Not kidding

[Hitch]

4 things:

1. Dispensationalists are not followers of Walvoord or Pentecost. Their commentary doesn't define what Dispensationalism is.
2. The fact that someone doesn't invalidate something doesn't mean they support it.
2. Walvoord confirms the passing away of the law dispensation (he even calls it Judaism).

"Christ's purpose is to bring in something new. He came to lead a group
out of Judaism into the kingdom based on Him and His righteousness". -Walvoord​

Barbieri, L. A., Jr. (1985). Matthew. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 40). Victor Books.

4. The Kingdom dispensation is similar to the Law dispensation. They are not the same and it isn't a return of the Law, it is the return of a nation.

Well Wal voord was president of DTS for some 30 years or so following Chafer. Pentecost's 'Things to Come ' has over 1/4 million copies out . So there are literally thousand of Pastors out there trained by these men. Walvoord was also in the editorial committe of the 1967 SRB revision. Therefor when Scofieldism is left to continue it does mean they supported it.

 

[Hitch]

. Walvoord confirms the passing away of the law dispensation (he even calls it Judaism).

Does Walvoord speak for dispensationalism ?

 

[Diakonos]

Well Wal voord was president of DTS for some 30 years or so following Chafer. There are literally thousand of Pastors out there trained by these men.

A person's magnitude of influence does not determine the meaning of a doctrine.

John Macarthur influences 5 times more people than Walvoord and Pentecost, and John has a different view on Dispensationalism. Should we believe that Macarthur determines what Dispensatianlism means because of the magnitude of his influence? Of course not. Different people have different positions on subcategories of doctrinal paradigms. You can't generalize Dispensationalism based on the words of a few men.

 

[Hitch]

A person's magnitude of influence does not determine the meaning of a doctrine.

John Macarthur influences 5 times more people than Walvoord and Pentecost, and John has a different view on Dispensationalism. Should we believe that Macarthur determines what Dispensatianlism means because of the magnitude of his influence? Of course not. Different people have different positions on subcategories of doctrinal paradigms. You can't generalize Dispensationalism based on the words of a few men.

That DF is not monolithic has already been established so I have no clue as to your point. I am a little curious about why it matters to you so much .

 

[Hitch]

. Walvoord confirms the passing away of the law dispensation (he even calls it Judaism).

Does Walvoord speak for dispensationalism ?

Odd since it seems you will not allow that Walvoord is a true spokesman for DF I wonder why you chose his quote.

 

[Diakonos]

DF is not monolithic

It was established in 1830 by Darby.

Sure, you can say that certain people have disagreed with parts of it up to the present day. But that doesn't change it. You should call it something other than "Dispensationalism" if you are going to refer to some kind of off-brach/deviation of what Darby established.

I wonder why you chose his quote.

because you brought him up. I identified something he said that is contrary to what you claim he believes. I also refuted the corresponding logic you implied in my 2nd point of post# 20.

 

[Hitch]

It was established in 1830 by Darby.

Sure, you can say that certain people have disagreed with parts of it up to the present day. But that doesn't change it. You should call it something other than "Dispensationalism" if you are going to refer to some kind of off-brach/deviation of what Darby established.

because you brought him up. I identified something he said that is contrary to what you claim he believes. I also refuted the corresponding logic you implied in my 2nd point of post# 20.

LOl So you have a great deal invested. I dont know of a seminary dedicated to DF older than Dallas. But you dissed the cowboys right off as practically meaningless. I recall you said its not worth discussing but here you are . Why? There is a distinct line from Walvoord to Chafer to Scofield then on to Darby, probably the strongest link , so what is your complaint ?

 

[Diakonos]

I dont know of a seminary dedicated to DF older than Dallas

And...?

I recall you said its not worth discussing

Read what I wrote again. I said, "it's not really worth the discussion "...The discussion we are having, surrounding the point you brought up about the return of the Law dispensation. That isn't worth discussing because your OP makes a false assumption that "classic" Dispensationalism asserts that notion.

To establish a middle ground for meaningful conversation, would you be willing to refer to "dispensation of Law returning" as "DTS's Dispensanolism" rather than "Classic Dispensationalism"? (BTW, "classic" is implied without a modifier)

It might not seem like a big deal to you, but it's just irresponsible to misrepresent what 1/4 of Christians believe because some men at a university changed their position a doctrinal paradigm.

 

[JStates]

I personally hold that the believer should liberally dispense the Scriptures in the present. That's all I've got to say about dispensing.

Not sure exactly what's going to happen in the Millennial Kingdom. It's gonna be pretty great, though, and the saints will be ruling over cities and regions.

