Dispensationalism

[SetFree]

The idea of Dispensationalism taught since the 19th century comes from John Nelson Darby in 1830's Great Britain. He also was one of the first Christian preachers that taught the Pre-tribulational Rapture Theory in a Christian Church (he and Edward Irving in Britain).

In Darby's final stage of Dispensationalism, he taught Israel's literal restoration to the holy lands at Christ's future return, while Christ's Church remains in Heaven, having been raptured prior to the great tribulation. That doctrine of course is made up to help support Darby's Pre-trib Rapture Theory. It is nowhere written in God's Word. This is why... there are many who are studied in God's Word know Darby's doctrine is a man-made doctrine and agenda.

 

[Lees]

The idea of Dispensationalism taught since the 19th century comes from John Nelson Darby in 1830's Great Britain. He also was one of the first Christian preachers that taught the Pre-tribulational Rapture Theory in a Christian Church (he and Edward Irving in Britain).

In Darby's final stage of Dispensationalism, he taught Israel's literal restoration to the holy lands at Christ's future return, while Christ's Church remains in Heaven, having been raptured prior to the great tribulation. That doctrine of course is made up to help support Darby's Pre-trib Rapture Theory. It is nowhere written in God's Word. This is why... there are many who are studied in God's Word know Darby's doctrine is a man-made doctrine and agenda.

Does your Bible have an Old and New Testament? You...who are studied in God's Word.

Lees

 

[SetFree]

Does your Bible have an Old and New Testament? You...who are studied in God's Word.

Lees

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about The Old and New Testaments. Darby was not the first to come up with the idea of different times and events in God's Plan of Salvation throughout history. But Darby ADDED a 'false' dispensation that is NOT WRITTEN anywhere in God's Word, and that is the difference I covered. Now we can speak of that if you want.

 

[Lees]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about The Old and New Testaments. Darby was not the first to come up with the idea of different times and events in God's Plan of Salvation throughout history. But Darby ADDED a 'false' dispensation that is NOT WRITTEN anywhere in God's Word, and that is the difference I covered. Now we can speak of that if you want.

Speak of whatever you like. But first answer my question. You who are studied in God's Word.

Lees

 

[SetFree]

Speak of whatever you like. But first answer my question. You who are studied in God's Word.

Lees

Yes, I WILL... speak whatever I like. Just not with you.

 

[Lees]

Yes, I WILL... speak whatever I like. Just not with you.

That's fine.

I guess that makes your doctrine 'man-made' and not Darby's.

Seems that one so studied in the Scripture as yourself would want to answerr my simple question.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about The Old and New Testaments. Darby was not the first to come up with the idea of different times and events in God's Plan of Salvation throughout history. But Darby ADDED a 'false' dispensation that is NOT WRITTEN anywhere in God's Word, and that is the difference I covered. Now we can speak of that if you want.

I suppose I will have to answer my own question, which I already have, but you apparently ignored. The Old and New Testaments are proof of Dispensations. Therefore, if you have both Old and New Testaments in your Bible, you're a 'Dispensationalist'. Whether you like it or not.

You say Darby added a 'false dispensation'. OK. What dispensation was that?

Can you answer that, or will you continue to run and hide?

Lees

 

[1689Dave]

Clarence Larkin, a famous Dispensationalist said the Jesuits laid the groundwork for Dispensationalism in an effort to deceive Protestants who claimed the Papacy is Antichrist. Says he;

“In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future.

but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

The Jesuit Origins of Futurism (Dispensationalism). Clarence Larkin (deceased) remains a favorite Chart maker and teacher of the Dispensational view of the future that came about in the 1800s.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The problem with dispensationalism, millenialism, and gap theory is that none of the writers in the New Testament said a word of it. Especially with the millennium, where is it ever stated in the New Testament of this 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth in a reconstructed temple? It is not. Something so significant that it affects even the resurrection (pre or post trib, pre or post millenium) yet not a single mention. Why did not Paul tell people about this so-called reign of Jesus on earth for 1000 years. Also, quite interesting is that Revelation 20, where this idea of a 1000-year reign comes from, it never says the reign will be on earth. Fact is, the 1000 years is figurative for the New Testament era and the reign is in Heaven. There is no more temple on earth, at least not one that would be approved of by God. The temple and the Old Covenant were ended in 70 AD, never to be brought back. Everything the Dispensationalists describe is interpretative, based on a variety of assumptions. There is no confidence from the Word of God in this dispensationalism. Bottom line. Jesus came, was sacrificed for our sins, rose, returned upon the clouds to destroy the Old Covenant (Jerusalem and the temple), and will finally return at the end of time to take his people home to heaven and send the rest to Hell.

