Some of the reasons I pulled away from Dispensationalism.

[TheDivineWatermark]

The entirety of Deuteronomy 28 starts with an "IF" statement, and that "IF" statement is repeated in the line that talks about the tail and head.

The fact is that no one except for Christ fulfilled the law, therefore He is the only one that could be the recipient of the promises listed there. Christ is the head.

Regarding the above, be mindful of what Kelly had written here (in the first article / commentary I posted):

With the numerous seed God connects the possessing the gate of their enemies - that is, Jewish supremacy, But this is not what one acquires as a Christian. I do not want my enemies to be overthrown, but rather to be brought to Christ. But the Jews, as such, will have not only blessing through Christ by-and-by, but their enemies put down. Israel will be exalted in the earth, which God never promised to the Gentiles. In Genesis 22. the two things are quite distinct.

...and this, in the second one:

Whatever glimpse Abraham may have had of the truth to which the sacrifice on Moriah pointed, it was to the full accomplishment of the promise he looked, and saw by faith what still awaits fulfilment, the period of Christ's manifested glory, "My day." In this hope brightly breaking through the clouds Abraham exulted, and he saw, as faith ever sees, and rejoiced. He, like the rest, saw the promises in their accomplishment from afar off.
And so died these all in accordance with faith as they lived, looking forward to Messiah's day for making good the promises.

[see esp v.15 of Heb11]

 

[John146]

Our sin against the Son (and thereore against the Father) are only forgiven by repenting of them and sins are cleared this way in any age.

Not according to scripture...sacrifice was required under the law. Below is a sample. I could post many more if you'd like.

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Here is another couple of excerpts from a different writer, along these lines (to go along with my Post #101)... for the readers to consider:




Here's what I've posted in the past:

[quoting my past posts on this]

I'm looking for a different quote by George V Wigram... but (in the meantime) in its place, I'll just post this brief portion also by him (note the phrase "God's governmental ways on earth," which is what I believe Roman's 11's "olive tree" represents):


[quoting Wigram]

"Gen. 27:29 [Isaac blessing Jacob]. Let peoples (gamnzim, pl.), serve thee and [manners or sorts of ] nations (l'ummim, pl.) bow down to thee: be lord [a mighty man] over thy brethren.

"Observe, this would not run the source of the division of people back to Shem, Ham and Japhet, so as to make the word to be equivalent to what we call the races of people, in connection with the Noahic earth, who constitute the whole human family. The subdivision here alluded to took place in the family of Isaac, type of the heir of promise, not earlier; and the heads of this subdivision are brought before us in Rom. 9 All God's ways and subdivisions are to be noted."

[also]

"f Israel is the goh'y of experience, promise, blessing on the earth; the center of all God's governmental ways on earth; but in saying that, I look at them from outside and as one whole. When they are owned as gammi, my people, their detailed state and associations within is the aspect in which they are considered."

--George V Wigram

http://bibletruthpublishers.com/heb...t-testimony-psalms-article/g-v-wigram/la61041

____________

[quoting that other article by Wigram]

"[re: Romans 11] In Jesus Christ, if the question be about Christian position, eternal life, or the Church considered in her essential relationship to Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile; the thoughts found in this chapter [Romans 11] can THERE have no place. If the question be about the cutting off of an individual for sinful conduct, little matters it whether he be Jew or Gentile; that has nothing to do with it, and on the other hand, there would be no question about grafting in again of the Jews more than of any others, and neither Jews nor others could be grafted in, if God had cut them off in such a manner. And if it were a question about a warning from the Apostle to Christians at Rome, and so to others elsewhere, as being brethren, it would be almost nonsense to say, " And thou, O Gentile, take heed!" Why, thou, O Gentile? Had not Christians, Jews by birth, as much need to take heed? Or could the Spirit of God, in such a warning, have made the distinction, and thus denied the principle of, the Church of God in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile? If the question is about a divine administration upon earth, then God can well make the distinction and develop his ways towards the one and the other; and it is plain that from the commencement of the ninth chapter the Apostle is occupied with and pointedly contrasts the Jews and the Gentiles, presenting us with the administration of the divine ways upon the earth. First declaring his attachment to Israel, he points out an election in the election for the earth, and further, that if God according to his sovereignty had chosen Israel (and such was Israel's boast), He had not renounced His sovereignty; and consequently, He could call the Gentiles if he would. Then he recalls to mind that the prophets had shown that a little remnant only, of Israel, at such an epoch, would be saved, and that a stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion."

-- Thoughts on Romans 11 and the Responsibility of the Church, Present Testimony: Volume 4 George V. Wigram

http://bibletruthpublishers.com/tho...the-church/present-testimony-volume-4/la85282


[end quoting; bold and underline mine]




[end quoting old posts]

 

[Jocund]

With the numerous seed God connects the possessing the gate of their enemies - that is, Jewish supremacy, But this is not what one acquires as a Christian. I do not want my enemies to be overthrown, but rather to be brought to Christ. But the Jews, as such, will have not only blessing through Christ by-and-by, but their enemies put down. Israel will be exalted in the earth, which God never promised to the Gentiles. In Genesis 22. the two things are quite distinct.

