated:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And Paul reaffirmed that statement:

Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

So, although most of the Four Gospels are about The Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”; any part of the Four Gospels that is not contrary to Paul’s teaching for the churches can be applied to a Christian, and all Four Gospels are there for “our learning” [Romans 15:4] – however we must be extremely careful NOT to “apply” those “words" which are directed specifically to the Jews (at the time of Christ) to the church or to a Christian .
{It’s called: “rightly dividing the word of truth.”}

Ironsides’
Quote:

Secondly, it is maintained that the book of Acts covers a transition period between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of the mystery; that is, that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word "ekklesia" (church, or assembly), as used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether to that of Paul's prison epistles. This earlier Church is simply an aspect of the kingdom and is not the same as the Body of Christ!
I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this second point. I believe that the “church” started soon after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; and that it was present at Pentecost (something can “exist” without anyone being aware of it). I believe that the early church consisted of entirely Jews (and Jewish Proselytes) and that the “message” that was being preached at that time {Between Acts 2 through Acts 7} was NOT “the Gospel of the Grace of God” (i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”), but a continuation of “the gospel of the kingdom” – with a special emphasis on the nation of Israel REPENTING of killing their Messiah & King.

I believe that upon the final REJECTION (by the nation of Israel’s leaders) of the Holy Spirit (living in the Lord’s disciples) and His “message” to Israel (i.e. with the stoning of Stephen) that Lord began to turn to the Gentiles - beginning in Samaria and then with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts Chapter 8; the conversion of Saul (later called Paul - the Apostle to the Gentiles) in Acts Chapter 9; and with the conversion of Cornelius and his household in Acts Chapter 10.

I believe that the “center” of “Christianity” SHIFTED from Jerusalem to Antioch during the ministry of the Apostle Paul, due to the fact that the Jews in Jerusalem and throughout the Mediterranean area hardened their hearts to the “Gospel”, while the Gentiles gladly received it. [Acts 28:23-28]

I do NOT “divide” Paul into “Early Paul”; “Mid Paul”; and “Late Paul”, simply because I am supposed to be “rightly dividing the word of truth” – NOT rightly dividing Paul.

Ironsides’
Quote:

Third, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his prison epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to members of the Body. All of the other epistles of Paul, save those written during his imprisonment and the general epistles, are relegated to the earlier dispensation of the book of Acts, and have no permanent value for us, but were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish church of that time.
I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this third point. I believe that Paul received most of the “revelation” that he received directly from the Lord Jesus Christ early on (in Damascus and in Arabia). [Galatians 1: 10-18 (especially verses 15 - 18); Galatians 2:1-2;Ephesians 3:1-7 (especially verses 2 & 3)]

Ironsides’
Quote:

Fourth, the entire book of Revelation has to do with the coming age and has no reference to the Church today. Even the letters to the seven churches in Asia, which are distinctly said to be "the things which are," are, according to this system, to be considered as "the things which are not," and will not be until the Church, the Body of Christ, is removed from this world. Then, it is contended, these seven churches will appear on the earth as Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.
Since futureprophecy” entails so much “speculation”, “surmising”, “conjecture”, and “supposition” on the part of the reader - this is an area that I have not studied in depth, and so I cannot speak directly to it - except to say that most “Dispensationalists” that I know (or have read) basically “parrot” each other (with a few “minor” differences). However, there are a couple of verses in the Book of Revelation that have “PUZZLED” me for well over 20 years:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit
on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Most commentators interpretthe Lord’s day” as being “Sunday” (the first day of the week), but I do not believe that that is the correct interpretation. Sunday is never referred to as “the Lord’s day” in the Bible (No, not once); but there are plenty of references to “the day of the Lord” in the Bible:

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Jeremiah 46:10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.
Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.
Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.
Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.
Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day
Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

John states that he “was IN the Spirit ON The Lord’s Day”. IF “the Lord’s day” = “the day of the Lord”, then everything that “follows” Revelation
1:10 takes place IN (or during) “the day of the Lord”, and cannot be applied to the church age at all. I have never done the study, so I cannot be sure of exactly where, when, or how all of these things are rightly divided (and so I can make no determination as to – what the truth of this matter is) – except for this one observation: Revelation 1:1 is talking about “things which must shortly come to pass” - 1,900 plus years seems like a long time for “things which must shortly come to pass”!

Ironsides’
Quote:

Fifth, the Body of Christ is altogether a different company, according to these teachers, from the Bride of the Lamb, the latter being supposed to be Jewish.
Since 1968 I have believed that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Bride of the Lamb. To be honest, this is another issue which I have not delved into in depth, and I know some of the brethren on the Forum believe otherwise. I only have so much time to study (and “much study is a weariness of the flesh”) and again, since this issue has to do with the future (“prophecy”) and involves some “speculation” and “supposition” on my part – it has not been very high on my list of “priorities” when it comes to the study of spiritual issues. {I try to concentrate on those things that the Apostle Paul concentrated on – “sound doctrine” and Scriptural "Christian conduct”.}

Ironsides’
Quote:

Sixth, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul is supposed to have received his revelation of the mystery in prison, have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore, are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.”
I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this sixth point. Although brother Tonybones is like Apollos (“mighty in the Scriptures”), he has not persuaded me that water baptism was done away with by the end of Paul’s ministry. Absent a clear prohibition (by Paul) in the Scriptures against water baptism, I will continue to believe it to be one of two ordinances (the Lord’s Supper being the second) for the New Testament church. {Just because there have been vile and atrocious ABUSES of these ordinances, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are unscriptural.}

Now I wonder where Harry Ironside would place me on his Dispensational "Scale"? Would I be considered HALF a "Hyper-Dispensationalist"? Or possibly MOSTLY a "Moderate Dispensationalist"? As for me - I'm really not worried about being labeled by those Christians who seek to HARMONIZE God's words rather than DIVIDE them. You will notice that the moment any of them start to lose a discussion that they will revert to personal attacks rather than stick with the issue being discussed.

