Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother D

Anyone in your church not a Dispensationalist?

Recommended Posts

Is there anyone in your church who doesn't believe "Jews are God's chosen people", and the other doctrines that are part of Dispensationalism?  Would you judge non-Dispensationalists and declare their views to not be non-biblical?   Is your pastor a Dispensationalist?  Does your pastor  allow room for different views in his church?  

(BTW, no one in your church 100 years ago was a Dispensationalist. Neither is God, "Ye [Jews] are not my people".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the Jews are God's chosen people is self evident in the Bible.

It has nothing to do with any form of Dispensationalism. God chose Abraham to make into a great nation and re-expressed that promise to Abraham and to his descendants time after time after time.

My church wasn't around 100 years ago, so the answer to your spurious question is no.

However, there were certainly dispensationalists around 100 years ago.

In fact, there were dispensationalists around 1900 years ago.

Somewhere on this site I posted a list of over 20 people ranging back to the 2nd century who argued about dispensations.

If you push the line that "dispensationalism" is a new thing (1800's), you will be called a liar, just as another here who likes to roll out that line has been.

It has been displayed here before that the concept was known throughout the "church age", and it takes very little research to show it - try a google search and find names such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus mentioned in relation to dispensationalism and pre-millennialism. Not that this makes these teachings right or wrong, but the simple fact that they are KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN POINTS OF DISCUSSION in the 2nd century means that for you to indicate as you have that they are recent inventions is clearly false.

Now, having pointed that out to you, if you try to claim that either of these is a recent invention again, I will call you out on it.

 

As far as "judging non-dispensationalists", apart from that being an inflammatory question - you are looking for a fight let's face it - it would depend on what exactly is meant by "dispensations".

There are some who visit here who are clearly unbiblical in their form extreme dispensationalism.

I personally do not hold to "mainstream" dispensational teaching.

But to suggest that dispensational teaching is a new thing is just plainly false.

And to suggest that dispensational teaching as a generalisation is unbiblical is also false.

Dispensations are evident in the Bible - what you do with that information is where the contention is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brother D said:

Is there anyone in your church who doesn't believe "Jews are God's chosen people", and the other doctrines that are part of Dispensationalism?  Would you judge non-Dispensationalists and declare their views to not be non-biblical?   Is your pastor a Dispensationalist?  Does your pastor  allow room for different views in his church?  

(BTW, no one in your church 100 years ago was a Dispensationalist. Neither is God, "Ye [Jews] are not my people".)

I don't consider myself a Dispensationalist and I allow non-dispensationlist in our church. We hold to a Stewardship Theology. Though I have a feeling that the issues you have are not actually with dispensation theology itself. The fact that you bring up the "Jewish question" and then relate it to dispensational theology shows you have been primed against the theology even before you actually know what it is. Probably by a person who holds to Replacement theology. Not being able to defined replacement of Israel with the church from the scriptures directly, they have to confuse the issue by appealing to "Jewish religion" and the "historical Christian view" Which is just another term for catholic theology. Catholic theology believes they are the "Spiritual" State of Israel. Baptist, on the other hand believe in the separation of Church and State. Even in the OT Church and State were separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a clarification by "dispensationalism", I don't mean the doctrine of successive ages, such as the dispensation of law.  But, the doctrine of two concurrent peoples of God, one by faith and the other by race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DaveW said:

The fact that the Jews are God's chosen people is self evident in the Bible.

When I quoted "Ye [Jews] are not my people", did you know I was quoting God in the Old Testament?  Then there is Jesus calling Jews children of the devil.  What you see as self-evident is directly contradicted by the Bible.  

It has nothing to do with any form of Dispensationalism. God chose Abraham to make into a great nation and re-expressed that promise to Abraham and to his descendants time after time after time.

If you think Abraham's natural descends are God's chosen people, then you think Arabs are God's people.  I doubt you believe Arabs are God's chosen people.  The Samaritans in the NT were children of Israel/Jacob, do you think they were God's chosen people?  The OT does not treat the natural children of Abraham as God's chosen people, e.g. the children of Abraham through Ishmael.  And, the NT explicitly declares Christians to be the children of Abraham.

My church wasn't around 100 years ago, so the answer to your spurious question is no.

If your church were around 100 years ago, no one in it would have been a Dispensationalist.  

In fact, there were dispensationalists around 1900 years ago.

Even if so, none of them would have been in your church, if your church existed 100 years ago.  Many Baptist churches did exist 100 years ago, and practically no one in any of them believed anything similar to modern dispensationalist doctrine.  Charles Haddon Spurgeon is a famous Baptist preacher who lived a bit over a 100 years ago, and a large trove of his sermons have been preserved. maybe you can find dispensationalist doctrine in his teachings.  Good luck.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brother D said:

When I quoted "Ye [Jews] are not my people", did you know I was quoting God in the Old Testament?  Then there is Jesus calling Jews children of the devil.  What you see as self-evident is directly contradicted by the Bible.  

