Closing the Gap in Dispensationalism
- Thread starter Dave-L
- Start date
-
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.
It's that none of the disciples were expecting Jesus to be raised from the grave in any of the Gospels(see the Scriptures for their individual reactions)...And so then in Matthew 24:3 that would mean it is impossible that they were asking about the Lords second coming as most think seeing they did not yet understand his second coming when they ask "and the sign of thy coming"...
Because we understand Jesus second coming(they did not in Matthew 24), it is apparent that we see them asking about the sign of his second coming but if we bare in mind that they did not understand he would die, be buried and the rise from the grave then they must have been asking of the sign of his coming as the Messiah and so he answered that.
If I'm not mistaken, it is Dave-L's contention that just because Jesus had a physical body after His resurrection does not mean that He had a physical body after His ASCENSION (Acts 1). And it is THIS issue that [member] "Diakonos" is speaking to... not Matt24:3.
[I, of course, disagree with Dave-L's contention, but that is beside the point of this present post
]
[I, of course, disagree with Dave-L's contention, but that is beside the point of this present post
]-
1
-
1
- Show all
If I'm not mistaken, it is Dave-L's contention that just because Jesus had a physical body after His resurrection does not mean that He had a physical body after His ASCENSION (Acts 1). And it is THIS issue that [member] "Diakonos" is speaking to... not Matt24:3.
[I, of course, disagree with Dave-L's contention, but that is beside the point of this present post ]
[I, of course, disagree with Dave-L's contention, but that is beside the point of this present post
]
Broiled fish dipped in honey comb,in the kingdom? https://biblehub.com/luke/22-16.htm
I don't wish to speak for "Diakonos" [member], but some of us see that incident ( ^ you're speaking of--that particular scene in Lk24:39) as having taken place BETWEEN His first [ACTIVE] ascension ON Firstfruit (/His Resurrection Day, per John 20:17 and other refs [Lev23:10-12, for example]) and that of His LATER "VISIBLE" ascension in Acts 1 (some "40 days" later).
Just sayin
Just sayin
My understanding of the Bible is Reformed, yes.
I find that free-willers don't have coherent theology. They simply ignore Scriptures proving that God is sovereign in salvation.
I attend a church which is not Reformed, because it would require driving a long distance to go elsewhere. The pastor is Reformed, though.
I find that free-willers don't have coherent theology. They simply ignore Scriptures proving that God is sovereign in salvation.
I attend a church which is not Reformed, because it would require driving a long distance to go elsewhere. The pastor is Reformed, though.
Are you aware that the word "saved" has an already-but-not-yet aspect?
Perhaps you are not...if you are a product of dispensationalist teaching. It is one of their problems.
Final salvation is not consummated until glorification, which occurs at Jesus' return.
Am I saying that the real Christian, who has been united with Christ, may not experience glorification? No, I believe that the true Christian will always be glorified at the return of Jesus. That is when he receives his resurrection body.
But, what I am saying is one proof-text such as you used doesn't prove your point. If you understood the already-but-not-yet hermeneutic, you would not have attempted to use it with me, unless you think I am uninformed.
The problem is that the unregenerate man has no facility for faith. He has a heart of stone, not a heart of flesh. He needs a heart of flesh to exercise faith and repentance. It doesn't come from a heart of stone. This is something that free-willers categorically deny, though. This is because they trust in the flesh to exact their ultimate rescue. They refuse to acknowledge that it is all from God, and none from them.
Additionally, they refuse to look at the larger metanarrative. I have already mentioned it. God elected certain individuals to salvation. He knew them from eternity past. He gave these to the Son. The Son atoned for their sins on the Cross. This atonement was personal and actual, not impersonal (general or universal) and theoretical. The Holy Spirit applies this redemption to the believer in time, at the moment of his regeneration.
My position would be that the primary reason they ignore this larger metanarrative is that it chafes agains their Play-doh version of God. They simply cannot believe in a God who exercises his sovereignty over salvation.
By the way, I am attaching a PDF copy of an explanation I created as an overview of the Scriptures for prisoners in jail ministry. If you really think your metanarrative of Scripture is more coherent than mine, show me how my metanarrative is wrong. If nothing else, it will help me to understand how you free-willers think.
I invite anyone else to review it and refute me...go ahead
It represents a solid Reformed perspective.