In nearly fifty one years of being a Christian there is one thing that I have learned in dealing with the "brethren", (sadly it took me far too long to learn) that "Christians" are going to "DISAPPOINT" you - get used to it, and whatever you do, don't get so offended by them that you "backslide" (like I did on at least three occasions in my Christian life). Do what brother Forrest Wychopen does - "Keep your eyes on the Lord Jesus Christ" and NOT on the brethren!

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Bro. Parrish 07-01-2009 02:37 PM

George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother. :)

Brothers and Sisters:

I haven't made a lot of posts on this thread, but in reflecting on some of these comments, it has occurred to me that I have seen good Christians beaten up and spurned because they do not agree with one view of dispensationalism over another. I have seen KJV believers have their very SALVATION questioned because they do not subscribe to some "construct" of division. I have seen good people on this forum become bitter and wage vicious attacks about details that even they THEMSELVES do not all agree on, even in their own little "camps." At times I have seen a pompous spirit rise up, which seems to suggest there is only ONE WAY of "rightly dividing" and no other could possibly be correct. I am convinced that much of this has more to do with personal friendships and alliances than it does with scriptural ABSOLUTES. Still, we put up our banners of interpretation and stake out territories, as though any of us could possibly come to a different conclusion in the end that ALL MEN are saved THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

This is all very sad, because even the men who have promoted various forms of Hyperdispensationalism, Ultra-dispensationalism, etc. do not all agree on some of these doctrines, and some have even changed their doctrines over the years to better suit their own constructs! :rolleyes:

There are Ultras and Hypers on one end, there are non-dispensationalists on the other. A lot of us are somewhere in the middle. As you all know by now, I consider myself to be a moderate dispensationalist. Yes, I feel that Hyperdispensationalism is a chain of errors and an unworthy distraction, yes I get concerned when I see attacks on Biblical doctrines of believer's baptism and the Lord's supper, but that does not mean we should become hateful or angry at one another.

I have come to a conclusion over these last few weeks.
Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

George 07-01-2009 06:13 PM

Re: " Dispensational Truth and Error"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 23088)
George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother. :)

Brothers and Sisters:

I haven't made a lot of posts on this thread, but in reflecting on some of these comments, it has occurred to me that I have seen good Christians beaten up and spurned because they do not agree with one view of dispensationalism over another. I have seen KJV believers have their very SALVATION questioned because they do not subscribe to some "construct" of division. I have seen good people on this forum become bitter and wage vicious attacks about details that even they THEMSELVES do not all agree on, even in their own little "camps." At times I have seen a pompous spirit rise up, which seems to suggest there is only ONE WAY of "rightly dividing" and no other could possibly be correct. I am convinced that much of this has more to do with personal friendships and alliances than it does with scriptural ABSOLUTES. Still, we put up our banners of interpretation and stake out territories, as though any of us could possibly come to a different conclusion in the end that ALL MEN are saved THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

This is all very sad, because even the men who have promoted various forms of Hyperdispensationalism, Ultra-dispensationalism, etc. do not all agree on some of these doctrines, and some have even changed their doctrines over the years to better suit their own constructs! :rolleyes:

There are Ultras and Hypers on one end, there are non-dispensationalists on the other. A lot of us are somewhere in the middle. As you all know by now, I consider myself to be a moderate dispensationalist. Yes, I feel that Hyperdispensationalism is a chain of errors and an unworthy distraction, yes I get concerned when I see attacks on Biblical doctrines of believer's baptism and the Lord's supper, but that does not mean we should become hateful or angry at one another.

I have come to a conclusion over these last few weeks.
Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

Aloha brother Parish,

I appreciate the compliment - but WHY do I have to be "agreeing" with Harry Ironside (or anybody else for that matter)? I have stated what I believe about some "dispensational" issues from my personal studies from the Bible - NOT from my studies of some MEN. WHY do "men" have to enter into the "equation" at all? I have been honest and forthright about my beliefs, WHY must you place me in "One Camp" or "Another", or on "One Side" or the "Other"? And WHY are you attempting to put words in my mouth concerning Hyper-Dispensationalism? My beliefs did NOT come from studying some man (Ironside), they came from studying the Holy words of God - Harry Ironside had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I believe.

If the way that you have presented the "problem" that exists on this Forum were true - it would be quite easy to “FIX”! The "problem" is NOT just over "rightly dividing the word of truth"! The problem goes much "deeper", and has to do with people (Winman in this case) NOT "owning up" to making "FALSE CLAIMS" and failing to admit to those "FALSE CLAIMS" when they are PROVEN TO BE "FALSE"!

The "problem" is NOT just the brethren agreeing to "disagree" - it has to do with people (Winman) making "FALSE ACCUSATIONS" and when those "accusations" are PROVEN to be "FALSE", failing to admit his offense.

The "problem" is NOT just a disagreement over Dispensational teaching - it has to do with people (Winman again) attributing statements (i.e. "words") to me (and others) that we NEVER SAID!

The "problem" is NOT just a disagreement over some minor doctrinal issues - it has to do with people (Winman again) taking my "words" (and other people's "words" and "wresting" them out of their "context" and then "twisting" them to MAKE them "MEAN" something other than what was really SAID!

