This is not your billboard for your teaching, you have a thread, teach it over there. I clearly took you to school. Until someone other then you can prove your case, walk away from this table. BUT, leave your chips on the table, you have not come close to earning those chip. I can prove my case that you are a troll. I am not calling names. I am calling you want you are, a troll. A monitor will come along, until then, good bye.
Re: The Errors of Dispensationalism: Old and New Testaments are One Whole
In order to build my case, what are points of view about this. Thanks
I've got enough to do keeping my own case together, Bob. Are you asking about other versions of Dispensationalism? I'm just touching on a few things that come to hand, this topic is so wide and deep we'd never get to the limits of it. My own view is that you don't have much of a case at all, because salvation is ONLY through the cross and the Old Testament Jews had to come that way too with whatever degree of light they had.
HERE's what the theological website "Got Questions?" has to say about how the Old Testament believers were saved, showing that it's by faith just as NT Christians are saved.
Got Questions.com writes:
A common misconception about the Old Testament way of salvation is that Jews were saved by keeping the Law. But we know from Scripture that that is not true. Galatians 3:11 says, “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” Some might want to dismiss this passage as only applying to the New Testament, but Paul is quoting Habakkuk 2:4—salvation by faith, apart from the Law was an Old Testament principle. Paul taught that the purpose of the Law was to serve as a “tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24). Also, in Romans 3:20 Paul makes the point that keeping the Law did not save either Old or New Testament Jews because “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.” The Law was never intended to save anyone; the purpose of the Law was to make us “conscious of sin.”
If the Old Testament way of salvation was not keeping the Law, then how were people saved? Fortunately, the answer to that question is easily found in Scripture, so there can be no doubt as to what was the Old Testament way of salvation. In Romans 4 the apostle Paul makes it very clear that the Old Testament way of salvation was the same as the New Testament way, which is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. To prove this, Paul points us to Abraham, who was saved by faith: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Romans 4:3). Again, Paul quotes the Old Testament to prove his point—Genesis 15:6, this time. Abraham could not have been saved by keeping the Law, because he lived over 400 years before the Law was given!
Paul then shows that David was also saved by faith (Romans 4:6-8, quoting Psalm 32:1-2). Paul continues to establish that the Old Testament way of salvation was through faith alone. In Romans 4:23-24 he writes, “The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” In other words, righteousness is “credited” or given to those who have faith in God—Abraham, David, and we all share the same way of salvation.
Bob B writes:
Matt. 27:51, the earthquake that fractured the rock opened a fissure that ran down through 20 foot of solid rock into a cave and cracked the stone lid on top of a black stone volt where the Ark of the Covenant lie hidden inside, pushing the lid aside. John 19:34, the blood that poured from the side of Jesus, ran down through that crevice and dripped onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant that was hidden by God and the prophet Jeremiah, right under where they crucified Jesus, 620 years earlier when the Babylonians destroyed Salomon’s temple.
I can't imagine where you are getting this. I thought maybe you found it in one of the apocrypha but no googling has turned up anything similar. I did find a pretty thorough discussion about the ark at Got Questions.com, the same site I mention above, which I find to be a pretty reliable source of Christian theology. It's dispensationalist by the way, which I conclude from the fact that it keeps referencing a well-known dispensationalist theologian, Lewis Sperry Chafer. But the doctrine the site teaches is usually in line with what I believe so it's not an extreme version.
There are many theories about what happened to the ark discussed at that site, including a theory that Jeremiah buried it under the mountain at Sinai [abe: Correction: Mt. Nebo] before the Babylonian captivity, NOT under the cross where Jesus was crucified. None of the theories suggest it was buried where you suggest in anything like the manner you suggest.
This subject did raise the question in my mind, however, if the ark wasn't still in its place in the Holy of Holies, where the priest went yearly to take the blood of an animal to sprinkle on it, why isn't that mentioned, and what did they sprinkle the blood on, or did they just put the bowl of blood down or what? They were still doing this in the year Jesus was born, so they must have continued doing it until the veil was rent at Jesus' death at least. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was the priest assigned to that task in the year his child was born. If the ark wasn't there, then what did the priest do? I guess I'll have to research this too.
I think your notion about the position of the ark comes from knowing that blood DID need to be sprinkled on the ark, as the priests did, and that only Jesus' blood suffices to atone for our sins, but there is no evidence of your buried ark being sprinkled by His blood, or even being where you say it was. The tearing of the veil when Jesus' died is the sign that believers now have access to God, to the Holy of Holies, through Christ's death. We don't need His literal blood on the ark. And again, OT believers came to Christ through faith by whatever understanding they had from the OT scriptures.
