Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Brother D

Anyone in your church not a Dispensationalist?

Recommended Posts

On 7/15/2018 at 7:13 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

FYI what I posted is not SPAM, Incidentally SPAM is spelled with all caps. Definition of SPAM: "irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients."

God doesn't need me to insert words of my own when what He says is sufficient and the context plainly defines who His people are. I'll stick with what the Bible says, rather than what you and your intentional, misleading ideas tout.

Even kids in our Sunday School classes know who "the children of Israel" are, and that they are His people. Yes, they are calling to God, I really do get that. But you refuse to acknowledge that it is National Israel that is doing the calling; otherwise known as "The children of Israel".

 

You spammed verses.  https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spamming:

Quote

TOP DEFINITION
spamming
posting useless [****] on forums over and over

A number of other definitions of spamming also apply. 

You posted several verses with the phrase "my people", and not one of them was useful, because none of them identified who "my people" are.  And, the charge of spamming wasn't just because of those three verses, but because of a pattern of behavior of people in doctrinal error spamming verses, whether three or dozens of verses, which don't support the poster's position, especially when said poster does't even attempt to explain how those verses support him.

I've read the Bible.  I know the people of Israel are often called "my people"  But, you don't know what the people of Israel are also often called (explicitly or implicitly) not God's people.  The difference is whether the generation calls out to God or has rejected God. It's about their faith -- not their blood, even if they were one blood, which they're not.  Any Christian should already know it's about faith. Your spammed verses about Israel in Egypt didn't identity "my people" as those who have rejected God, so you had no case. It appears in Exodus 3 that the Israelite slaves were calling out to God.  If you didn't reflexively spam verses, and instead paid attention to what I say and what the Bible says, then you might find something relevant to say.   

It's sad that the chief argument here against what I've pointed out in the Bible, God explicitly saying Israel is not his people, is an attempt to present a contradiction, like when you quoted verses where Israel is called "my people" (which isn't a contradiction because those verses apply to another generation).  You're willing to throw the Bible under the buss, so to speak, to protect your Dispensationalist doctrine.   BTW, I'm sorry I missed your warning to Dave W for his attacks upon my person.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not even going to justify your rhetoric in this reply with an answer. You claim to be an IFB, but are so far from what we teach that it is pathetic.

Incidentally, the warning was for you, not Dave W. I quoted your text that called him a "hateful troll."

Share this post


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

Dispensationalism was only popularized in the late 20th-century, mainly by Pentecostal preachers.  It's not biblical nor the traditional view of Baptists.  

How are Jews who reject God his servants?   Besides, it's not true that Jews are descendants of Jacob. Jews are a religion, not a race.

Now before we again call you a liar for trying to rewrite history, what definition of dispensationalism are you using?

Your made up definition or the commonly accepted definition?

In both cases you are not only wrong, but you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG, which makes you a deliberate liar.

3 hours ago, Brother D said:

You're willing to throw the Bible under the buss, so to speak, to protect your Dispensationalist doctrine.  

And you don't even believe the whole Bible is the Bible.

Is that so that you can ignore, redefine, and rewrite the Bible to suit your own doctrines?

That would explain it.

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


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

You spammed verses.  .urbandictionary.com:

A number of other definitions of spamming also apply. 

 

 

 

Off topic (barely) but for good reason:

REALLY??????????????? You would link something vulgar on a Bible based site?????????????? I intentionally didn't quote the whole and have contemplate editing out some of what you placed in your post. The inappropriateness of what you quoted is evident in that one word is censored (although probably not in the site page you linked)

Also ------- the definition you provided coupled with your statement that he "spammed verses" implies a heathenish view of Scripture. PLUS you think copious Scripture is unnecessary?????????

One more reminder (possibly the last) this is a BIBLE BASED site for CHRISTIAN fellowship. I'm not even dealing with the subject at hand (nor have I read all the posts, nor do I intend to) nor your position nor anyone else's on it --- I'm dealing with what appears to be a disdain for GOD'S HOLY WORD!!!!

Share this post


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

Dispensationalism was only popularized in the late 20th-century, mainly by Pentecostal preachers.  It's not biblical nor the traditional view of Baptists.  

How are Jews who reject God his servants?   Besides, it's not true that Jews are descendants of Jacob. Jews are a religion, not a race.

 

4 hours ago, DaveW said:

Now before we again call you a liar for trying to rewrite history, what definition of dispensationalism are you using?

Your made up definition or the commonly accepted definition?

In both cases you are not only wrong, but you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG, which makes you a deliberate liar.

I guess I should give a little detail on why this is a lie NO MATTER whether he is using the true, commonly accepted definition of dispensationalism, or his false made up definition of dispensationalism.

If he is talking about the generally accepted broad definition of dispensationalism, then he is wrong because as I already stated there are recorded discussions about the general idea of dispensationalism right back to the 2nd century. I pointed that out in my first post in this thread I think. HE may fall back on the word "popularized" but the plain fact is that this is not a new concept nor a new doctrine. The very specific form of dispensationalism promoted by Darby and a few others became popular, but I don't think too many people here would even align themselves totally with that very specific form of it.

I do not.

But that still doesn't change the fact that in reading theological book from the past it is easily seen that people understood that God interacted with men differently throughout the ages.

 

BUT IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS OWN MADE UP DEFINITION, then this is even more laughable, for the Catholic doctrine of "the church" replacing Israel is hardcore historical Catholic Doctrine which goes back beyond the times of the Reformers, right back to Ambrose of Milan in the middle 300's.

So no matter which definition he uses, the true one or his own made up one, it is simply not true that it is a recent doctrine.