The "problem" is NOT over a "difference" of opinion between brethren; NOT when Winman makes ad hominem (personal) attacks against my character, and personally slanders me by accusing me of being a “Pharisee”; of being “pompous”; of being “self-righteous”; of being “arrogant”; and NOT practicing “Christian behavior”. I have pointed all of these things out to you before, and you have completely IGNORED every single offense that Winman has personally made against me. Check my Posts on this issue and see if I ever made such personal attacks on Winman’s character. If I have criticized him or reproved or rebuked him, it has been about his “habit” of “twisting” and “wresting” words; it’s been about how he handles the word of God, but I NEVER engaged in “personal attacks” on his character or called into question - his "Christian behavior" – and yet NONE OF THESE THINGS “MEANS” ANYTHING TO YOU!

The "problem" is NOT just a minor difference with another brother in Christ. Winman has been continually (ad nauseum) NAYSAYING and DISAGREEING with practically every single person who has started a Thread or made Posts in relation to the subject of Dispensationalism or "rightly dividing the word of truth". He even started his own "Thread" on the subject {"Dispensational Truth and Error"> which was actually written by someone else: "Pastor" Lee Spencer - who ADDED to, and CHANGED the word of God to "prove" a theological point; which doesn't seem to "bother" Winman one little bit! But does it "bother" you?}

HOW do you "FIX" these "PROBLEMS"? The "problem" is NOT as simple as you have portrayed it; and it is not going to go away.

Now, for your information, Over the past year and a half, I have had some pretty sharp differences with Brother Tim (over some of these same issues); I have had some differences with brother Sammy Tabuena (Biblestudent - a pastor from
Iloilo, in the Philippines); and I do not always agree with brother Chette (a missionary on the Island of Palawan, in the Philippines). And what of brother tonybones? He and I both know that there are some doctrinal "differences" between us.

Can you satisfactorily explain WHY it is that we have never engaged in this kind of contentious strife? WHY is it that I still get along with them? Could it be that they do NOT make "FALSE CLAIMS" or make "FALSE ACCUSATIONS"? Could it possibly be that even though we have our differences, that they have NEVER "wrested" my words out of "context"? Could it be that they have NEVER "twisted" my words to MAKE them say something other than what I actually said? Could it be because they have NEVER called me POMPUS, ARROGANT, SELF-RIGHTEOUS or a PHARISEE? WHY is it that you CANNOT (or will not) “judge righteous judgment” in this matter?


Instead of “generalizing” with: “CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM.WHY don’t you check out my Posts to see IF I ever “CONDEMED” Winman (or anyone else for that matter) “about DIVIDING”! And if you cannot find a Thread or a Post where I truly “CONDEMNED” (NOTcriticized”, “admonished”, “reproved”, or “rebuked”) someone over NOT “rightly dividing the word of truth” – BUT where I actually “CONDEMNED” them, I will gladly apologize. But if you cannot find where I ever “CONDEMNED” someone over this issue – WHY do you “generalize” and include any or all of us in an ACCUSATION that is UNFOUNDED?

This is what comes from NOT being “specific” about a matter. When you are specific about issues they can be dealt with (one thing at a time - if necessary). When you deal in “BROAD GENERALITIES” nothing can be solved because no one knows for sure WHO or WHAT you are referring to!

Papering over” the individual issues involved in this contentious dispute will NOT solve the “problem”. I have NOT made “CLAIMS” that can be PROVEN FALSE! I have NOT made FALSE ACCUSATIONS against Winman! I have NOTtwisted” or “wrested” Winman’s words! I have NOT taken his words out of “context” and MADE them say something other than what he SAID! I have NOT attributed to Winman statements that he NEVER MADE! I have NOT engaged in a personal attack on Winman’s character or called into question his “Christian behavior”. He HAS DONE all of the above, and until (or unless) he “makes things right”, I will avoid having anything to do with him.

Now, you will notice that I haven’t even mentioned Winman’s mis-use and abuse of the Holy Scriptures. I thought that , since he has chosen to make this “personal”, that I would keep our disagreements confined to his conduct concerning myself and keep my comments about his handling of the word of God out of the discussion.

Judging righteous judgment is not that difficult – IF a person knows what the Scriptures say about judgment, and IF they believe the Scriptures enough to follow and obey them.




greenbear 07-01-2009 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 23082)
Hey Bro. Chette,

You said,



I am not 100% doctrinally pure by any means. I have a lot to learn and am thankful for you and others here for the insight I have gained here or varying issues. However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless. Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
GB said,

I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

JOHN G:
Quote:

However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless.
You sure hold me to a high standard, John. Let's see how you hold up to your own high standard of "rightly dividing" posts. My "commentary on the Book of Acts"? I could only find one reference I used from Acts in this entire thread:

Quote:

From post #37
Were the apostleship to the circumcism in error regarding the temple practices and the ordinances they continued in ? I think not. Paul even continued in them until God showed him he was to preach only to the gentiles at a certain point.

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The offer of the Kingdom of God was still open for a time. If national Israel would have accepted their Messiah He would have come back at that time and national Israel would once again have become the source of blessing to the gentiles. The change in emphasis from the gospel of the circumcism to Paul's gospel to the uncircumcism is transitional. The more fully we understand this the fewer difficult and seemily contradictory verses we encounter.
You have also "slipped up" and wrongly divided my posts.

I've wondered when someone would finally break down and use the "woman should be silent " card because they disagree with me or are at a loss. It's obvious from the first three verses of 1 Timothy that Timothy is the bishop of the church at Ephesus, the pastor of the local church there. Paul therefore is giving Timothy instructions for behavior in the church assembly. In my understanding and that of my husband, anything outside of that is adding to the word of God.

chette777 07-01-2009 07:19 PM

Just to be clear.