 

 

If you think Abraham's natural descends are God's chosen people, then you think Arabs are God's people.  I doubt you believe Arabs are God's chosen people.  The Samaritans in the NT were children of Israel/Jacob, do you think they were God's chosen people?  The OT does not treat the natural children of Abraham as God's chosen people, e.g. the children of Abraham through Ishmael.  And, the NT explicitly declares Christians to be the children of Abraham.

 

 

If your church were around 100 years ago, no one in it would have been a Dispensationalist.  

 

 

Even if so, none of them would have been in your church, if your church existed 100 years ago.  Many Baptist churches did exist 100 years ago, and practically no one in any of them believed anything similar to modern dispensationalist doctrine.  Charles Haddon Spurgeon is a famous Baptist preacher who lived a bit over a 100 years ago, and a large trove of his sermons have been preserved. maybe you can find dispensationalist doctrine in his teachings.  Good luck.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you choose to redefine, ignore plain Bible, and misrepresent????

Thank you for revealing your attitude and purpose here.

There is obviously no point in countering your 'arguments' for you are making things up to suit yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Brother D said:

Charles Haddon Spurgeon is a famous Baptist preacher who lived a bit over a 100 years ago, and a large trove of his sermons have been preserved. maybe you can find dispensationalist doctrine in his teachings.  Good luck. 

Talking about your own made up definition of "Dispensationalism" that is nowhere present as a definition of "Dispensationalism" outside of your own mind as far as I can tell, and according to your direct challenge, AND SHOWING THE LIE to your statements:

Quote

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."  —Luke 24:47

...The third reason why the Lord Jesus told them to begin at Jerusalem may have been that he knew that there would come a time when some of his disciples would despise the Jews, and therefore he said — When you preach my gospel, begin with them. This is a standing commandment, and everywhere we ought to preach the gospel to the Jew as well as to the Gentile; Paul even says, "to the Jew first." Some seem to think that there ought to be no mission to the Jews — that there is no hope of converting them, that they are of no use when they are converted, and so on. I have even heard some who call themselves Christians speak slightingly of the Jewish people. What! and your Lord and Master a Jew! There is no race on earth so exalted as they are. They are the seed of Abraham, God's friend. We have nobles and dukes in England, but how far could they trace their pedigree? Why, up to a nobody. But the poorest Jew on earth is descended linearly from Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham. Instead of treating them with anything like disrespect, the Saviour says, "Begin at Jerusalem." Just as we say, "Ladies first," so it is "the Jew first." They take precedence among races, and are to be first waited on at the gospel feast. Jesus would have us entertain a deep regard to that nation which God chose of old, and out of which Christ also came, for he is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. He puts those first who knew him first.

Let us never sneer at a Jew again; for our Lord teaches us the rule of his house when he says, "Begin at Jerusalem." Let the seed of Israel first have the gospel presented to them, and if they reject it we shall be clear of their blood. But we shall not be faithful to our orders unless we have taken note of Jews as well as Gentiles.

Delivered on Thursday Evening, June 14th, 1883, by C. H. SPURGEON,

At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (A man I do not regard especially highly - he was an old time preacher of some value) according to your challenge, said "Jesus would have us entertain a deep regard to that nation which God chose of old, and out of which Christ also came, for he is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. He puts those first who knew him first."

It took me all of two minutes to find this quote by the way, so I was not having to search too hard or too deeply.

Oh and by the way, although it was actually 135 years ago, that your strange form of "dispensationalism" was preached in a WELL KNOWN BAPTIST CHURCH, I hope that is close enough for you.

It seems that 135 years ago C H Spurgeon was a "Dispensationalist" according to your made up definition of the term. That means you ARE WRONG in your statement about church 100 years ago. Whether you were deliberately wrong or mistaken, I can not say.

 

That you asked a question with an obvious knowledge of the generally understood meaning of the term, but with another meaning knowingly applied by you but not exposed by you, shows that you are here for no other purpose than to cause trouble and cause strife in this place.

Pro 29:22
(22)  An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression.
 

You sir, have exposed yourself and your motive, and you will be guarded closely by many here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2018 at 8:56 PM, Brother D said:

Ye [Jews] are not my people".)

Actually, you should have placed "Israel" inside of the brackets.

The kingdom was divided at the time; in which, God said they weren't his people. There was the kingdom of Israel, and there was the kingdom of Judah. God was speaking about Israel. 

