Some of the reasons I pulled away from Dispensationalism.

[Journeyman]

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

Offering sacrifice doesn't mean anything if it doesn't produce this regarding sin,

whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Pro.28:13

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.

And the teaching here isn't, "Keep committing the same sin and just bring another ram for forgivenes."

The reason why sacrifice was offered was so people would sin no more.

 

[John146]

Offering sacrifice doesn't mean anything if it doesn't produce this regarding sin,

whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Pro.28:13


And the teaching here isn't, "Keep committing the same sin and just bring another ram for forgivenes."

The reason why sacrifice was offered was so people would sin no more.

In agreement...

 

[Beckie]

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.

Yet you responded .

 

[Beckie]

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.

 

[Beckie]

Nehemiah6 said:
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.

I do not believe Bible notes that contradict the Scriptures are helpful As to your challenge that is what this thread is about. I have asked for Scriptures showing the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaver are in Scofield's words
"The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven (See Scofield on Mat_3:2), in five respects:"
Will you post the Scriptures you believe tell us the why you believe they should be distinguished from on another ?

It has been a couple days or so and i have not found a post that replies to the questions of the Kingdom... but post can get skipped .

 

[Beckie]

There are a lot of off shoots to the OP, such is the nature of forums. Having listed just of few of the verses on the Kingdom knowing there is some where close to 140 of them. People do not read long posts I laid out a couple examples where it is clear, to me, there is no difference except for the choice of words between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God.

 

[Beckie]

The highlights are mine ..., Scofield says..... (1) The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the Church, or saints of past or future dispensations Luk_13:28; Luk_13:29; Heb_12:22; Heb_12:23 while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth (See Scofield on Mat_3:2) 1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:25.
(2) The kingdom of God is entered only by the new birth Joh_3:3; Joh_3:5-7 the kingdom of heaven, during this age, is the sphere of a profession which may be real or false. (See Scofield on Mat_13:3) Mat_25:1; Mat_25:11; Mat_25:12
(3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares, and of the net Mat_13:24-30; Mat_13:36-43; Mat_13:47-50 are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven Mat_13:33 is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives. (See Scofield on Mat_13:33).
(4) The kingdom of God "comes not with outward show" Luk_17:20 but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual Rom_14:17 while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth. (See "Kingdom (O.T.)," Zec_12:8, note; (N.T.),; Luk_1:31-33; 1Co_15:24, note; Mat_17:2, note.) (See Scofield on Zec_12:8), Luk_1:31-33 (See Scofield on 1Co_15:24; Mat_17:2).

Scofield above tells us The Kingdom of Heaven is the earthly sphere Jesus tells us His Kingdom is not of this world. Who is correct Scofield of Jesus ?

Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[Beckie]

Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Notice Jesus says the Kngdom of Heaven He is speaking that present time.

Scofield teaches this...

(3) In anticipation of His official rejection and crucifixion, the King revealed the "mysteries" of the kingdom of heaven, (See Scofield on Mat_13:11) to be fulfilled in the interval between His rejection and His return in glory Mat_13:1-50.
Yet Jesus speaks of His present time.

 

[Beckie]

For God So Loved the World
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Does this passage tell us why God gave is Son?

 

[TMS]

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.

i don't equate the two because animals can not forgive my sin.

Only Jesus can forgive our sins.. This is because sin = death.

One sin = eternal death

If i have sinned justice requires a payment equal to the debt.

If im in debt 1000 dollars justice would require the same amount (1000 dollars) to be repaid.

My eternal life can not be payed for by an animal (dove, lamb, bull, goat) because their life is not equal to mine. Jesus was God is the source of eternal life so his life was able to pay the debt justly.

Only the blood of Jesus can take away sin once and for all,

Like today when we come to Jesus and ask for forgiveness by faith, He give it and we are justified. When our cases come up in Judgement before the father Jesus will plead His blood and we will be eternally saved (if we are surrender to Jesus).
When they offered the Sacrifice they BY FAITH were given justification. They too will be judged by God. It wasn't the Animal that justified them it was Jesus.

I think we mostly agree? As long as you attribute the forgiveness as given by God by faith.

 

[Journeyman]

The Kingdom of God and Heaven is all around us. It's inescapable. Through creation on earth, we're look at the reflection of what is unseen.

 

[Journeyman]

In agreement...

Ok. So you understand that the sins of mankind were inflicted on our Savior, God in the flesh, by sinners,

I endure the insults of those who insult you. Psa.69:9

You see how our innocent Lord bearing these sins is not justice, but injustice. Right?

 

[John146]

Ok. So you understand that the sins of mankind were inflicted on our Savior, God in the flesh, by sinners,

I endure the insults of those who insult you. Psa.69:9

You see how our innocent Lord bearing these sins is not justice, but injustice. Right?

Agreed brother...our sins were placed upon His body...

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

See, "literal interpretation" is a big pitfall. Most bible passages are embedded with direct or subtle reference from other passages in the bible, and some passages have prophetic significance. Literal interpretation is specifically rebuked in John. Not a physical birth like Nicodimus supposed, but a spiritual birth; not the physical temple, but the temple of His Body; not His physical flesh and blood, but the holy communion we partake in remembers in remembrance of Him. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

 

[Journeyman]

Agreed brother...our sins were placed upon His body...

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

And you see how "placing" (committing) sin against an innocent man is wrong. It's confessing the wrong done to Jesus and repenting of it that we're healed by.

 

[Beckie]

For God So Loved the World
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Does this passage tell us why God gave is Son?

Does this passage tell us God sent His Son to establish a literal kingdom? Any Dispensational folks care to reply . Care to face what dispensationalism teaches ?

 

[Journeyman]

The Bible tells us Gods' Kingdom has always been established,

Even if I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all it contains belong to me. Psa.50:12

Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. Mt.21:33-34

Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Act.749-50

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Does this passage tell us God sent His Son to establish a literal kingdom? Any Dispensational folks care to reply . Care to face what dispensationalism teaches ?

I'd say that not every passage in Scripture is on that Subject.



Here's something I've posted before, that I'll place here for the readers' consideration (especially these two points I'm quoting from the author at link):

[quoting from old post]



"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: The Last Twenty" - by Paul Martin Henebury

33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.


34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature.


https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty


[bold and underline mine]






Acts 1:6 [blb] -

"So indeed those having come together were asking Him, saying, "Lord, at this time are you restoring the kingdom to Israel?"






[again, Jesus' response was directed at their actual question, which was about its "timing"]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. Mt.21:33-34

...and Isaiah 5:7 says, "... the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel..."


-- https://biblehub.com/isaiah/5-7.htm







So I would point out that the parables about "the vineyard" in the Gospels are about "Israel"... but one would have to acknowledge that ALL 73 occurrences of the word "Israel" in the NT always mean "Israel" (which many do not acknowledge). = )


-- http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

 

[Beckie]

TheDivineWatermark

Do dispensationalist ever read anything other then other dispensationalist?

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Says nothing about restoring the Kingdom to Israel the nation