Imma get me a pet sea serpent if any are still alive out there.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

In classic DF thinking the Millennium is really a point at which the parenthetical church age closes and the dispensation of Law returns, albeit with Christ supervising bodily.

Wrote no Apostle ever...

it’s crazy how many theories come over time that the Bible never says or supports such as several dispensations, And returning to the law

 

[Hitch]

And...?

Read what I wrote again. I said, "it's not really worth the discussion "...The discussion we are having, surrounding the point you brought up about the return of the Law dispensation. That isn't worth discussing because your OP makes a false assumption that "classic" Dispensationalism asserts that notion.

To establish a middle ground for meaningful conversation, would you be willing to refer to "dispensation of Law returning" as "DTS's Dispensanolism" rather than "Classic Dispensationalism"? (BTW, "classic" is implied without a modifier)

It might not seem like a big deal to you, but it's just irresponsible to misrepresent what 1/4 of Christians believe because some men at a university changed their position a doctrinal paradigm.

When I say 'classic' I mean primarily from Scofield to Walvoord. The distinction being their published work against the the 'pop' versions of Lindsey , Hunt and others .

 

[Diakonos]

When I say 'classic' I mean primarily from Scofield to Walvoord. The distinction being their published work against the the 'pop' versions of Lindsey , Hunt and others .

I see what you mean now. That's understandable. Thank you for clarifying that you are referring to their off-branch version of Dispensationalism.

 

[p_rehbein]

When the Eastern Sky splits, and the Trump sounds, and Jesus descends on clouds of white with the Saints who have gone before........

THAT'S IT!

Folks waiting for something else are gonna be sore disappointed IMO.........

The Gospel of Jesus speaks of no second chances once Jesus returns to gather His Church. Yall don't get no "do overs, or mulligans."

Yall will be either the wheat or the tares, it is your choice. Choose now before He returns.

MARANATHA!

 

[kleronomos]

When the Eastern Sky splits, and the Trump sounds, and Jesus descends on clouds of white with the Saints who have gone before........

THAT'S IT!

Folks waiting for something else are gonna be sore disappointed IMO.........

The Gospel of Jesus speaks of no second chances once Jesus returns to gather His Church. Yall don't get no "do overs, or mulligans."

Yall will be either the wheat or the tares, it is your choice. Choose now before He returns.

MARANATHA!

Harsh.

So someone living 35AD, never heard THE WORDS OF GOD nor the teachings of Christ but THEY are far above what many Christians only proclaim to be as they truly do love their neighbor as themselves. They take care of the widows and poor. If they ever would have been given the OPPORTUNITY to read or hear, they would have taken to the LORD like a duck to water.

So they are just "sol"/surely out of luck, being born the wrong time and place? Do you believe that is the spirit of the word?

LOF for them??


What about the little old lady who couldn't read but never missed a day or donation and just happened to have a 'lying pastor' with lots of charisma for 90 years? LOF, the only future for her also you believe?

 

[peldom10]

Harsh.

So someone living 35AD, never heard THE WORDS OF GOD nor the teachings of Christ but THEY are far above what many Christians only proclaim to be as they truly do love their neighbor as themselves. They take care of the widows and poor. If they ever would have been given the OPPORTUNITY to read or hear, they would have taken to the LORD like a duck to water.

So they are just "sol"/surely out of luck, being born the wrong time and place? Do you believe that is the spirit of the word?

LOF for them??


What about the little old lady who couldn't read but never missed a day or donation and just happened to have a 'lying pastor' with lots of charisma for 90 years? LOF, the only future for her also you believe?

Both points are applicable here.

God will handle the infirmed and/or mentally challenged just as He will manage the young and immature.

He will be equally determined to apply His resolve on those NOT following His commandments...as we see here often, concerning baptism, OSAS, universalism, and other new age religion teachings.
He will not compromise His commandments...one iota....be aware.

 

[peldom10]

...timed out....

......How many samples in biblical history are needed to understand that God is a lovable, forgiving, righteous God but,
Who expects us to follow His commandments.
Re are reminded ...the road to destruction is wide and full of pot holes and the Gate to salvation is narrow and few will pass through it.

 

[kleronomos]

Both points are applicable here.

God will handle the infirmed and/or mentally challenged just as He will manage the young and immature.

He will be equally determined to apply His resolve on those NOT following His commandments...as we see here often, concerning baptism, OSAS, universalism, and other new age religion teachings.
He will not compromise His commandments...one iota....be aware.

Compassion, good to hear.

We seem to agree on how much God hates false and/or man worded and/or concluded doctrines, deception and the like.

But, I do think 'the letter of the law' was done away with in favor of the 'spirit of the law' and Gods purpose is not only for us to love Him but to love HIS WAYS


But as you basically stated,

Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.



I would like to add

Hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.