Here are a few questions for you to consider...

Did God say they [Israel] weren't his people, or did he say that they [Israel] weren't his chosen people? 

What about Judah? Did God also say that they weren't his people? 

Why did God say they [Israel] were not his people? Spoiler alert...the answer is found in the rest of Hosea.

Why did God call them his people in chapter 11 verse 7...when he had said they weren't his people in chapter 1?

In light of this, is there a difference between [Israel] being his people and [Israel] being his chosen people? What is the difference? 

What were the clear ramifications of Israel's obedience and/or disobedience to God (as given in Deuteronomy)? What effect(s) would disobedience bring? Does what is described in Hosea about Israel's rejection of him show the outcome of his warnings as given in Deuteronomy? 

According to God's word, will Israel and Judah ever become one again? Will they be his people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DaveW said:

Talking about your own made up definition of "Dispensationalism" that is nowhere present as a definition of "Dispensationalism" outside of your own mind as far as I can tell, and according to your direct challenge, AND SHOWING THE LIE to your statements:

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (A man I do not regard especially highly - he was an old time preacher of some value) according to your challenge, said "Jesus would have us entertain a deep regard to that nation which God chose of old, and out of which Christ also came, for he is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. He puts those first who knew him first."

It took me all of two minutes to find this quote by the way, so I was not having to search too hard or too deeply.

It's bizarre that you're accusing me of making of a definition that reflects the most common usage of a word, as well as reflecting beliefs I see posted here.  Even if I'm misdefining the word, feel free to distance yourself from the beliefs that I've placed that label upon.  

Spurgeon says, "Some seem to think that there ought to be no mission to the Jews."  That is the attitude of many Dispensationalists.  Dispensationalists don't preach Jesus to Jews in Israel (other than some exception, such as "Jews for Jesus"), and they don't care that Israel has made it all but illegal to publicly preach Jesus.  Dispensationalists believe Jews will be saved in the imminent Tribulation, not now.  More extreme Dispensationalists, like John Hagee, appear to even consider it a sin to preach Jesus to the Jews.  But, Spurgeon was addressing not Dispensationalists but people who believed the Jews are reprobates who cannot be saved.  Isn't it ironic that Spurgeon's rebuke of Jew-haters applies equally to Dispensationalists?  Indeed, preaching Jesus "to the Jew first" is the opposite of the beliefs of Dispensationalists who believe Jews  belong to a different, and concurrent, dispensation than Christians.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Actually, you should have placed "Israel" inside of the brackets.

Yes, in fact, you are right, when God says Jews are not his people, the text actually uses the word "Israel", referring to the kingdom of Israel.  But, the kingdom of Israel was a population of pedigreed children of Abraham and Jacob, which makes them Jews according to any Dispensationalist.  And, God told those Jews "Ye are not my people".   God then destroyed Israel and scattered those tribes of Israel to the winds.  God said Judea was even worse than Israel, but God held off destroying Judea until Christ came, so that His word would stand.  So, implicitly, Judea wasn't God's people either, which Jesus confirmed in John 8 when he identifies "Jews" (Judeans) who reject him as the children of the devil, not of God.

I'll give you sound doctrine straight up.  The Israel of God is, and has always been God's people.  Citizenship is, and always was, by faith.  The carnal Israel is to the real Israel what animal sacrifices is to Christ's sacrifice, no more than a mere shadow.  Or, like the carnal church  to the "invisible" church of people who are saved.  Your church's membership roster isn't the Book of Life.

What's the difference between "not my people" and "not my chosen people"?  You're trying to make a distinction, where there is none, to save a bad doctrine.  Dispensationalists refuse to see that there are two Israels, and they conflate the true Israel that is God's people with carnal Israel.   

Hosea 11 is a prophecy about Jesus, which doesn't contradict "Ye [Jews/Israel] are not my people."  This is implicit in that Israel is referred to as a singular son, but carnal Israel is usually referred to as a her, or as a plural.   Matthew 2:15 confirms this view.  Even though Hosea 11 might look like it applies to carnal Israel, it does not.  This chapter says, "8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim."  Ephraim means Israel, but not Judea.  Where is Ephraim?  Where are those ten tribes of Ephraim?  Did God break his word in 70 AD when Judea was destroyed?  Or, is this chapter speaking of the kingdom established by Christ?  Go back to chapter 1, God says he will make a people, who are not his people, his people. This means the gentiles. (BTW, Hosea 11:7 says "my people" not "my chosen people" [actually, the Hebrew just says "people"], so if there is a distinction between "not my people" and "not my chosen people, v7 doesn't help you.)

22 hours ago, DaveW said:

So you choose to redefine, ignore plain Bible, and misrepresent????