And as I am oft heard to say in such matters, whether or not something is an old teaching is irrelevant to its truthfulness. Does it match with the Bible?

This age does not have a monopoly on false teachings - that is why Jesus, Paul and Peter addressed the matter of false teachers. In their time.

So this reference to history does not make it a right nor wrong doctrine.

All it serves to do is show ONCE AGAIN that this man is a liar, who makes up things to suit himself.

 

By the way, I still have not found one source that defines "Dispensationalism" in the way that he does. Everywhere I have looked says that dispensationalism has to do with times and administrations, not with a  division of peoples.

However, when you search for his description it comes up with terms such as "replacement theology", "covenant theology" , and "Supersessionism".

Share this post


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

Dispensationalism was only popularized in the late 20th-century, mainly by Pentecostal preachers.  It's not biblical nor the traditional view of Baptists.  

How are Jews who reject God his servants?   Besides, it's not true that Jews are descendants of Jacob. Jews are a religion, not a race.

I'm referring to basic reading and facts of scripture. It has nothing to do with Dispensational theology. First ignore the word "jew" for a moment. You do not need that term to understand the concept between Christ's church and the Israeli State.

Biblically Israel is a servant nation. Anyone in that nation by the circumcision of Moses is a servant of God. Its priesthood is Levetical and only for those in the nation. Leviticus 25:55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 

Biblically the church is a Priesthood and family of God. You enter it by believer's baptism. Its Priesthood is a continuation after the order of Melchizedek and is for any believer in the world. 
Galatians 3:26-28 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 1 Peter 2:5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 6:20 whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Now "Jew" as you said is a religion but it is also a culture of displaced people. Similar to how the Slavic (Russian) Baptist Church here in Spokane, WA is a church and a Russian culture. You don't have to be Slovic to join but most are and if you join you will pick up a lot of Russian traditions and habits as well. Now to be clear the Slavic church is Russian and many (not all) of their people are Russian descent but they are not in Russia, nor are they Russia. When Israel was dissolved as a nation in the dispersion to Babylon, their identity switched from national to their synagogue or OT church. At the time of Christ the Jews were the only correct teachers of salvation as Christ said: John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Also Israel had been reconstituted in Jesus day as well (Acts 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.) but the Jews religion was not just in Israel nor was it all Israeli: Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. And all the believing Jews Joined the NT Church in the Apostles generation. Only those Jews rejecting Christ remained in their OT synagogue church and formed the Jewish false religion we have today.

Now in Acts 15 the believing Jews confused Israel and the NT Church. Because they had been in their displaced Israeli church they identified Church and Israel as being the same, So they said the Non Israeli had to Join the nation by circumcision of Moses in order to access the salvation of Christ. 
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

What you need to understand is that the church is not a spiritual Israel but rather the priesthood of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is the spiritual nation that the church will be a priesthood for. Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Israel and its Jewish religion had first chances to enter and indeed the believing did but the unbelieving did not. Acts 1:5-8 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

So you see the church is NOT a "spiritual Israel" but Israel will receive the kingdom when Christ returns to take control of that nation as its King and cut the wicked off from it. Romans 9:27-29 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28 for he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. Romans 11:25-27 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 for this ismy covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Edited by John Young

Share this post


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

I am not even going to justify your rhetoric in this reply with an answer. You claim to be an IFB, but are so far from what we teach that it is pathetic.

Incidentally, the warning was for you, not Dave W. I quoted your text that called him a "hateful troll."

Yes, I know.  I was being sarcastic. You have completely ignored all the boiling hatred and attacks on me spewing from Dave W in his posts.  You are a disgrace and your moderation is pathetic.  Now, little man, ban me so that your whole life doesn't feel totally impotent, because God knows you can't answer me.

 

Share this post


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

Yes, I know.  I was being sarcastic. You have completely ignored all the boiling hatred and attacks on me spewing from Dave W in his posts.  You are a disgrace and your moderation is pathetic.  Now, little man, ban me so that your whole life doesn't feel totally impotent, because God knows you can't answer me.

 

I have said nothing that was not easily demonstrable and most often WITH EVIDENCE of your own words.

When you have lied, I have called you a liar - that is not a "personal attack", that is exposing a false teacher and his apparent motives.

What you have just done here is a blatant personal attack against a Moderator.

There are many moderators on this forum, and although I have been spoken to on occasion, I have had no contact from any of them with regard to my exposing your methods, your false accusations, your misrepresentation of people, history, and the Bible. And none of them have contacted me over anything else recently either.

The plain fact is that you have been answered - time and time and time again.

But you continue to misrepresent people, history and the Bible - and you plainly and blatantly said that you don't believe the whole Bible is the Bible, whilst condemning people for quoting the Bible in rebuttal of you. What kind of Christian does that?


This little tirade above will most likely get you banned, and then you can go running back into whatever den of false teaching you came from and brag about how much of a hero you are in your own eyes, and how poorly you have been treated.

I said very early on, that if you don't post lies and false doctrines then I would have nothing to say against you.

You are opposed here because you teach falsely. I have simply pointed out whenever you have lied or misrepresented anyone, and history, or the Bible.

That is not hatred, that is commanded.

Share this post


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

Yes, I know.  I was being sarcastic. You have completely ignored all the boiling hatred and attacks on me spewing from Dave W in his posts.  You are a disgrace and your moderation is pathetic.  Now, little man, ban me so that your whole life doesn't feel totally impotent, because God knows you can't answer me.

 

Your attitude And words speak for themselves. 

James 1:26 KJV
[26] If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

James 3:9-14 KJV
[9] Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. [10] Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. [11] Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? [12] Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. [13] Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. [14] But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...