I did not say Winman was unsaved, nor does lack of a testimony prove he is unsaved.

the only reason I asked him to check himself was because of his own words and actions in his posts and threads.

1)He constantly argues which sometimes (notice the words "which sometimes") would indicate there is lack of the Holy Ghost activity in his life,
2)He can not see simple truths shown with the Scriptures which sometimes is a indication there is a lack of the Holy Ghost activity in his life,
3)He misunderstands others statement about scriptures which sometimes could indicate a lack of the Holy Ghost activity);
4)He falsely accuses (a satanic activity) brethren which sometimes is a indication of the lack of the Holy Ghost activity in his life,
5)he twists the word of God as well as the words of George, Geenbear, myself and others which sometimes could be an indication of the lack of the Holy Ghost in his life.
6)And there is the fact that you and I know that if an incorrect Gospel is believed that is a direct indication that the Holy Ghost in not in a persons life.

Now analyze, use righteous judgement and do the math 5 out of 6 indicators are active in Winman's AV1611 forum life. if there are that many areas where it seems (I said it SEEMS not that there is) the Holy Ghost is not active in Winman's life, why is that? When I added it up I suggested that he might check and see if he is truly saved. If he did and believes he is truly saved then the next step is to see if he is in disobedience to God's word, or if there is something else that is grieving or quenching the Holy Ghost in his life. that is all I meant to communicate.

I never said he was unsaved. And if that was what everyone thought I said then I apologize because I never was trying to say that.

George 07-01-2009 08:03 PM

Re: "Dispensational Truth and Error"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 23067)
"Thanks for your courteous reply Bro. George. No doubt, I still have a lot to learn.

I must contend, however, that Nicodemus already believed in a resurrection
."
John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

"I also think they Nicodemus should have realized [and I believe he eventually did] the powerful loaded terms the Lord Jesus was using. The “Son of man” and Moses and the serpent references should have sent alarms off in Nicodemus’ head to see the Truth sitting before him."
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Num 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

"Here is Paul before Agrippa and Festus….."

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


"Nicodemus, being a master of Israel, should have seen Him coming.

Good discussion…
"

JohnG,

Here are your statements (with my comments):
Quote:

"I must contend, however, that Nicodemus already believed in a resurrection ."
So what! He knew NOTHING about the specific death, burial, and RESURRECTION of the Lord Jesus Christ (and that was my "point".) All of the Pharisees "professed" to believe in the resurrection - and they still REJECTED their Messiah & King, and had him KILLED! And after the Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection the Pharisees again REJECTED the Apostles' and Disciples' testimony that Christ had indeed "Risen from the dead"!

{The facts are - the Pharisees REFUSED to BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus Christ's RESURRECTION, and that's the "resurrection" that "counts". Your "point" is "fallacious" and without any merit whatsoever.}

Quote:

"I also think they Nicodemus should have realized [and I believe he eventually did] the powerful loaded terms the Lord Jesus was using. The “Son of man” and Moses and the serpent references should have sent alarms off in Nicodemus’ head to see the Truth sitting before him."
Your point that you: "think they Nicodemus should have realized [and I believe he eventually did]" Is pure "hypothesis" without one single verse of Scripture to back up your "guesswork". And again, your claim that: "The “Son of man” and Moses and the serpent references should have sent alarms off in Nicodemus’ head to see the Truth sitting before him."Is pure "assumption" on your part. Your whole point, from beginning to end, is just wild "speculation". "I think"; I "believe"; and "should have" are all your "private personal opinion", and NOT Scriptural PROOF or SUPPORT for any of your "conjectures"!

Quote:

"Nicodemus, being a master of Israel, should have seen Him coming."

Good discussion…
"
WHY is it that Nicodemus "should have seen Him coming"? Hardly any other of the other Pharisees saw "Him coming"! As a matter of fact the Lord's disciples (who spent practically everyday with Him) - DID NOT "SEE HIM COMING"! :tsk:

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Now, If the Lord Jesus Christ's own disciples DID NOT KNOW that he was going to "rise again from the dead" - How in the world was Nicodemus supposed to know? Hmmm?

From the beginning of your Post until the end, all you have given us is your "private opinion" about what you "think" and "believe" SHOULD HAVE happened! Your mis-handling of the Holy Scriptures is without excuse! {Winman should be proud that you are in "agreement" with him!}

And in regards to the "cheap shot" that you took at sister Jennifer (greenbear): Your snide remarks were uncalled for and totally without charity. You've got a whole lot of "nerve" to make personal slanderous remarks about a sister in Christ about whom you know nothing about!

For being a "stranger" to the Forum, you sure are lacking in common courtesy and consideration! Don't expect any more "discussion" or "dialogue" from me on anything more you may have to say on this Forum. Your personal insults to a sister in Christ "crossed a line" (with me). You sure do "have a lot to learn" - and I don't only mean about "rightly dividing the word of truth"; you need to learn something about common decency and respect! :eek:

chette777 07-01-2009 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN G (Post 23082)
Hey Bro. Chette,

I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

But you did cause offense to Sister Greenbear and to George (that is obvious by his post). So take the right steps to make things right.

and the things George said about the word of God. He is correct. you added a whole lot of JohnG and no Bible to your statements of Nicodemus. Remember too Paul used the resurrection to divide the court of Pharisees (who believed in a resurrection and Sadducee's to did not) in Acts 23:6, 7 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. so John 3 was not about Nicodemus believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ because it never took place yet and he was blinded to any truth of it.