Thank you for revealing your attitude and purpose here.

There is obviously no point in countering your 'arguments' for you are making things up to suit yourself.

The topic is the question of if there is anyone in your church who is not a Dispensationalist?   A related question asked in the OP essentially is what would your church's attitude be toward non-Dispensationalists?  I think you for your pithy answer to the second question.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Brother D said:

Yes, in fact, you are right, when God says Jews are not his people, the text actually uses the word "Israel", referring to the kingdom of Israel.  But, the kingdom of Israel was a population of pedigreed children of Abraham and Jacob, which makes them Jews according to any Dispensationalist.  And, God told those Jews "Ye are not my people".   God then destroyed Israel and scattered those tribes of Israel to the winds.  God said Judea was even worse than Israel, but God held off destroying Judea until Christ came, so that His word would stand.  So, implicitly, Judea wasn't God's people either, which Jesus confirmed in John 8 when he identifies "Jews" (Judeans) who reject him as the children of the devil, not of God.

I'll give you sound doctrine straight up.  The Israel of God is, and has always been God's people.  Citizenship is, and always was, by faith.  The carnal Israel is to the real Israel what animal sacrifices is to Christ's sacrifice, no more than a mere shadow.  Or, like the carnal church  to the "invisible" church of people who are saved.  Your church's membership roster isn't the Book of Life.

What's the difference between "not my people" and "not my chosen people"?  You're trying to make a distinction, where there is none, to save a bad doctrine.  Dispensationalists refuse to see that there are two Israels, and they conflate the true Israel that is God's people with carnal Israel.   

Hosea 11 is a prophecy about Jesus, which doesn't contradict "Ye [Jews/Israel] are not my people."  This is implicit in that Israel is referred to as a singular son, but carnal Israel is usually referred to as a her, or as a plural.   Matthew 2:15 confirms this view.  Even though Hosea 11 might look like it applies to carnal Israel, it does not.  This chapter says, "8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim."  Ephraim means Israel, but not Judea.  Where is Ephraim?  Where are those ten tribes of Ephraim?  Did God break his word in 70 AD when Judea was destroyed?  Or, is this chapter speaking of the kingdom established by Christ?  Go back to chapter 1, God says he will make a people, who are not his people, his people. This means the gentiles. (BTW, Hosea 11:7 says "my people" not "my chosen people" [actually, the Hebrew just says "people"], so if there is a distinction between "not my people" and "not my chosen people, v7 doesn't help you.)

Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 7:10 PM, Brother D said:

...definition that reflects the most common usage of a word, as well as reflecting beliefs I see posted here. 

Are New Testament Christians supposed to interpret the bible using man's ever changing definition of words or let the Holy Ghost show them the meaning of a word or concept from the Scriptures?

So Dan, are Christians God's chosen people today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way folks, what this man is talking about is NOT dispensationalism.

What he is talking about is a difference between the recognition of the NATION of Israel as the people God chose, and whether not they are still God's chosen nation. This is a small part of the actual divide.

This difference is actually a division between dispensationalists - who follow (to differing degrees) that God has divided time into "dispensations" ( you might recognize terms such as "the church age" or "the age of grace"), and between those who hold to Replacement theology (that the church has replaced Israel).

This is sometimes also called Covenant theology and a few other things.

Our "Brother D" is simply not honest enough to either use the correct definition of dispensationalism - which he clearly knows, but CHOSE to use a hidden definition of his own - nor to identify himself as a Covenant/replacement theologist.

This is no doubt because he KNOWS that it is not an acceptable theological position around here, so he CHOSE to attempt to deceive.

You can be a dispensationalism and NOT recognize Israel as God's chosen NATION, and you can recognise Israel as God's chosen NATION and not be a dispensationalist.

But you cannot act as this man has and be honest. His actions reveal him.

Edited by DaveW
.....replacement geologist.....😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 8:05 PM, Brother D said:

Yes, in fact, you are right, when God says Jews are not his people, the text actually uses the word "Israel", referring to the kingdom of Israel.  But, the kingdom of Israel was a population of pedigreed children of Abraham and Jacob, which makes them Jews according to any Dispensationalist.  And, God told those Jews "Ye are not my people".   God then destroyed Israel and scattered those tribes of Israel to the winds.  God said Judea was even worse than Israel, but God held off destroying Judea until Christ came, so that His word would stand.  So, implicitly, Judea wasn't God's people either, which Jesus confirmed in John 8 when he identifies "Jews" (Judeans) who reject him as the children of the devil, not of God.

 

I dropped this earlier, because my family and I were leaving for vacation. We're still on vacation, but I have some time now. I also dropped it, because I could see that there is probably no reasoning with your viewpoints; however, even though I hate typing on a phone, I'm going to go ahead and respond. 

