Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
7,852
1,565
113
And https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7138.htm which is the word used in the verses I gave in post #1552 when the OT speaks of the "day of the Lord being near" . The day of the Lord is "near" had been spoken of as if it were at hand,close,near,next,soon,ect. by God when he spoke of it long before Revelation was written/given and is how God sees time(thousand years as an day).
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,214
1,980
113
And https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7138.htm which is the word used in the verses I gave in post #1552 when the OT speaks of the "day of the Lord being near" . The day of the Lord is "near" had been spoken of as if it were at hand,close,near,next,soon,ect. by God when he spoke of it long before Revelation was written/given and is how God sees time(thousand years as an day).
Yes, and that is how "prophecy" works, as I see it.

Jesus (in His First Advent) came as "a Prophet [like unto Moses / out from the brothers of you]" (Acts 3:22, etc)... yet people, for some reason, seem to believe He was not capable of prophesying of future events [near or especially far ones (to our way of thinking)]. :D



...speaking of prophecies (slightly different tack, here :) ), some see Psalm 72 as speaking ONLY of Solomon [his "reign"], while others can see it speaks both of Solomon's reign and the Messiah's [Jesus'] reign (far future).
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
7,852
1,565
113
Yes, and that is how "prophecy" works, as I see it.

Jesus (in His First Advent) came as "a Prophet [like unto Moses / out from the brothers of you]" (Acts 3:22, etc)... yet people, for some reason, seem to believe He was not capable of prophesying of future events [near or especially far ones (to our way of thinking)]. :D



...speaking of prophecies (slightly different tack, here :) ), some see Psalm 72 as speaking ONLY of Solomon [his "reign"], while others can see it speaks both of Solomon's reign and the Messiah's [Jesus'] reign (far future).


lol, It's just how peterist/Amil. try to press the "soon,near,at hand ect." to try and show it is speaking of ad70,,, Its as if they do not realize God had used that form of speech for at least a thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus or ad70.

I'm surprised azamzimttoti is trying to argue with EG that it don't mean it would take place in quickness when every peterist contends it was fulfilled from after it was given(Nero s death ad68 and ad70) so that they can say Rev. was given before ad70(I believe it was given after). But I guess I'll have to see if azamzimtoti tries to say it happened in quickness from when it was given and was finished in ad70 after she/he(I don't know) argues it wasn't with EG,lol....
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,414
7,248
113
lol, It's just how peterist/Amil. try to press the "soon,near,at hand ect." to try and show it is speaking of ad70,,, Its as if they do not realize God had used that form of speech for at least a thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus or ad70.

I'm surprised azamzimttoti is trying to argue with EG that it don't mean it would take place in quickness when every peterist contends it was fulfilled from after it was given(Nero s death ad68 and ad70) so that they can say Rev. was given before ad70(I believe it was given after). But I guess I'll have to see if azamzimtoti tries to say it happened in quickness from when it was given and was finished in ad70 after she/he(I don't know) argues it wasn't with EG,lol....
Agree. Evidently they are hoping that the second coming has passed and they are home free....
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
lol, It's just how peterist/Amil. try to press the "soon,near,at hand ect." to try and show it is speaking of ad70,,, Its as if they do not realize God had used that form of speech for at least a thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus or ad70.
The exact day is not given . Near is a close as we can get. We walk by faith .God does not give exact days or number people . The this generation is the generation of Adam natural man also referred as the evil generation .

It is the same as saying Matthew 5:18. Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away In other words no guessing walk by faith

Matthew 24:32-34 King James Version (KJV) Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
When I first came in CC. I was told scofield was a dual covenant theologian (the OT people were saved by law. And would return to law during the tribulation) and because of this, Scofield was a heretic. That was the strawman used by many, When I studied the facts, I found out their information on scofield was incorrect. That he believed all people from adam until the end are saved by grace through faith.

You can tell when people are using these strawmen they have gotten from others when they can not even understand what the person they are attacking even believed.

You can find contradictory statements amongst dispensationalists like Scofield and Darby concerning that matter.

So, while you found a statement that indicates the opposite, there are other statements he made that indicated otherwise.