It is easy for us to look back and place our understanding into it. but we need to be careful in so doing we can change the word of God just like Winman, Ironside and most Covenant Theologists today do.

greenbear 07-01-2009 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 23088)
George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother. :)

Brothers and Sisters:

I haven't made a lot of posts on this thread, but in reflecting on some of these comments, it has occurred to me that I have seen good Christians beaten up and spurned because they do not agree with one view of dispensationalism over another. I have seen KJV believers have their very SALVATION questioned because they do not subscribe to some "construct" of division. I have seen good people on this forum become bitter and wage vicious attacks about details that even they THEMSELVES do not all agree on, even in their own little "camps." At times I have seen a pompous spirit rise up, which seems to suggest there is only ONE WAY of "rightly dividing" and no other could possibly be correct. I am convinced that much of this has more to do with personal friendships and alliances than it does with scriptural ABSOLUTES. Still, we put up our banners of interpretation and stake out territories, as though any of us could possibly come to a different conclusion in the end that ALL MEN are saved THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

This is all very sad, because even the men who have promoted various forms of Hyperdispensationalism, Ultra-dispensationalism, etc. do not all agree on some of these doctrines, and some have even changed their doctrines over the years to better suit their own constructs! :rolleyes:

There are Ultras and Hypers on one end, there are non-dispensationalists on the other. A lot of us are somewhere in the middle. As you all know by now, I consider myself to be a moderate dispensationalist. Yes, I feel that Hyperdispensationalism is a chain of errors and an unworthy distraction, yes I get concerned when I see attacks on Biblical doctrines of believer's baptism and the Lord's supper, but that does not mean we should become hateful or angry at one another.

I have come to a conclusion over these last few weeks.
Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

Bro. Parrish,

I can't help but notice you begin your post with an inference that George is inconsistent in his post #56 to me:
Quote:

George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother.
You note that brother George stated that he agrees with my assessment of Ironside's article, which is :
Quote:

In my opinion, Ironside resorts to character assassination, name-calling, fear-mongering, straw-man arguments, faulty reasoning, wrong interpretation of scriptures and he doesn't seem very strong in eschatology, either. Attempting to influence opinion by labeling those who disagree as a heretic by the "orthodox" consensus is the oldest trick in the book. I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework.
I also happen to agree with brother George's comments about Ironside's first five points. I don't believe I've espoused those first five positions in my posts.

I notice you haven't specifically addressed what I have written but instead pick up on a comment where I say that I may agree on some points with what I've read about Hyperdispensationalism.
From my post #50:
Quote:

I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework. If people want to label me as something or other because I may agree on some points, oh well.
Ironside's article is not the be all and end all of the subject matter.
Ironside's descriptions of the positions are very limited and slanted.
Just the other day I had the bright idea of googling hyper and ultra. So I have a little more insight than just what is in your article. I believe brother George was referring to what I have written on this thread and other threads. I also believe brother George has more insight into hyper and ultra than what Ironside wrote. I think the inconsistency was in your own mind for whatever reason.

I posted on this thread that I don't believe there are two churches. That would mean there are two bodies of Christ. That is impossible. It's also impossible, by my understanding, that the church of the circumcision was under the dispensation of grace by faith alone, which I understand to be Paul's gospel. Once the wall of partition between the jews and the gentiles was removed, the Jewish and the gentile parts of the church became one.

Ephesians 2:14-22 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

I don't see why you intimate George is inconsistent in his post to me. Except for Ironside's point 6, I believe George and I am in agreement.

Since I think you have read a lot of my posts on this forum you are probably aware of my position on water baptism. I believe the same for the Lord's Supper. I don't believe there are any ordinances for the church under the dispensation of grace. I do know that it isn't a salvation issue and I understand you don't want us to become hateful and angry at each other over these two ordinances. I agree.

Bro. Parrish:
Quote:

Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.
You sure deliver a one, two punch followed by a bear hug above. You miss the point, bro Parrish. Some of us don't base our views on any human author's writings. We don't go to some man's body of material and cherry pick teachings to piece together our doctrines. We will study the bible and come to our own conclusions. If we end up finding any points of agreement with these men it simply means they may be right on something after all!

Jassy 07-01-2009 10:40 PM

I must say...
 
I must say that I agree with brothers George and Chette and sister Greenbear.

If you read the gospels carefully, you see evidence that even the DISCIPLES, those who were the very CLOSEST to Jesus were unaware! How could, therefore, others be aware and KNOW? They didn't know!

Look at the following Scripture as examples:

Mark 9:32 - But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Luke 2:50 - And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

Luke 9:45 - But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

John 8:27 - They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

John 10:6 - This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what thing they were which he spake unto them.

John 12:16 - These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

Jassy

Bro. Parrish 07-01-2009 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 23107)
I notice you haven't specifically addressed what I have written but instead pick up on a comment where I say that I may agree on some points with what I've read about Hyperdispensationalism.

Well, it is what it is, sister.
And to be straight forward, you didn't just say you "MAY AGREE on SOME POINTS,"
your comment from post no. 36 was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 23023)
"I find I hold a lot of the views of a hyperdispensationalist."

I was simply taking you at your own word, based on your own stated position.

Quote:

You sure deliver a one, two punch followed by a bear hug above. You miss the point, bro Parrish. Some of us don't base our views on any human author's writings. We don't go to some man's body of material and cherry pick teachings to piece together our doctrines. We will study the bible and come to our own conclusions.
Yes, that's exactly what I suggested in post no. 35, when I stated:
"Ultimately, every believer will have to examine the scriptures and decide for themselves." :)

I think it's fair to say that many here have done that also, including some of those who don't agree with the errors of Hyperdispensationalism (imagine that). From what I have SEEN, I don't think there are a lot of people here who hold to that doctrine to be honest, but that is only my opinion based on the posts we see. Either way Jennifer, people are free to make their own choices.

chette777 07-01-2009 10:54 PM

Bro Parish,

Before you make another crack about anyone saying someone was not saved or they didn't have salvation please reread my original post which is in another thread and read post #60. you will no longer have ammo for saying such. for like Winman you read my post the way you want too, without my context.