You didn't read my post, this is a waste of time.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ None of the promises are fulfilled APART FROM CHRIST.




[...and Paul's words in Galatians 3:16 re: "SEED [SINGULAR]" does not automatically toss out all that pertains to "SEED [PLURAL]" spoken of in Genesis = ) ]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TDW: [quoting Wm Kelly] "The law does not touch a man when he is dead."

"For he that is dead is freed from sin." - Romans 6:7 KJV

Romans 7:1-4 [where Paul had said, "for I speak to them that know the law" v.1], esp verse 4 (quoted here) - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead [/have been put to death] to the law BY [/BY MEANS OF] the body of Christ; that ye should be married [/joined] to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."









See also 2Cor5:14-15 - "14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TDW: [quoting Wm Kelly] "cannot disannul what God had said before"

I don't think anyone is making the claim that anything promised was voided or spoken falsely in scripture. The dispute is usually about what specifically was promised, how it was promised, and to whom it was promised.

The writer (WK) is pointing out what Paul's argument was (and pertained to) in his writing of Galatians 3

 

[Journeyman]

Not according to scripture...sacrifice was required under the law. Below is a sample. I could post many more if you'd like.

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

I think you better read Isa1, particularly vss.-10-13.

 

[John146]

I think you better read Isa1, particularly vss.-10-13.

Israel was deep in sin and rebellion. Their sacrifices were in vain. They meant nothing.

Question, if a Jew offered a ram for a trespass offering for sin, would that offering bring forgiveness of sin?

19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

 

[TMS]

Not according to scripture...sacrifice was required under the law. Below is a sample. I could post many more if you'd like.

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

If the blood of bulls and goats can gain our atonement, Then Jesus did not need to die.
The blood of animals did not forgive the sins of the people. This is clear in Hebs.
The Sacrificial service was symbolic of the process that Jesus would use to gain our forgiveness. God required it as a means to help the people understand how sin required death and how the process in heaven works.

It was an Earthly example of the the Heavenly.

Dispensationalism is evil
Jesus is the only way, and to teach that God has different ways to be saved for different times is wrong.

Before the cross they looked forward to the promise of a saviour.
After the cross we look back at the saviour.

Both require faith

 

[Rhomphaeam]

If the blood of bulls and goats can gain our atonement, Then Jesus did not need to die.
The blood of animals did not forgive the sins of the people. This is clear in Hebs.
The Sacrificial service was symbolic of the process that Jesus would use to gain our forgiveness. God required it as a means to help the people understand how sin required death and how the process in heaven works.

It was an Earthly example of the the Heavenly.

Dispensationalism is evil
Jesus is the only way, and to teach that God has different ways to be saved for different times is wrong.

Before the cross they looked forward to the promise of a saviour.
After the cross we look back at the saviour.

Both require faith

Nevertheless, you cannot change the Scripture that was posted.

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Leviticus 19:21-22 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

I believe that in Paul's language this is God winking at sin.

However, the Scripture also says,

“death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offence of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Romans 5:14)

So how then did death cease to reign after Moses? Wasn't that the Law of Moses? Or is the Law incapable of producing no benefit when it was laid down by agreement with Israel and was stated to be a matter of agreement between God and Israel and would produce either life or death. A blessing or a curse?

How did Moses appear on the mount of transfiguration - if death reigned unto his hour? Yet Christ was not yet crucified!

 

[John146]

If the blood of bulls and goats can gain our atonement, Then Jesus did not need to die.
The blood of animals did not forgive the sins of the people. This is clear in Hebs.
The Sacrificial service was symbolic of the process that Jesus would use to gain our forgiveness. God required it as a means to help the people understand how sin required death and how the process in heaven works.

It was an Earthly example of the the Heavenly.

Dispensationalism is evil
Jesus is the only way, and to teach that God has different ways to be saved for different times is wrong.

Before the cross they looked forward to the promise of a saviour.
After the cross we look back at the saviour.

Both require faith

Let us see what Hebrews says.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Those sacrifices could forgive a man his sins temporarily, but could not take them away like the blood of Christ. Their sins were forgiven but not cleared.

Exodus 34
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

 

[Beckie]

If the blood of bulls and goats can gain our atonement, Then Jesus did not need to die.
The blood of animals did not forgive the sins of the people. This is clear in Hebs.
The Sacrificial service was symbolic of the process that Jesus would use to gain our forgiveness. God required it as a means to help the people understand how sin required death and how the process in heaven works.

It was an Earthly example of the the Heavenly.

Dispensationalism is evil
Jesus is the only way, and to teach that God has different ways to be saved for different times is wrong.

Before the cross they looked forward to the promise of a saviour.
After the cross we look back at the saviour.

Both require faith

 

[John146]

And I thought salvation came only by believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sins.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

And I thought salvation came only by believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sins.

Well it does, brother. So given that Moses was very much transfigured and alive with Christ, as was Elijah - though he had [has] not yet tasted death - then clearly there is something more fundamental than mere doctrine that must be laid hold of if we are to reconcile these things that are so sententiously held. So that @Beckie cites the post that agrees with her stark condemnation of Scofield and dispensationalism so that in this thread she calls it an attack on the body of Christ. @#61. So it may not be surprising that the @TMS comment in her now @#113 post is made.