Here's a good set of audios regarding problems with dispensationalism if you are seriously interested:


Rob McKenzie is the main speaker, and he is explaining dispensational theology to his pastor. Rob is a former dispensationalist. He has studied this topic in depth, and has listened to thousands of sermons and read lots of books by dispensationalists from different eras.

https://reformedforum.org/tsp22/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp24/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp25/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp26/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp27/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp29/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp31/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp32/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp33/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp34/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp35/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp36/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp37/

Some follow up discussions:
https://reformedforum.org/tsp54/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp55/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp144/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp127/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp128/

I know that I would never be a dispensationalist. Some claim that the New Covenant isn't for the Church today. It isn't a teaching that dispensationalist pastors like to talk about, though.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
When I first came in CC. I was told scofield was a dual covenant theologian (the OT people were saved by law. And would return to law during the tribulation) and because of this, Scofield was a heretic. That was the strawman used by many, When I studied the facts, I found out their information on scofield was incorrect. That he believed all people from adam until the end are saved by grace through faith.

You can tell when people are using these strawmen they have gotten from others when they can not even understand what the person they are attacking even believed.
Apparently Scofield did, in fact, teach that..

Here's a segment from someone else's work on that:

{quote)
Salvation by Works

The Scofield footnote on JOH 1:17 makes the following statement: “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer LEGAL OBEDIENCE AS THE CONDITION OF SALVATION (emphasis added), but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.” The obvious teaching of this statement is that prior to the death of Christ, men were saved by keeping the law. Here again, it is Scofield versus the word of God. Scripture rather teaches that men were eternally saved before the death of Christ exactly as they have been saved since that death, and that is BY GRACE! Paul settled this fact once and for all when he wrote:

“But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (ROM 11:4-6)

In this passage Paul quotes 1KI 19:18 in which God told Elijah that He had reserved seven thousand men to Himself. God had a remnant of faithful souls in Elijah’s time. Elijah’s time was most certainly BEFORE the death of Christ. Paul then proceeds to show that “EVEN SO at this present time ALSO there is a remnant.” The key words in this passage are “even so....also.” When the word “even” refers to manner, as it does in this passage, it is frequently followed by such words as “as,” “thus,” and “so.” In such a case, the word “even” means “exactly, precisely, just” (The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p.906). Paul is plainly teaching that God has a remnant in this present time in exactly the same manner as He had in Elijah’s day. And what is that manner? It is “according to the election of grace.” God had a remnant according to the election of grace in Elijah’s time BEFORE Christ’s death. In exactly the same manner, He ALSO has a remnant according to the election of grace in this present time AFTER Christ’s death. Had God’s people been saved by works before the death of Christ, then that would have been according to the election of works. However, Paul teaches that they were elect in exactly the same manner as the remnant in this present time, that is, according to grace, not works! Hence, Scofield’s teaching that men were saved by legal obedience prior to Christ’s death is utterly false. Paul said: “If there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (GAL 3:21). But there was not a law given that could give life as Paul affirmed in ROM 3:20: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH (neither before nor after the death of Christ) be justified in his sight....”

At this point the editors of the New Scofield abandon Dr. Scofield. In explaining how sinners were saved prior to the cross they state: “Prior to the cross, man’s salvation was through faith, being grounded on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior.” Observe that the editors of the New Scofield maintain that salvation BEFORE and AFTER the cross is by faith, whereas Scofield himself held that salvation prior to the cross was by legal obedience. These editors have taken a position contrary to Dr. Scofield and yet have attached his name to it forty-six years AFTER his death. How is that for honesty?

{unquote}

Note: if you have a New Scofield Bible, this reference won't occur. So, they revised the teachings of Scofield.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
You can find contradictory statements amongst dispensationalists like Scofield and Darby concerning that matter.

So, while you found a statement that indicates the opposite, there are other statements he made that indicated otherwise.