You used the verse in Hosea as proof that Israel (or Jews by your definition) aren't God's chosen people. I asked, "What about Judah?" To which, you gave a rabbit-trail response in order to step around the question. So, I will ask it in more detail...at the time; in which, God said that Israel wasn't his people in the book of Hosea, what did he say about Judah? Did he include Judah too? That verse is what you based your theory on...a verse directed at a specific people at a specific time for specific reasons. What about Judah? 

 

I'll give you sound doctrine straight up.  The Israel of God is, and has always been God's people.  Citizenship is, and always was, by faith.  The carnal Israel is to the real Israel what animal sacrifices is to Christ's sacrifice, no more than a mere shadow.  Or, like the carnal church  to the "invisible" church of people who are saved.  Your church's membership roster isn't the Book of Life.

 

What was God's prerequisite for CHOOSING Israel as his chosen people? What was his prerequisite for continuing to call them his chosen people after the death of Abraham? 

 

Quote

What's the difference between "not my people" and "not my chosen people"?  You're trying to make a distinction, where there is none, to save a bad doctrine. 

 

No. Is there a difference between the two? Yes...yes there is. There are many biblical references that attest to the fact that though Israel rejected God, they will once again not only be his chosen people, but they will once again be his people.

 

Dispensationalists refuse to see that there are two Israels, and they conflate the true Israel that is God's people with carnal Israel.   

 

Huh? First, while I agree with some aspects of Dispensationalist theology, I don't consider myself as a Dispensationalist. I agree with some aspects of Calvinism, but I'm not a Calvinist by any means. You need to learn not to lump people into one basket. Kind of like saying that all IFBs are old testament law-pushing, wife and child abusing, my way or the highway pastor promoters. I don't deny what is said about Israel in the new testament; however, neither do I deny the covenant that GOD MADE with Israel in the old testament nor his promises that GOD GAVE them...the people of actual Israel.

 

Quote

Hosea 11 is a prophecy about Jesus, which doesn't contradict "Ye [Jews/Israel] are not my people."  This is implicit in that Israel is referred to as a singular son, but carnal Israel is usually referred to as a her, or as a plural.   Matthew 2:15 confirms this view.  Even though Hosea 11 might look like it applies to carnal Israel, it does not.  This chapter says, "8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim."  Ephraim means Israel, but not Judea.  Where is Ephraim?  Where are those ten tribes of Ephraim?  Did God break his word in 70 AD when Judea was destroyed?  Or, is this chapter speaking of the kingdom established by Christ?  Go back to chapter 1, God says he will make a people, who are not his people, his people. This means the gentiles. (BTW, Hosea 11:7 says "my people" not "my chosen people" [actually, the Hebrew just says "people"], so if there is a distinction between "not my people" and "not my chosen people, v7 doesn't help you.)

Huh? I never said that verse 7 said they were his chosen people. I said he called them his people. You might want to read the whole chapter and not base your theory on verse 1. Lots of bad stuff said in there about them...but he still calls them his people.

 

 

Edited by No Nicolaitans
verse reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You used the verse in Hosea as proof that Israel (or Jews by your definition) aren't God's chosen people. I asked, "What about Judah?" To which, you gave a rabbit-trail response in order to step around the question.

1) You haven't explained why God told carnal Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people.

2) Judah, "Jews", isn't God's people because Jesus said they were children of the Devil (not God) in John 8.

3) In the OT, God said Judah is worse than Israel, and if Israel is not God's people for faithlessness, then Judah cannot be either.

4) Revelation refers to Jews as the Synagogue of Satan and Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt.

5) You haven't explained why you reject Arabs, who are Abraham's children, as God's chosen people. In other words, you also believe it was worthless to Ishmael to be Abraham's son, regarding being God's people.

6) Each point above is sufficient alone to soundly refute the central Dispensationalist doctrine that Jews are God's chosen people.  

What was God's prerequisite for CHOOSING Israel as his chosen people? What was his prerequisite for continuing to call them his chosen people after the death of Abraham?


FAITH is the prerequisite, faith alone.  Everyone of faith is counted as a child of Abraham.

No. Is there a difference between the two? Yes...yes there is. There are many biblical references that attest to the fact that though Israel rejected God, they will once again not only be his chosen people, but they will once again be his people.

I'm am certain you are grossly misinterpreting any verse that says Jews will again be God's people.  Here's a hint, if it's an OT verse, it's probably about the restoration of Judah before Christ, or about the establishment of the NT church by Christ.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 6:41 PM, DaveW said:

By the way folks, what this man is talking about is NOT dispensationalism.