I thought that dispensationalism was understood. It clearly isn't because it has the answer to that difficulty I have alluded to and even more surprisingly @Beckie actually alludes to it in her opening post.

 

[John146]

Well it does, brother. So given that Moses was very much transfigured and alive with Christ, as was Elijah - though he had [has] not yet tasted death - then clearly there is something more fundamental than mere doctrine that must be laid hold of if we are to reconcile these things that are so sententiously held. So that @Beckie cites the post that agrees with her stark condemnation of Scofield and dispensationalism so that in this thread she calls it an attack on the body of Christ. @#61. So it may not be surprising that the @TMS comment in her now @#113 post is made.

I thought that dispensationalism was understood. It clearly isn't because it has the answer to that difficulty I have alluded to and even more surprisingly @Beckie actually alludes to it in her opening post.

Well said brother.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I see Scofield's works , the ones I have read, as an attack on the Body of Christ.

This is such a ludicrous statement that it does not even deserve any response. So either you have no clue about Scofield, or you would rather spout anti-Scofield propaganda than the truth.

In defense of Cyrus Scofield, it must must said that the original Scofield Reference Bible (KJV 1910) has been a tremendous help and blessing to hundreds of thousands of Christians (and I have used it personally). While one can disagree with him on certain positions he held (e.g. the Gap Theory), 99.9% of his notes and headings are sound and totally biblical. So I will challenge Beckie to show us exactly how Scofield has "attacked" the Body of Christ. Fake News is a terrible thing since it drives people to believe lies.

As to John Nelson Darby, there are many pluses and quite a few minuses. But there is no question that the writings of Darby have been very influential for many Christians. It is really regrettable that Darby did not have the discernment to see that Westcott & Hort had perpetrated a major hoax on Christendom. Therefore Darby's bible is based upon their corrupt Critical Text and even omits that critical verse in Acts 8:37 (as do most modern translations).

King James Bible
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

If this verse is omitted, the passage makes absolutely no sense. But if it is regarded as genuine Scripture then it teaches us that water baptism by immersion is to be only administered AFTER someone becomes a believer.

 

[TMS]

Let us see what Hebrews says.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Those sacrifices could forgive a man his sins temporarily, but could not take them away like the blood of Christ. Their sins were forgiven but not cleared.

Exodus 34
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Read the whole process
Once a year the sins that were taken into the sanctuary were cleared (day of Atonement) Two goats were used one was killed the other was the scape goat. The sins in the sanctuary were dealt with and the sanctuary was clean. This was also symbolic like all the other sacrifices.

The blood of bulls and goats did not deal with sin. Their blood can not remove sin even temporarily. Only Christ can deal with our sin.

It was all symbolic of what Jesus is doing today.

"Those sacrifices could forgive a man his sins temporarily, " is what you said. How can animals blood forgive us of our sins temporarily?

By faith they were saved and if they were ignorant of the heavenly process God winks at it. But they still needed faith.

will by no means clear the guilty; = if your forgiven your not guilty anymore. If your not forgiven your sins will require your a debt.

 

[TMS]

Dispensationalism is a particular hermeneutic or analytical system for interpreting the Bible based on a literal translation, and which stands in contrast to the traditional system of covenant theology used in biblical interpretation. Dispensationalism was first developed by John Nelson Darby around 1830, and considers biblical history as divided by God into dispensations, defined periods or ages to which God has allotted distinct covenants or administrative principles. According to dispensationalism, each age of God's plan is thus administered in a certain way, and humanity is held responsible as a steward during that time. Dispensationalists' presuppositions start with the inductive reasoning that biblical history has a particular discontinuity in the way God reacts to humanity in the unfolding of their, sometimes supposed, free wills

I looked at the presuppositions and i can not believe them unless i twist many of the bible teachings upside down.

 

[John146]

Read the whole process
Once a year the sins that were taken into the sanctuary were cleared (day of Atonement) Two goats were used one was killed the other was the scape goat. The sins in the sanctuary were dealt with and the sanctuary was clean. This was also symbolic like all the other sacrifices.

The blood of bulls and goats did not deal with sin. Their blood can not remove sin even temporarily. Only Christ can deal with our sin.

It was all symbolic of what Jesus is doing today.

"Those sacrifices could forgive a man his sins temporarily, " is what you said. How can animals blood forgive us of our sins temporarily?

By faith they were saved and if they were ignorant of the heavenly process God winks at it. But they still needed faith.

will by no means clear the guilty; = if your forgiven your not guilty anymore. If your not forgiven your sins will require your a debt.

You are against scripture not me. Over and over the scripture states the proper sacrifice forgave the sinner. But that sacrifice was only temporary. If a person sinned against, another sacrifice had to be made. These sacrifices could forgive a man of sin but not clear him. They could never take sin away. Do not equate the two….

I can forgive someone, but I cannot take the sin away. Only the blood of Jesus can take away sin once and for all.