Here's a good set of audios regarding problems with dispensationalism if you are seriously interested:


Rob McKenzie is the main speaker, and he is explaining dispensational theology to his pastor. Rob is a former dispensationalist. He has studied this topic in depth, and has listened to thousands of sermons and read lots of books by dispensationalists from different eras.

https://reformedforum.org/tsp22/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp24/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp25/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp26/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp27/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp29/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp31/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp32/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp33/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp34/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp35/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp36/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp37/

Some follow up discussions:
https://reformedforum.org/tsp54/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp55/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp144/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp127/
https://reformedforum.org/tsp128/

I know that I would never be a dispensationalist. Some claim that the New Covenant isn't for the Church today. It isn't a teaching that dispensationalist pastors like to talk about, though.
I actually got my information from scofield own words. From his bibles. Which I have used most my life.

there is not problem with dispensationalsim. The only problems with it are the misunderstandings or half/truth-lies told about it by those who do not like it.

i could never be anything but a dispensationalism in its pure unadulterated form (yes, as with all belief systems, there are people who say they believe it, but believe an adulterated form which is not truth) because to believe anything else is to deny God keeps his promises
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Apparently Scofield did, in fact, teach that..

Here's a segment from someone else's work on that:

{quote)
Salvation by Works

The Scofield footnote on JOH 1:17 makes the following statement: “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer LEGAL OBEDIENCE AS THE CONDITION OF SALVATION (emphasis added), but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.” The obvious teaching of this statement is that prior to the death of Christ, men were saved by keeping the law. Here again, it is Scofield versus the word of God. Scripture rather teaches that men were eternally saved before the death of Christ exactly as they have been saved since that death, and that is BY GRACE! Paul settled this fact once and for all when he wrote:

“But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (ROM 11:4-6)

In this passage Paul quotes 1KI 19:18 in which God told Elijah that He had reserved seven thousand men to Himself. God had a remnant of faithful souls in Elijah’s time. Elijah’s time was most certainly BEFORE the death of Christ. Paul then proceeds to show that “EVEN SO at this present time ALSO there is a remnant.” The key words in this passage are “even so....also.” When the word “even” refers to manner, as it does in this passage, it is frequently followed by such words as “as,” “thus,” and “so.” In such a case, the word “even” means “exactly, precisely, just” (The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p.906). Paul is plainly teaching that God has a remnant in this present time in exactly the same manner as He had in Elijah’s day. And what is that manner? It is “according to the election of grace.” God had a remnant according to the election of grace in Elijah’s time BEFORE Christ’s death. In exactly the same manner, He ALSO has a remnant according to the election of grace in this present time AFTER Christ’s death. Had God’s people been saved by works before the death of Christ, then that would have been according to the election of works. However, Paul teaches that they were elect in exactly the same manner as the remnant in this present time, that is, according to grace, not works! Hence, Scofield’s teaching that men were saved by legal obedience prior to Christ’s death is utterly false. Paul said: “If there had been a law given that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (GAL 3:21). But there was not a law given that could give life as Paul affirmed in ROM 3:20: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH (neither before nor after the death of Christ) be justified in his sight....”

At this point the editors of the New Scofield abandon Dr. Scofield. In explaining how sinners were saved prior to the cross they state: “Prior to the cross, man’s salvation was through faith, being grounded on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior.” Observe that the editors of the New Scofield maintain that salvation BEFORE and AFTER the cross is by faith, whereas Scofield himself held that salvation prior to the cross was by legal obedience. These editors have taken a position contrary to Dr. Scofield and yet have attached his name to it forty-six years AFTER his death. How is that for honesty?

{unquote}

Note: if you have a New Scofield Bible, this reference won't occur. So, they revised the teachings of Scofield.
I have a new scofield,, I also have an older version, and we can also go look at scofield origional notes online (Which I did)

you should try to study his words. and not what others claim he thinks
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I actually got my information from scofield own words. From his bibles. Which I have used most my life.

there is not problem with dispensationalsim. The only problems with it are the misunderstandings or half/truth-lies told about it by those who do not like it.

i could never be anything but a dispensationalism in its pure unadulterated form (yes, as with all belief systems, there are people who say they believe it, but believe an adulterated form which is not truth) because to believe anything else is to deny God keeps his promises
So, are you saying that the Scofield Bible notes for the passages I referred to are not there?

I have heard so many people repeat the same general comments, I would be shocked if they aren't there.

However, I'm not going to buy a Scofield Bible to prove it. I had one when I was a member of a cultic group. I liked it because it taught the Gap Theory and as a cultist I believed it.