The Greek word used for “the cross” on which Jesus was put to death is “stauros,” which denotes an upright pale or stake. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. There is nothing in the Greek of the New Testament even to imply two pieces of timber. The blood of Jesus would do no good for the Israelites dripping on “stauros,” because the second Adam’s blood was the basis by which Yahweh would now have just cause to remit or to clear the accounts of those with faith in time past, those who had trusted Yahweh’s word to them and who obeyed what Yahweh told them to do.
Not clear what you are saying here. I don't think Christ's literal blood had to fall on anything in particular, it just needed to be shed for us. I'm aware of the idea that it was a stake rather than a cross that He died on, and I'm not sure why we insist on its being a cross, my guess being that it was an alternative version of it, but that's something else to research. I don't think it matters either way, however, to the point you seem to be trying to make.
According to Israel’s New Covenant, when would Yahweh finish what forgiveness alone would not accomplish where Israel’s sins were concerned? When would the forgiveness come? At what time would Yahweh completely clear the slate for Israel nationally-those believers who had been baptized according to John the Baptizer’s program? The blood of the second Adam would make it possible, but when would that total clearing of the accounts take place for Israel?
You use odd language I don't recognize: what do you mean by "Israel's New Covenant?" There's only one New Covenant I know of, and its more common name is the New Testament. Do you mean something different than that?
As best I can put together your question about when forgiveness would come to the Old Testament Jews, I think it would have occurred when it occurred for all of us, when Jesus died on the cross, and the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn in two. Believers and unbelievers both went to a sort of holding place at death, Sheol or Hades, Hades being divided into Hell and Paradise according to something I read I think at Got Questions dot com. Since Jesus' death believers are with Him. All this could use some more research too, but even the dispensationalists at that website agree that Old Testament believers were saved the same way we are, through faith in Christ, even with their limited understanding.
Re: The Errors of Dispensationalism: Old and New Testaments are One Whole
All I can say is this, Abraham learned that it would not be his own fleshly production that would accomplish God’s purpose for him. It is significant when we think about Abraham’s faith, that God wanted Abraham to place no confidence in his flesh.
What Paul wants us to see here in Romans chapter 4, is that God justified Abraham (declared Abraham to be righteous) solely on the basis of Abraham’s belief. Paul wants to make it crystal clear that Abraham was not justified according to a ritual, a ceremonial observance, even the ritual of circumcision that Abraham was given to perform.
Abraham was not considered righteous in accordance with any law-keeping system whatsoever, because God declared Abraham to be righteous approximately 25 years before he was circumcised and at least 400 years before the Law of Moses was ever instituted.
In other words, throughout the ages, God has declared to be righteous those who believed the message he was giving them at the time. When a person believed the good news that God was dispensing, God credited that person’s account with righteousness.
God transferred the sin debt of the entire world, to his son’s account. Yours were all future when that transfer took place, so God had to know about every one of those sins, and God collected the payment for those sins from his son, rather than collect that debt from a world of sinners. That means Christ satisfied God’s justice for your sins, rather than God exacting from you, what was rightfully yours to pay.
Faith, first of all, thank you. I see want Paul went through when he took his message to the Israelites that had God's power within them. The kingdom, you are going to have a great time. I was showing the age of grace, but you are showing me the good time you are going to have with God. There is a age of grace, and there is a kingdom, both of our dreams will come true. Thank you.
Let's reason what the Great Multitude has got to go through. So lets say the Body of Christ is out of the picture. After the Body of Christ is lifted off the earth, the whole period of the Day of Yahweh is called the final meeting of the ages, or the Greek word “sunteleia”; but, the crisis in which it culminates is called the end of the age, or the Greek word “telos.” These two Greek words are rendered “end” in the New Testament, but the use of these two words must be carefully distinguished.
Let's reason out these two Greek words. If you want me to hack on your belief, I have a thread called Nicene Creed is a Scam. You are part of the Great Multitude, I am honored to be talking to you, but there is a age of grace.
Another interesting point, how did God light that black substance. If Lucifer and his clan were afraid of taking a journey into it, how did God light it. God didn’t go into the black substance to light it. I heard someone say God use a prism, bounced a light of some kind. Just a thought.
Oy. I have NO idea what you are talking about now, Bob. You seem to agree with me about the way of salvation up to a point and then you veer off into stuff that makes absolutely no sense to me. Flood of Lucifer? Makes no sense. But the rest of it doesn't either. I just have to leave off the conversation here.
I agree faith, that Lucifer's flood thing was not towards you or your belief. It is a research that maybe someone might like to get invoked with. Until then, I will talk to myself about the earth in the first heaven.
So I did finally look at your other thread. I have no idea why I didn't even know it was there until now. I skimmed it. I also took a brief look at your blog. It just makes me tired. I enjoyed getting to lay out my own theology here at least, but yes, let's not go there, or even any further on this thread.