 

[Lees]

The problem with dispensationalism, millenialism, and gap theory is that none of the writers in the New Testament said a word of it. Especially with the millennium, where is it ever stated in the New Testament of this 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth in a reconstructed temple? It is not. Something so significant that it affects even the resurrection (pre or post trib, pre or post millenium) yet not a single mention. Why did not Paul tell people about this so-called reign of Jesus on earth for 1000 years. Also, quite interesting is that Revelation 20, where this idea of a 1000-year reign comes from, it never says the reign will be on earth. Fact is, the 1000 years is figurative for the New Testament era and the reign is in Heaven. There is no more temple on earth, at least not one that would be approved of by God. The temple and the Old Covenant were ended in 70 AD, never to be brought back. Everything the Dispensationalists describe is interpretative, based on a variety of assumptions. There is no confidence from the Word of God in this dispensationalism. Bottom line. Jesus came, was sacrificed for our sins, rose, returned upon the clouds to destroy the Old Covenant (Jerusalem and the temple), and will finally return at the end of time to take his people home to heaven and send the rest to Hell.

The problem with those who oppose the theological doctrine of 'dispensationalism', is that yall all have an opinion you want to express. But, when it comes time to annie-up. You run and hide.

Just like those with an 'opinion' on the Gap-Theory. Many opinions...and many crawdads.

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The problem with those who oppose the theological doctrine of 'dispensationalism', is that yall all have an opinion you want to express. But, when it comes time to annie-up. You run and hide.

Just like those with an 'opinion' on the Gap-Theory. Many opinions...and many crawdads.

Lees

I told you that even the writers of the New Testament found no dispensationalism to report. Likewise the gap.

 

[Lees]

I told you that even the writers of the New Testament found no dispensationalism to report. Likewise the gap.

Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old?

(Eph. 1:10) "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather toghether in one all things in Christ...."

See also (Rom. 5:13) which I already addressed in post #(46). "until the law" See also (Acts 17:29-30) "but now"

Lees

 

[1689Dave]

Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old?

(Eph. 1:10) "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather toghether in one all things in Christ...."

See also (Rom. 5:13) which I already addressed in post #(46). "until the law" See also (Acts 17:29-30) "but now"

Lees

oiKovopia oikonomia = Dispensation

l Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation (stewardship) of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation (stewardship) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation (stewardship) of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col l:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation (stewardship) of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

I believe Dispensationalists write their own definitions in this case. Dispensation in the Bible = stewardship or management. Paul was a Dispenser of the gospel. A soap dispenser measures out soap. It is not a time of trial in 7 epochs of history. God already tried Adam under perfect conditions and he failed. How would anyone do any better?

 

[1689Dave]

According to Clarence Larkin and many others, (post #68) the Jesuits meant their false theology (that forms the basis of Dispensationalism), to deceive Protestants following the Reformation. Wouldn't this mean it is based on lies?

 

[Albion]

According to Clarence Larkin and many others, (post #68) the Jesuits meant their false theology (that forms the basis of Dispensationalism), to deceive Protestants following the Reformation. Wouldn't this mean it is based on lies?

Well, if that history about the Jesuits is correct, then it probably is fair to call the information a lie. But who believes it and disseminates the lie in our own times?? That would seem to be the more important question.

And the answer to it is that Protestant radicals believe it. Mainstream Protestants as a rule do not, and neither do Catholics and (Eastern) Orthodox Christians.

 

[Lees]

oiKovopia oikonomia = Dispensation

l Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation (stewardship) of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation (stewardship) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation (stewardship) of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col l:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation (stewardship) of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

I believe Dispensationalists write their own definitions in this case. Dispensation in the Bible = stewardship or management. Paul was a Dispenser of the gospel. A soap dispenser measures out soap. It is not a time of trial in 7 epochs of history. God already tried Adam under perfect conditions and he failed. How would anyone do any better?

Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old Covenant?

(Eph. 1:10) speaks of the 'fulness of times'. Time is a factor. (Gal. 4:4) speaks of another fulness of time. Time is a factor.