But I think post #60 will clear up any questions as to what I meant.

greenbear 07-01-2009 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jassy (Post 23110)
I must say that I agree with brothers George and Chette and sister Greenbear.

If you read the gospels carefully, you see evidence that even the DISCIPLES, those who were the very CLOSEST to Jesus were unaware! How could, therefore, others be aware and KNOW? They didn't know!

Look at the following Scripture as examples:

Mark 9:32 - But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Luke 2:50 - And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

Luke 9:45 - But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

John 8:27 - They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

John 10:6 - This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what thing they were which he spake unto them.

John 12:16 - These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

Jassy

Jassy,

I guess it is apparent that they did not understand!!!!:)

Forgive me for posting an entire chapter but I couldn't find any place to start but verse 1 or any place to end but verse 53. I tried to make it easier to read by adding color. :)

Lu*24:1 ¶ Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Lu*24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Lu*24:3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
Lu*24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
Lu*24:5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
Lu*24:6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Lu*24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Lu*24:8 And they remembered his words,
Lu*24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
Lu*24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Lu*24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
Lu*24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Lu*24:13 ¶ And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
Lu*24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
Lu*24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
Lu*24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
Lu*24:17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
Lu*24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
Lu*24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
Lu*24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
Lu*24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Lu*24:22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
Lu*24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
Lu*24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
Lu*24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Lu*24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Lu*24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Lu*24:28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
Lu*24:29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
Lu*24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
Lu*24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Lu*24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Lu*24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Lu*24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
Lu*24:35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
Lu*24:36 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Lu*24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Lu*24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Lu*24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Lu*24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Lu*24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
Lu*24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
Lu*24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
Lu*24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Lu*24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Lu*24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Lu*24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Lu*24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Lu*24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Lu*24:50 ¶ And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Lu*24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Lu*24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
Lu*24:53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.


************************************************** ************************************************** *****************************
************************************************** ************************************************** ******************************
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,
************************************************** ************************************************** ******************************
************************************************** ************************************************** ******************************

greenbear 07-01-2009 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 23113)
Well, it is what it is, sister.
And to be straight forward, you didn't just say you "MAY AGREE on SOME POINTS,"
your comment from post no. 36 was:



I was simply taking you at your own word, based on your own stated position.



Yes, that's exactly what I suggested in post no. 35, when I stated:
"Ultimately, every believer will have to examine the scriptures and decide for themselves." :)

I think it's fair to say that many here have done that also, including some of those who don't agree with the errors of Hyperdispensationalism (imagine that). From what I have SEEN, I don't think there are a lot of people here who hold to that doctrine to be honest, but that is only my opinion based on the posts we see. Either way Jennifer, people are free to make their own choices.

Yeah, from what I've read. Ironside, though. It's like growing into an adult and seeing that your parents are just frail, weak sinners like you are. (The collective "you", not you personally.) Can you give a sister a break while she decides for herself before labeling her? I know how you get with the hypers and I'd like to buy a little time before the abuse starts.

chette777 07-01-2009 11:32 PM

Jen,

It is easy for some to hurl abuses and false claims than it is the exercise Charity. keep up the good work your husband should be really proud of you for the way you kept your confidence in the word and not in men, and your cool under fire.

you focus on his word and you will grow faster than some of these 60 plus year old's on this site.

blessing in his word

JOHN G 07-01-2009 11:57 PM

Consider
 
John 20:
Quote:

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
What is meant by "the scripture" in this verse? And if it is any scripture in the OT, shouldn't "a master [teacher of the OT] of Israel" have known it?

Why would Jesus call the Emmaus travelers fools if they weren't supposed to know He was to be resurrected?
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Blessings

chette777 07-02-2009 12:38 AM

JohnG,

None of the teachers knew what was meant when they read Psalm 16:10 that is why Jesus said, "For as yet they knew not the scripture"

just believe what it says they knew not and Jesus Knew that they did not understand it.

he called them fools because they were slow of heart and again knew not what the prophets said concerning the resurrection of Jesus.

yes they should have known but they were blind to it. even Nicodemus did not know he was as blind as the rest.

JohnG don't read into scripture just simply read and believe. clarify words if need be but don't add that is what deceived Eve did.

it would have been best to start this discussion under a new thread title.

greenbear 07-02-2009 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23119)
Jen,

It is easy for some to hurl abuses and false claims than it is the exercise Charity. keep up the good work your husband should be really proud of you for the way you kept your confidence in the word and not in men, and your cool under fire.

you focus on his word and you will grow faster than some of these 60 plus year old's on this site.

blessing in his word

Chette,

You among others on this board have contributed to my growth in the word. I am blessed by the interaction and material presented in your posts. You and some others have a depth of scriptural knowledge that I like to be around.

I thank God for my husband. He taught me how to be more strong minded. Bragging about his scriptural understanding would be like bragging about myself so I won't.

He says don't argue with the nay-sayers. I naively thought that some people just didn't see so if I showed them the scriptures and how they fit together then they would believe. Sadly, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I have spent hours composing posts for this reason. I may have spent days trying to unravel and respond to the confusing posts of people who I have no idea of how their minds work. I've only ever experienced anything like this when I debated with liberals and socialists about politics or economics. This is much worse.