To be honest, I don't think free-willers even play on the same playground as the Reformed. I don't even listen to their teachings anymore. I spent like 25-30 years amongst different free-willers, and really didn't learn much at all from them. I spend 6-7 years with non-Reformed believers and learn a LOT from them.
Yes, that is my opinion on free-willers. I am honest about it. I think they are really mixed up believers for the most part, but some are strictly works-oriented Pelagians. Some are antinomians as well.
As for you, Mr. Diakonos, I suggest that you go back and study salvation in the NT, as well as the OT. If you are not aware of the already-but-not-yet teaching of Scripture, I suggest that you read materials on this. Because, I don't think you should honestly have used your proof-text if you really understood what the already-but-not-yet principle teaches in regards to salvation.
Perhaps you are not...if you are a product of dispensationalist teaching. It is one of their problems.
Final salvation is not consummated until glorification, which occurs at Jesus' return.
Am I saying that the real Christian, who has been united with Christ, may not experience glorification? No, I believe that the true Christian will always be glorified at the return of Jesus. That is when he receives his resurrection body.
But, what I am saying is one proof-text such as you used doesn't prove your point. If you understood the already-but-not-yet hermeneutic, you would not have attempted to use it with me, unless you think I am uninformed.
The problem is that the unregenerate man has no facility for faith. He has a heart of stone, not a heart of flesh. He needs a heart of flesh to exercise faith and repentance. It doesn't come from a heart of stone. This is something that free-willers categorically deny, though. This is because they trust in the flesh to exact their ultimate rescue. They refuse to acknowledge that it is all from God, and none from them.
Additionally, they refuse to look at the larger metanarrative. I have already mentioned it. God elected certain individuals to salvation. He knew them from eternity past. He gave these to the Son. The Son atoned for their sins on the Cross. This atonement was personal and actual, not impersonal (general or universal) and theoretical. The Holy Spirit applies this redemption to the believer in time, at the moment of his regeneration.
My position would be that the primary reason they ignore this larger metanarrative is that it chafes agains their Play-doh version of God. They simply cannot believe in a God who exercises his sovereignty over salvation.
By the way, I am attaching a PDF copy of an explanation I created as an overview of the Scriptures for prisoners in jail ministry. If you really think your metanarrative of Scripture is more coherent than mine, show me how my metanarrative is wrong. If nothing else, it will help me to understand how you free-willers think.
I invite anyone else to review it and refute me...go ahead
It represents a solid Reformed perspective.
To be honest, I don't think free-willers even play on the same playground as the Reformed. I don't even listen to their teachings anymore. I spent like 25-30 years amongst different free-willers, and really didn't learn much at all from them. I spend 6-7 years with non-Reformed believers and learn a LOT from them.
Yes, that is my opinion on free-willers. I am honest about it. I think they are really mixed up believers for the most part, but some are strictly works-oriented Pelagians. Some are antinomians as well.
As for you, Mr. Diakonos, I suggest that you go back and study salvation in the NT, as well as the OT. If you are not aware of the already-but-not-yet teaching of Scripture, I suggest that you read materials on this. Because, I don't think you should honestly have used your proof-text if you really understood what the already-but-not-yet principle teaches in regards to salvation.
Attachments
God does not sin.
God does not "cause people to sin".
God's law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rom 7:12).
Your inability to sustain the error of your dogma is more and more apparent as you continue to make outlandish statements which have no basis in reality.
Go get a Bible and read it with open eyes ... do not read it through the lens of your erroneous doctrine.
God does not "cause people to sin".
God's law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rom 7:12).
Your inability to sustain the error of your dogma is more and more apparent as you continue to make outlandish statements which have no basis in reality.
Go get a Bible and read it with open eyes ... do not read it through the lens of your erroneous doctrine.
Here's an example of God causing a person to sin. When he hardens hearts it does the same. This has a major effect on scripture if you fail to grasp it.
“And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.” 1 Kings 22:19–23 (KJV 1900)
“And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.” 1 Kings 22:19–23 (KJV 1900)
I have already outlined that it seems you don't understand that salvation has an already-but-not-yet aspect.
Therefore, your proof text is meaningless.
Ask yourself, what causes a person to believe? That is the real issue.
Why didn't the Israelites who rejected God believe, even though they saw mighty miracles?
Answer: they had a heart of stone, and not a heart of flesh. This is something God gives the believe, to cause the faith/repentance response.
The soteriology of the free-willer is corrupt and dishonors God. It cannot make sense of Scripture. Man does not have the internal resources to come to faith and believe. Those who claim this fail to realize the radical corruption that the Fall caused.