Concerning (Eph. 3:2) it is proof of time being involved. To Paul was given a new Gospel, the stewardship of the grace of God. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men..." (Eph. 3:5) A new Gospel for a new time.

You should read all that has been said already. It is already recogized that 'dispensation' speaks to 'stewardship'.

So, does your Bible consist of the Old and New Testaments? Concerning the time from Adam's creation to the fall, were things different then after the fall? Was God's realtionship to Adam different before the fall then after the fall? After the fall, yet prior to the Mosaic Law, what was God's relation like with man? See (Rom. 5:13) and (Acts 17:29-30).

Lees

 

[1689Dave]

Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old Covenant?

(Eph. 1:10) speaks of the 'fulness of times'. Time is a factor. (Gal. 4:4) speaks of another fulness of time. Time is a factor.

Concerning (Eph. 3:2) it is proof of time being involved. To Paul was given a new Gospel, the stewardship of the grace of God. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men..." (Eph. 3:5) A new Gospel for a new time.

You should read all that has been said already. It is already recogized that 'dispensation' speaks to 'stewardship'.

So, does your Bible consist of the Old and New Testaments? Concerning the time from Adam's creation to the fall, were things different then after the fall? Was God's realtionship to Adam different before the fall then after the fall? After the fall, yet prior to the Mosaic Law, what was God's relation like with man? See (Rom. 5:13) and (Acts 17:29-30).

Lees

“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. 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.” Hebrews 4:1–2 (KJV 1900)

The gospel is the same under both covenants, but with more detail since Pentecost.

 

[Lees]

“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. 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.” Hebrews 4:1–2 (KJV 1900)

The gospel is the same under both covenants, but with more detail since Pentecost.

Of course. Your another one of those who love to make statements but can't answer the questions. Answer my questions in post #(76) or be quiet.

Lees

 

[1689Dave]

Of course. Your another one of those who love to make statements but can't answer the questions. Answer my questions in post #(76) or be quiet.

Lees

Your Question? "
Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old Covenant?

(Eph. 1:10) speaks of the 'fulness of times'. Time is a factor. (Gal. 4:4) speaks of another fulness of time. Time is a factor.

Concerning (Eph. 3:2) it is proof of time being involved. To Paul was given a new Gospel, the stewardship of the grace of God. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men..." (Eph. 3:5) A new Gospel for a new time.

You should read all that has been said already. It is already recogized that 'dispensation' speaks to 'stewardship'.

So, does your Bible consist of the Old and New Testaments? Concerning the time from Adam's creation to the fall, were things different then after the fall? Was God's realtionship to Adam different before the fall then after the fall? After the fall, yet prior to the Mosaic Law, what was God's relation like with man? See (Rom. 5:13) and (Acts 17:29-30)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I proved from Hebrews that the OT and NT gospel is the same. Truth cannot change. Only now we have more of it.

 

[Lees]

Your Question? "
Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old Covenant?

(Eph. 1:10) speaks of the 'fulness of times'. Time is a factor. (Gal. 4:4) speaks of another fulness of time. Time is a factor.

Concerning (Eph. 3:2) it is proof of time being involved. To Paul was given a new Gospel, the stewardship of the grace of God. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men..." (Eph. 3:5) A new Gospel for a new time.

You should read all that has been said already. It is already recogized that 'dispensation' speaks to 'stewardship'.

So, does your Bible consist of the Old and New Testaments? Concerning the time from Adam's creation to the fall, were things different then after the fall? Was God's realtionship to Adam different before the fall then after the fall? After the fall, yet prior to the Mosaic Law, what was God's relation like with man? See (Rom. 5:13) and (Acts 17:29-30)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I proved from Hebrews that the OT and NT gospel is the same. Truth cannot change. Only now we have more of it.

You answered nothing.

Is the New Covenant discussed in the New Testament as compared to the Old Covenant?

(Eph. 1:10) shows time is invovled. (Gal. 4:4) shows time is involved.

(Eph. 3:2) shows that time is invovled as Paul is given a new Gospel. "Which in other ages was not made known"

Does your Bible consist of the Old and New Testament. Concerning the time from Adam's creation to the fall, were things different then after the fall? Was God's relationship to Adam different before the fall then after the fall? After the fall, yet prior to the Mosaic Law, what wqas God's relation like with man? See (Rom. 5:13) and (Acts 17:29-30)

In other words you answered nothing. You just gave some general statement. How embarassing.

Lees