What he is talking about is a difference between the recognition of the NATION of Israel as the people God chose, and whether not they are still God's chosen nation. This is a small part of the actual divide.

This difference is actually a division between dispensationalists - who follow (to differing degrees) that God has divided time into "dispensations" ( you might recognize terms such as "the church age" or "the age of grace"), and between those who hold to Replacement theology (that the church has replaced Israel).

This is sometimes also called Covenant theology and a few other things.

Our "Brother D" is simply not honest enough to either use the correct definition of dispensationalism - which he clearly knows, but CHOSE to use a hidden definition of his own - nor to identify himself as a Covenant/replacement theologist.

This is no doubt because he KNOWS that it is not an acceptable theological position around here, so he CHOSE to attempt to deceive.

You can be a dispensationalism and NOT recognize Israel as God's chosen NATION, and you can recognise Israel as God's chosen NATION and not be a dispensationalist.

But you cannot act as this man has and be honest. His actions reveal him.

Your post is a desperate ploy to gain sympathy from your peers because you've been severely losing the debate.

I already defined "dispensationalism" earlier in this thread (parallel dispensations), and distinguished it from traditional Baptist dispensationalism of serial dispensations.  The things I'm addressing are beliefs held by people who identify as dispensationalists and hold the doctrine of parallel dispensations (a theology popularized by Pentecostals in recent decades).  So, my definition is fair, in spite of your objection.  Any competent person will define terms, if such an act is called for.  It's not at all a hidden definition, as you falsely claim.

It's very telling that you declare that what I'm talking about is not dispensationalism, yet you don't identify what I am talking about, if not dispenstionalism.   I'll gladly use whatever label you like, because the term itself isn't relevant.  How about "door knobs"?  It's not the details that matter, not the label.  I oppose your Door Knobism.  

In fact, it is your definition that fails.  You believe and defend parallel dispensations while defining dispensationalism as "God has divided time" into serial dispensations.  What's up with that?

I have been open and honest about my own theology, contrary to your false witness.  I've already clearly said, several times, that I believe the church is Israel, a trivial thing to defend with the Bible.  And, that the only people belonging to God in the old Testament was by faith.  I'll gladly answer any question about my  beliefs.  I have nothing to hide.   And, I have no need to act desperate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brother D said:

1) You haven't explained why God told carnal Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people.

 

Sir, did you even read my very first post in this thread? 

 

2) Judah, "Jews", isn't God's people because Jesus said they were children of the Devil (not God) in John 8.

3) In the OT, God said Judah is worse than Israel, and if Israel is not God's people for faithlessness, then Judah cannot be either.

Sir, did you even read my response to you which (in turn) caused you to respond with this above; in which, I'm once again responding? Why respond if you're not actually going to read what is written and respond accordingly? 

 

4) Revelation refers to Jews as the Synagogue of Satan and Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt.

 

I hate to say this, but you might want to check your reference(s) regarding what you claim that Revelation says about the Jews as the Synagogue of Satan...

 

5) You haven't explained why you reject Arabs, who are Abraham's children, as God's chosen people. In other words, you also believe it was worthless to Ishmael to be Abraham's son, regarding being God's people.

 

Huh? Where did that come from? That's what I believe? LOL! I didn't know that I believed that...and I still don't know that I believe that. God's word is pretty clear on the matter of why Ishmael wasn't chosen. Just read that account, and you'll read what I believe about it.

 

5 hours ago, Brother D said:

6) Each point above is sufficient alone to soundly refute the central Dispensationalist doctrine that Jews are God's chosen people.  

 

No they aren't. I still believe they are God's chosen people after reading your points.

 

FAITH is the prerequisite, faith alone.  Everyone of faith is counted as a child of Abraham.

 

Maybe read Deuteronomy 10 and get back with me? 

 

I'm am certain you are grossly misinterpreting any verse that says Jews will again be God's people.  Here's a hint, if it's an OT verse, it's probably about the restoration of Judah before Christ, or about the establishment of the NT church by Christ.   

No. Sorry. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brother D said:

Your post is a desperate ploy to gain sympathy from your peers because you've been severely losing the debate.

I already defined "dispensationalism" earlier in this thread (parallel dispensations), and distinguished it from traditional Baptist dispensationalism of serial dispensations.  The things I'm addressing are beliefs held by people who identify as dispensationalists and hold the doctrine of parallel dispensations (a theology popularized by Pentecostals in recent decades).  So, my definition is fair, in spite of your objection.  Any competent person will define terms, if such an act is called for.  It's not at all a hidden definition, as you falsely claim.

It's very telling that you declare that what I'm talking about is not dispensationalism, yet you don't identify what I am talking about, if not dispenstionalism.   I'll gladly use whatever label you like, because the term itself isn't relevant.  How about "door knobs"?  It's not the details that matter, not the label.  I oppose your Door Knobism.  