Are you going to deny that Scofield believed the Gap Theory? :)
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I have a new scofield,, I also have an older version, and we can also go look at scofield origional notes online (Which I did)

you should try to study his words. and not what others claim he thinks

You should read it yourself, because you are wrong.

Here's the notes from his Bible, online. See the bold section.


1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
grace
Grace. Summary:​
(1) Grace is "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man. . . not by works of righteousness which we have done" Titus 3:4 Titus 3:5 .​
It is, therefore, constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man Romans 3:21 Romans 3:22 ; 8:4 ; Philemon 3:9 . Law is connected with Moses and works; grace with Christ and faith ; John 1:17 ; Romans 10:4-10 . Law blesses the good; grace saves the bad ; Exodus 19:5 ; Ephesians 2:1-9 . Law demands that blessings be earned; grace is a free gift ; Deuteronomy 28:1-6 ; Ephesians 2:8 ; Romans 4:4 Romans 4:5 .​
(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Romans 3:24-26 Romans 4:24 Romans 4:25 . The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, ; John 1:12 John 1:13 ; 3:36 ; Matthew 21:37 ; 22:24 ; John 15:22 John 15:25 ; Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 John 5:10-12 . The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27 . The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" (See Scofield "2 Timothy 3:1") 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.​
(3) Grace has a twofold manifestation: in salvation Romans 3:24 and in the walk and service of the saved Romans 6:15 .​
See, for the other six dispensations:​
Innocence, (See Scofield "Genesis 1:28")
Conscience, (See Scofield "Genesis 3:23")
Human Government, (See Scofield "Genesis 8:21")
Promise, (See Scofield "Genesis 12:1")
Law, (See Scofield "Exodus 19:8")
Kingdom, (See Scofield "Ephesians 1:10") .​

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/john/john-1.html


By using the phrase "no longer" he is implying that it was under the previous dispensation.

I'm glad I didn't have to buy a Scofield Bible to prove this. I got rid of my old one when I left the cult.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I have a new scofield,, I also have an older version, and we can also go look at scofield origional notes online (Which I did)

you should try to study his words. and not what others claim he thinks
Now that I've provided proof that is what he said, what's your response?

Did you even check it in the first place?

Because, that's exactly what he says.

Why are you claiming that non-dispensationalists are lying about Scofield's teachings when it is easily provable that they are not lying about it?

Is it because you really haven't checked out their claims, or is it because you don't want others to, so you are discrediting the claims?

By the way, I am not saying every claim about Scofield is correct, but these notes definitely are, and they are a cause for concern.

That is why even dispensationalists won't defend Scofield on this point.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
So, are you saying that the Scofield Bible notes for the passages I referred to are not there?

I have heard so many people repeat the same general comments, I would be shocked if they aren't there.

However, I'm not going to buy a Scofield Bible to prove it. I had one when I was a member of a cultic group. I liked it because it taught the Gap Theory and as a cultist I believed it.

Are you going to deny that Scofield believed the Gap Theory? :)
Nope, he did preach the Gap, he also helped me to fall for it, I no longer believe in Gap, I am currently a Young Earth believer

I do not agree with everything he believed, I just know I studied his OT theology (gospel) and what he thought of the trib period and their gospel (are jews returning to salvation by law) and never found anything he wrote which claimed such when I went to his own words, the only time I see it is when others claim he said it, which is why I went tot he source not to people who were against him
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
You should read it yourself, because you are wrong.

Here's the notes from his Bible, online. See the bold section.


1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
grace
Grace. Summary:​
(1) Grace is "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man. . . not by works of righteousness which we have done" Titus 3:4 Titus 3:5 .​
It is, therefore, constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man Romans 3:21 Romans 3:22 ; 8:4 ; Philemon 3:9 . Law is connected with Moses and works; grace with Christ and faith ; John 1:17 ; Romans 10:4-10 . Law blesses the good; grace saves the bad ; Exodus 19:5 ; Ephesians 2:1-9 . Law demands that blessings be earned; grace is a free gift ; Deuteronomy 28:1-6 ; Ephesians 2:8 ; Romans 4:4 Romans 4:5 .​
(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Romans 3:24-26 Romans 4:24 Romans 4:25 . The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, ; John 1:12 John 1:13 ; 3:36 ; Matthew 21:37 ; 22:24 ; John 15:22 John 15:25 ; Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 John 5:10-12 . The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27 . The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" (See Scofield "2 Timothy 3:1") 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.​
(3) Grace has a twofold manifestation: in salvation Romans 3:24 and in the walk and service of the saved Romans 6:15 .​
See, for the other six dispensations:​
Innocence, (See Scofield "Genesis 1:28")
Conscience, (See Scofield "Genesis 3:23")
Human Government, (See Scofield "Genesis 8:21")
Promise, (See Scofield "Genesis 12:1")
Law, (See Scofield "Exodus 19:8")
Kingdom, (See Scofield "Ephesians 1:10") .​