I was hoping for iron sharpeneth iron on this board but instead I've found my sword is still fresh from the forge and hasn't completely hardened yet. I'm also learning that swinging it continually into the miry clay is a waste of time and mud doesn't sharpen it much but you sure get mud-splattered in the process.

I haven't responded yet to brother George because I was saving that for last but now it's late.

blessing in his field,

Jen

JOHN G 07-02-2009 07:40 AM

Good Morning.......
 
I think we all agree this is the gospel Paul preached.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

What are the "scriptures" according to Paul? If they are the OT, then the OT contains the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

What scriptures? It must have been the OT.


Just becasue Nicodemus, the apostles, and others "knew not the scripture", doesn't mean it wasn't in the scriptures.


See also
Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

tonybones2112 07-02-2009 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 22962)
I don't think it was different John, according to these articles that is one of the errors of Hyper- or Ultra-dispensationalism:
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/books/hy...tionalism.html
http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/wrongly1.html

Ultimately, every believer will have to examine the scriptures and decide for themselves. This has proven to be a divisive topic, but fortunately many of us here can still respect one another and agree on other issues.

I could not agree more Brother Parrish, especially as long as we are given websites where Grace believers are called "heretics" because we do not follow what amounts to sacrements.

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

So, here I am, a saved man, and I have to be baptized in water, follow a Passover meal called the "Lord's supper", join a Baptist church, get a crewcut, burn my TV.

Why? What can I add to God's grace?

Ga 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

I got bad news for both Ironside and Dr. Ruckman's cult: neither one is going to have one single meteor more than any Grace believer in heavenly places. If Dr. Ruckman wants to be an elitist and a respecter of persons and teach his blinded followers that they are some kind of first class Christian while the rest of us sit in the cheap seats, he'll pay for it at the Judgement Seat. Soon as my new HP notebook arrives from DryCleaner Central, I'll be refuting Dr. Ruckman's wresting of Scripture and posting it in this forum, in this thread. Dr. Ruckman uses both Stam and Bullinger in his Commentaries and studies(he teaches word for word Bullinger's work on Biblical Numerics He must be one of them thar "heretics".

Sister Jennifer, what do they call those people, Hypnotists, Hypocratics, ah...

Hypocrites.

Brother Parrish, I'm sure you, Brother JohnG, and most of the rest in this forum will soon be cheerful little hyperdispensationalists. All you have to do is clear your head from that Catholic hangover you all have had for the last 600 years.

Grace and peace friends

A Hyperdispensationalist Of The Hyperdispensationalists

greenbear 07-02-2009 04:43 PM

Aloha, brother George!

Thank you for all of your incredibly kind words yesterday. To say that you have been a blessing to me is an understatement;through your keyboard you hold forth the word of life.

Submitting oneself to the Lord's order seems grievous to the natural man or woman but to the spiritual man or woman they are peace and joy.
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
According to my prayer years ago as a new christian, the Lord provided me with a husband who cares about what the Lord says, not what man says. It's a wonderful thing to have headship like that.

My understanding has been that you have had concerns about a woman participating in board discussions about doctrine and bible study according to your interpretation of passages in 1 Tim and 1 Cor. Regardless, you call people on their false accusations and unkind words because you are honest and just. I expect that you and others on this board would feel free to point out anything I write that you disagree with just like you would anybody else. I think I've made it apparent I'm not too easily offended. And if I do get offended I come around pretty fast. I realize for some it's like letting your little sister play along with the big boys and I do appreciate it!

Though I had been expecting a "cheap shot" to come from somewhere (I definitely knew those whom it would not come from) it still hurts when it comes. I had decided I would never visit this board again when I saw JOHNG's unkind and dishonest post but I couldn't resist taking just one more little peek and I saw your post to me. You are so right when you say that other believers will always disappoint us at one time or another, we must keep our eyes focused on Christ for He is never unkind, He is always true and He never disappoints.

I had begun to write my comments to Ironside's 6 points like you did but I decided that wasn't worth my time, either. I have too many other more important things to do. I find myself in general agreement with you on the first five. Point four will take some study to determine the truth about that. The types of arguments he used are no different from what some people in the world use and they come from below. The Lord doesn't tell us to listen to the arguments of men but to search His word for the truth. He doesn't give us some vague fear of accepting false doctrines but He tell us to look to His word to find out what He says and even tells us how we are supposed to study His word. ... God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7

One could say that the definition of an hyper or ultradispensationalist is a dispensational system that goes beyond the point historically or scripturally that you do (the collective you). One thing is for sure, I will never be impressed by hypercritical and slanderous arguments. I am saddened, though, when others are influenced by them.

The body of Christ is one body, we belong to Him and if we belong to Him we will have love one to another.

Philippians 2:1-8 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

In His love,

Jennifer

George 07-03-2009 09:53 AM

Re: "Dispensational Truth and Error"
 
Sister Jennifer said:
Quote:

"My understanding has been that you have had concerns about a woman participating in board discussions about doctrine and bible study according to your interpretation of passages in 1 Tim and 1 Cor. Regardless, you call people on their false accusations and unkind words because you are honest and just. I expect that you and others on this board would feel free to point out anything I write that you disagree with just like you would anybody else. I think I've made it apparent I'm not too easily offended. And if I do get offended I come around pretty fast. I realize for some it's like letting your little sister play along with the big boys and I do appreciate it!"
Aloha sister Jennifer,

I didn't mean to leave the impression that women should not participate in discussions on the Forum (both my wife and daughter do). What I object to is the disrespect shown to men by some women that have come onto the Forum.