In fact, it is your definition that fails.  You believe and defend parallel dispensations while defining dispensationalism as "God has divided time" into serial dispensations.  What's up with that?

I have been open and honest about my own theology, contrary to your false witness.  I've already clearly said, several times, that I believe the church is Israel, a trivial thing to defend with the Bible.  And, that the only people belonging to God in the old Testament was by faith.  I'll gladly answer any question about my  beliefs.  I have nothing to hide.   And, I have no need to act desperate.

 

 

 

Oh I don't have to seek sympathy from my peers - the overwhelming majority here are on my side - not because they like me - many of them don't- they put up with me - but because what I am saying is true.

You posted initially asking about dispensationalism with no definition, meaning people had to take the traditional definition, which you have twice now stated you know is the traditional definition.

ONLY WHEN CHALLENGED did you present your definition.

This event in itself is deceitful and an obvious attempt to cause strife.

You lied and misrepresented the beliefs of Spurgeon. I found a quote from Spurgeon that showed your referring him was entirely incorrect and instead of apologising you redefined what he meant. Just so you did not have to admit you lied about beliefs of 100 years ago.

You have in fact been anything but open and honest about your theology - you have lied constantly, misrepresented people, history, and the Bible, and twisted what people have said for your own purposes.

For instance, your have now said that at least myself and NoNics believe that the Arabs are God's chosen people. Neither of us believe that and neither of us have said that. You misrepresent us to confuse the discussion.

 

You sir, are a liar and a deciever and your purpose here is confuse, to cause trouble, and to make strife.

You have only posted in controversial threads and only posted contrary views, whilst falsely stating that you hold Baptist views. You have displayed on several occasions that you don't even know what baptists believe.

And you have steadfastly refused to answer anything about your salvation testimony.

I will give you a hint: no one has ever "always been a baptist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

Oh I don't have to seek sympathy from my peers - the overwhelming majority here are on my side - not because they like me - many of them don't- they put up with me - but because what I am saying is true.

You posted initially asking about dispensationalism with no definition, meaning people had to take the traditional definition, which you have twice now stated you know is the traditional definition.

ONLY WHEN CHALLENGED did you present your definition.

This event in itself is deceitful and an obvious attempt to cause strife.

You lied and misrepresented the beliefs of Spurgeon. I found a quote from Spurgeon that showed your referring him was entirely incorrect and instead of apologising you redefined what he meant. Just so you did not have to admit you lied about beliefs of 100 years ago.

You have in fact been anything but open and honest about your theology - you have lied constantly, misrepresented people, history, and the Bible, and twisted what people have said for your own purposes.

For instance, your have now said that at least myself and NoNics believe that the Arabs are God's chosen people. Neither of us believe that and neither of us have said that. You misrepresent us to confuse the discussion.

 

You sir, are a liar and a deciever and your purpose here is confuse, to cause trouble, and to make strife.

You have only posted in controversial threads and only posted contrary views, whilst falsely stating that you hold Baptist views. You have displayed on several occasions that you don't even know what baptists believe.

And you have steadfastly refused to answer anything about your salvation testimony.

I will give you a hint: no one has ever "always been a baptist".

DaveW, you're a hateful troll and I will no longer be replying to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so long as everyone is aware of your nature and your false teaching.

But it is not hateful nor trolling to point out your constant falsehoods and misrepresentation of people, history, Bible, and facts, which is what I have done.

I don't mind if you don't reply - but I will not let falsehoods such as yours pass by - I will point them out wherever I see them.

 

To make it plain - when you lie, when you falsely represent someone's words, when you deliberately misuse the Bible, or when you present false histories, I will be there to point them out.

If you do none of these things, then I will have nothing to point out will I?

 

Have a nice day!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

[1) You haven't explained why God told carnal Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people.]

 

Sir, did you even read my very first post in this thread? 

I did read your first post, you didn't explain why God told Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people.  You said, "The kingdom was divided at the time; in which, God said they weren't his people..."  You didn't offer any explanation for why God would say Israel are not his people, if they are his people.   I already know the circumstances of God's statement that Israel is not his people.  I know it was a divided kingdom.  I also know that "not my people" means "not my people."  

Sir, did you even read my response to you which (in turn) caused you to respond with this above; in which, I'm once again responding? Why respond if you're not actually going to read what is written and respond accordingly?

I answered your questions, but you are not answering my questions. 

I hate to say this, but you might want to check your reference(s) regarding what you claim that Revelation says about the Jews as the Synagogue of Satan...