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/john/john-1.html


By using the phrase "no longer" he is implying that it was under the previous dispensation.

I'm glad I didn't have to buy a Scofield Bible to prove this. I got rid of my old one when I left the cult.
so you read one thing and think you know :ROFL:

i pray you did not do,this to come to your conclusion of eschatology
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Now that I've provided proof that is what he said, what's your response?

Did you even check it in the first place?

Because, that's exactly what he says.

Why are you claiming that non-dispensationalists are lying about Scofield's teachings when it is easily provable that they are not lying about it?

Is it because you really haven't checked out their claims, or is it because you don't want others to, so you are discrediting the claims?

By the way, I am not saying every claim about Scofield is correct, but these notes definitely are, and they are a cause for concern.

That is why even dispensationalists won't defend Scofield on this point.
Ok dude, you have one example which you THINK agrees with you

i have many examples which if I looked them up again would show you otherwise

i have no desire to,discuss scofiled. he is long gone, what about the word? I do not get my dispensational beliefs from scofiled or any man, I got them because of years of study,
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
so you read one thing and think you know :ROFL:

i pray you did not do,this to come to your conclusion of eschatology
Well, I challenge others who read your comments to check out what he says in the Scofield Bible, because he most certainly did teach that salvation was previously by legal obedience.

Now, I will agree that he was inconsistent but he definitely did state this.

By the way, I was closer to dispensationalism as a cultist. It's only been in the last five years that I've accepted a different view of eschatology corresponding to amillennialism.

And, you can criticize it all you want, but I think it's more coherent. I don't believe Revelation is one sequence of events from Rev 4-22 like dispies teach. There's a problem with their view because the same event appears in multiple places within their alleged sequence.

Additionally, I don't think it is coherent for two battles against Christ to occur, one before the Millennium and one after the Millennium. It's the same event.

But, that requires more complex exegesis than most will invest.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Ok dude, you have one example which you THINK agrees with you

i have many examples which if I looked them up again would show you otherwise

i have no desire to,discuss scofiled. he is long gone, what about the word? I do not get my dispensational beliefs from scofiled or any man, I got them because of years of study,
And, those years of study were without dispensational influence?

I doubt it :)
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Ok dude, you have one example which you THINK agrees with you

i have many examples which if I looked them up again would show you otherwise

i have no desire to,discuss scofiled. he is long gone, what about the word? I do not get my dispensational beliefs from scofiled or any man, I got them because of years of study,
I would enjoy it if other folks would look up the reference I provided.

Read it in your Scofield Bibles and decide whether Scofield did believe that salvation was by legal obedience at one point.

Apparently he never read Romans 4, which says exactly the opposite. It discusses how Abraham and David were both justified by faith, and not by works.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
I would enjoy it if other folks would look up the reference I provided.

Read it in your Scofield Bibles and decide whether Scofield did believe that salvation was by legal obedience at one point.

Apparently he never read Romans 4, which says exactly the opposite. It discusses how Abraham and David were both justified by faith, and not by works.
By the way, that's why Ryrie edited Scofield even further.

He realized that dispensationalism was full of holes and he tried to patch it up the best he could.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
By the way, that's why Ryrie edited Scofield even further.

He realized that dispensationalism was full of holes and he tried to patch it up the best he could.
It’s does not matter, should I resort to the strawman you got your belief from pagan rome? of course not, but it would be just as valid an argument, but useless. We call them strawman arguments, they are baseless, meaningless.

i got my belief from my study of Gods word, not from what men who are long since dead.

do you wish to discuss the word. or dead men? (I have to go to work her in a few but am willing to discuss the word if you like will just have to take time.)