They have no coherent metanarrative of Scripture. Their theology is all screwed up.
And, like I have said, I invite you to read my metanarrative, reading the Scriptures along with it, and demonstrate where my position is wrong.
By the way, I was involved with a free-willer, Judaizer group called the Armstrongites. They too had a false metanarrative. That is part of why I focus on metarratives.
Additionally, I find that free-willers don't even begin to respond on issues like union with Christ like the Reformed do. Their minds are fixed on defending their alleged free-will response. They are like the cultists I was involved with. They were so fixated on disproving Christianity as a whole that they did not study deeper, meatier, satisfying concepts like union with Christ.
There may be a few exceptions, but most of them are all about their free-willer Sunday School script. Romans Road is about as deep as it gets theologically for them.
Therefore, your proof text is meaningless.
Ask yourself, what causes a person to believe? That is the real issue.
Why didn't the Israelites who rejected God believe, even though they saw mighty miracles?
Answer: they had a heart of stone, and not a heart of flesh. This is something God gives the believe, to cause the faith/repentance response.
The soteriology of the free-willer is corrupt and dishonors God. It cannot make sense of Scripture. Man does not have the internal resources to come to faith and believe. Those who claim this fail to realize the radical corruption that the Fall caused.
They have no coherent metanarrative of Scripture. Their theology is all screwed up.
And, like I have said, I invite you to read my metanarrative, reading the Scriptures along with it, and demonstrate where my position is wrong.
By the way, I was involved with a free-willer, Judaizer group called the Armstrongites. They too had a false metanarrative. That is part of why I focus on metarratives.
Additionally, I find that free-willers don't even begin to respond on issues like union with Christ like the Reformed do. Their minds are fixed on defending their alleged free-will response. They are like the cultists I was involved with. They were so fixated on disproving Christianity as a whole that they did not study deeper, meatier, satisfying concepts like union with Christ.
There may be a few exceptions, but most of them are all about their free-willer Sunday School script. Romans Road is about as deep as it gets theologically for them.
-
1
- Show all
Agrippa did not have a Spirit-wrought faith in Christ.
He may have believed Jewish teachings, including the Prophets, but he did not have true faith in Christ.
He did not have the spiritual gift that is mentioned in Ephesians 2:1-10.
And by the way, the gift is referring to the whole package of salvation, not just faith, but it does not exclude faith.
Before you quote Romans 12:3, this is obviously talking about the context of spiritual gifts within the Church, not every single man, including the unconverted. I don't know how many times free-willers have used this proof-text when the context refutes their use of it.
That is one of the issues with free-willer exegesis. They proof-text without reading all the surrounding verses to get an idea of the context. I ALWAYS try to do this.
He may have believed Jewish teachings, including the Prophets, but he did not have true faith in Christ.
He did not have the spiritual gift that is mentioned in Ephesians 2:1-10.
And by the way, the gift is referring to the whole package of salvation, not just faith, but it does not exclude faith.
Before you quote Romans 12:3, this is obviously talking about the context of spiritual gifts within the Church, not every single man, including the unconverted. I don't know how many times free-willers have used this proof-text when the context refutes their use of it.
That is one of the issues with free-willer exegesis. They proof-text without reading all the surrounding verses to get an idea of the context. I ALWAYS try to do this.
I shouldn't be so dismissive of free-willers, though. Even the scraps of facts I learned from them contributed to learning about the Bible. Their soteriology is mixed up, but I don't know that understanding the mechanics of salvation is necessary at the entry level of being a new believer.
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Everyone has to start somewhere.
How do you KNOW it's His tune that will change? How about this, I see Jesus Christ the conquering KING ruling right now today because He open my eyes to it. Why on earth would ANY follower of Christ be upset to see Jesus ruling no matter what they think about this issue? I'm born again, make no mistake, and I've believe what you do when I was born again, and now I believe this born again. No matter when I was wrong I would have been the same amount overjoyed no matter when I saw Jesus. I think anyway, no way of really knowing, but I agree with him and am not like the pre tribbers that are literally waiting for Jesus to bring a kingdom you can point to and say "there it is", you know EXACTLY like Jesus said it wasn't.
Then go up with Jesus, sit and watch the rest of mankind rip itself apart. This seems in line with Gods Character right?
Then go up with Jesus, sit and watch the rest of mankind rip itself apart. This seems in line with Gods Character right?