You keep typing words, but you're not saying anything.  What about the Revelation reference about Jews as the Synagogue of Satan do you think I should check.  You should have said, "Those weren't Jews, they just claimed they were Jews" in which case I would point out that I put "Jews" in quotes in the first place.  I'd remind you that's the only use of the word "Jews" in Revelation.  And, then I'd make my case that anyone who calls themselves a Jew but is not a Christian is not a true Jew.  

Huh? Where did that come from? That's what I believe? LOL! I didn't know that I believed that...and I still don't know that I believe that. God's word is pretty clear on the matter of why Ishmael wasn't chosen. Just read that account, and you'll read what I believe about it.

LOL, indeed, you mockingly say you didn't know you believed something I said you believed then you immediately assert what I just said you believed.  But, this isn't about you, it's about Dispensational doctrine.  The simple logic that you refuse to process is Ishmael/Arabs are not God's chosen people, therefor being Abraham's seed doesn't make someone God's chosen people.   How does the reason Ishmael wasn't chosen make any difference to the simple logic I've shown you?   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brother D said:

The simple logic that you refuse to process is Ishmael/Arabs are not God's chosen people, therefor being Abraham's seed doesn't make someone God's chosen people.

Have you even read the Bible?

Because it is VERY CLEAR in the Bible that YOUR LOGIC - or is that deliberate lies about the issue - is addressed and refuted.

Oh I don't know, try Exodus, Deuteronomy, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts. These all have a phrase that Identifies "Israel" aside from all other sidelines lineages. Not to mention passages that describe the matter in Genesis and in Hebrews. Might even want to have an unbiased read of Romans to find out what it ACTUALLY says about Jews, the Nation, and people of faith.

I won't give you particular verses - it will do you good to actually read the Bible and find the phrasing. There should be more than enough clues in there for you to do a study that bears fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brother D said:

I did read your first post, you didn't explain why God told Israel they aren't his people, if they are his people.  You said, "The kingdom was divided at the time; in which, God said they weren't his people..."  You didn't offer any explanation for why God would say Israel are not his people, if they are his people.   I already know the circumstances of God's statement that Israel is not his people.  I know it was a divided kingdom.  I also know that "not my people" means "not my people."  

 

I did explain it; rather, I gave you the "tools" to read it for yourself. 

 

I answered your questions, but you are not answering my questions. 

 

I've answered what I believe needed to be answered. I don't debate...I'm not going to spend time going back and forth over and over. We both know neither of us will convince the other. That's why I point to scripture...in hope that you'll read what's referenced.

 

You keep typing words, but you're not saying anything.  What about the Revelation reference about Jews as the Synagogue of Satan do you think I should check.  You should have said, "Those weren't Jews, they just claimed they were Jews" in which case I would point out that I put "Jews" in quotes in the first place.  I'd remind you that's the only use of the word "Jews" in Revelation.  And, then I'd make my case that anyone who calls themselves a Jew but is not a Christian is not a true Jew.  

 

Interesting. You said Revelation refers to Jews as the Synagogue of Satan (when it actually doesn't). You even admit that it doesn't, but you still believe that it does? 

 

LOL, indeed, you mockingly say you didn't know you believed something I said you believed then you immediately assert what I just said you believed. 

 

Huh? See...this proves you're not really reading what I post. I didn't say that I believe what you said I believe. Also sir, I wasn't mocking you. I inserted the LOL, because I truly found it humorous...especially since I don't believe what you claim I believe...

 

But, this isn't about you, it's about Dispensational doctrine.  The simple logic that you refuse to process is Ishmael/Arabs are not God's chosen people, therefor being Abraham's seed doesn't make someone God's chosen people.   How does the reason Ishmael wasn't chosen make any difference to the simple logic I've shown you?   

Because your simple logic is destroyed by the plain wording of scripture.

I also notice that you neglected to say anything about my reference to Deuteronomy 10. That's okay.

 

 

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I did explain it; rather, I gave you the "tools" to read it for yourself. 

You didn't explain why God said Israel is not his people, if they are his people. You didn't give me tools to read it myself.  You gave my questions to avoid giving me an answer. The Bible says be ready to give an answer. The explanation, which is true, but you reject, is that being the natural seed of Abraham doesn't make someone's God's chosen people.

Every Christian should know that no one belongs to God apart from faith.  And, so, Israel, without faith, is not God's people.  And, everyone of faith is God's people and counts as the seed of Abraham.

Quote

 

Because your simple logic is destroyed by the plain wording of scripture.

I also notice that you neglected to say anything about my reference to Deuteronomy 10. That's okay.

 

The only difference between spamming verses that don't support you verses vaguely pointing to a chapter is at least you save some some bandwidth in your pretense of having a case.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...