Obviously the Forum is NOT a "church", but that doesn't give some women the "EXCUSE" not to be respectful of men in general and especially men who may be elders/pastors, and who have been called of God to preach and teach God's Holy word.

Our society has been turning into a "Matriarchal" society for some time now (thanks to Humanism - Feminism foremost); and along with the "SHIFT" from a "Patriarchal" to a "Matriarchal" society has been the corresponding denigration, deprecation, and vilification of men (in general).

One of the things I have observed over the last 50 years is the lack of "respect" that many "westernized" Christian women (wives) have for their husbands. If a woman (wife) won't "respect" her husband, then she will be unwilling to submit to him and will refuse to obey him whenever she "thinks" she is "right" and he is "wrong". This runs "contrary" to God's order of things!

When God instituted marriage he made the man the head of the wife. Marriage is NOT A 50/50 "proposition" as all of the Humanist marriage "Guides" would have you believe. SOMEONE must be the "head", and if it is not the man - then it will be the woman! When "push comes to shove" - where a husband and wife disagree on a matter, and when a DECISION must be made, SOME ONE will have to make that decision; and if a woman is NOT willing to "submit" to her husband (in these kind of matters) she is out of God's order of things. {The "exceptions" being Physical Abuse, Drunkenness, Drugs, and Fornication.}

Now, when that kind of woman comes onto the Forum, since she has no respect for her husband, she will have no respect for the position that men hold in God's order of things. God does NOT "ORDAIN" women for the two legitimate "Offices" (bishops/elders/pastors and deacons) in the church (where men have some legitimate "spiritual" authority).

And although we (men) have no legitimate "spiritual" authority on the AV1611 Bible Forums, the Christian women who join the Forum, should still show some respect for the position that we men hold in God's order of things. I am not talking about "submitting" to us! A Christian wife has NO obligation to be in "submission" to ANY man (including pastors/elders) other than her own husband; but that does not preclude the necessity of practicing some common courtesy and extending some respect for the fact that since we are men, we are due some respect as men.

Now both you and sister Jassy (and my wife and daughter) have been excellent examples of how Christian women should conduct themselves on a Forum such as the AV1611 Bible Forums. You have expressed your beliefs in a courteous and civil manner and you have been considerate and polite in your conduct here. {I can't say that about some other women that have joined the Forum over the last year and a half. :(}

There are many reasons WHY Muslim men both HATE and FEAR Western civilization. One of them is the "feminization" of our culture to the point where men (in general) hold no "special place" in the home, or at work, or in society (as a whole). In our society men (in general) are portrayed either as "thoughtless bumbling fools" or as cold, callous, insensitive, unfeeling, and heartless beings that have no "feelings" of any kind.

I'm not into "respect-of-persons", but I believe that a Christian man who conducts himself decently and in order should be treated with some respect by Christian women. As a born again Christian man (and as an elder) I refuse to be treated disrespectfully by a "Christian" woman. If they get "out of order", I let them know in no uncertain terms, that I for one will NOT put up with their disrespect! :tsk: Call me "old-fashioned"; call me "out-of-date"; call me a "dinosaur", or whatever; I refuse to "CONFORM" to the world in these matters!

I encourage both you and Jassy to keep Posting - perhaps your exemplary conduct will "rub off" on some of the other women that are currently posting, or on some women who would like to post here on the Forum. :)

chette777 07-03-2009 07:42 PM

I agree George. these Ladies are do the respect as a sister in the Lord. It is not to be any more or les than we would or should give a brother in the Lord who is on the forum.

Cloudwalker 07-15-2009 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 23083)
I figure this is a good place to suggest a book that helps clarify what right dividing is.

One Book Rightly Divided

Every objection to Dispensationalism I have read in this thread is answered by Brother Stauffer in this book.

I've started and stopped several replies to posts by Winman because it gets so tiring to constantly answer objections that have already been dealt with in other threads, but perhaps reading a book by an author not on the forum, where no personal animosity exists, would be helpful.

Winman, if you're willing to consider the writings of Ironside to help you define your understanding, perhaps you should give a few hours to someone else to hear the other side of the matter.

Cool, I got Stauffer's book on SwordSearcher...thanks Bro, I'll have to check that one out soon.

:cool:

Jassy 07-15-2009 07:47 PM

Brother George,

I just wanted to thank you for your kind words and tell you that they are appreciated. I have seen how things in society have changed gradually - especially since the 1960s and 1970s - and Westernized women have been demanding equal rights with men. This has spilled-over into the Church (the supposed Body of Christ) and I truly believe it is a slap in the face of our loving and wise Creator, Who has all WISDOM and has established roles for men and women in the Body of Christ.

Women should be under their husband UNLESS he is truly doing something completely contrary to God. And I believe that that is a very rare exception in the Body of Christ. And I'm convinced that some Christian women use that as an excuse for rebellion against their husband. I am not talking about disagreements regarding the budget or general household matters - these should be under the headship of the husband, unless he has delegated tasks to his wife that she is equipped to handle (such as balancing the checkbook, for example). Most arguments in marriage stem from the wife balking at the headship of her husband. This can definitely strain a marriage.

Respect of a husband, who the wife knows is UNDER the headship of Christ, should not be a grudging giving of respect. It ought to be a JOYFUL submission and a delightful TRUST for the wife with her husband.

I've seen so-called Christian marriages where the wife is definitely the "boss" and it is not a pretty sight to see them foolishly reversing their God-given roles!

Some Christian women seem to see this as a WEAK or powerless role. Who cares about being in POWER? The LORD is the one with the power! He is sovereign and it is His will that we ought to be doing.

I'm very pleased that we have so many godly brothers here to learn from.

Jassy


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study