COL 1: 18

[makesends]

One person's red herring is another person's meal.

 

[makesends]

Like I said earlier that group is a small group and shunned by mainstream dispensationalism. I know there is on one Christianchat.com that believes this. He was a loaner and we eventually had to ignore him.

Sadly all groups have their offshoots that give us a bad name

Not to continue off topic, but Dispensationalists in general are (again, usually) insistent on self-determinism. They are a group, and self-reliant in their theology and hermeneutic, cultic in that way.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not to continue off topic, but Dispensationalists in general are (again, usually) insistent on self-determinism. They are a group, and self-reliant in their theology and hermeneutic, cultic in that way.

where does this come from.

in fact. I could say the same prety much about any ISM.. it is their theology, their hermeneutic. And they claim they are right and they are for God.

We can't all be right.

the basis of dispensationalism is how GOD (the creator) Deals with mankind in different seasons or different times.

Take world history and write it down.

Now separate time period into sections

In subsections explain what is special about this time, How did God and Man relate to each other in this time, What separates this time from another time

In the end you will have a paper where each age or dispensation is bulleted, And under each bullet is sub bullets concerning that time period

Its a way to divide history to make it easier to understand

there you have a basic understanding of what dispensationalism is.

That's the way it was addressed to me 50 years ago. That's the way I have always seen it no matter where I am in the country or what book I have read. and that is it in a nutshell.

In ALL ages. according to mainstream dispensationalists. Including Scofield (I know this because I had been accused of duel covenant theology and different gospels for different people. and I was told it all came through Scofield and others. So I looked it up. and found it was false.

Salvation has been by grace through faith.

David was not saved by the law. Sacrifice and burnt offering you did not desire. He understood it. Salvation was by grace through faith.

The only thing that changed is we now have a name (Jesus) we can put our faith in and a death (the cross) that we can trust.

we are in the church age, but it will continue to be like this until this earth ends.

Through any supposed tribulation period

through any 1000 year reign, it will still be by grace through faith.

Don't believe everything you hear. You want to know what we believe, Ask us.. Just make sure we are not one of the offshoots that are dual covenant. each group has a group that gives the whole a bad name. they are one..

 

[prism]

Hmmm.... So, it's okay for you to disagree but no one else can disagree - not even if their position is wholly scriptural and yours is not? It's okay for you to disagree even though that statement is not actually a point of disagreement? It looks like contrariness solely for the sake of contrariness.

See post #18 here...https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/if-its-true-that-justification-by-faith.2682/#post-114301

The bottom line is that no one is saved unless the know God and are known by God salvifically and that could have and should have been affirmed with a simple "Amen!" fifty-three posts ago. And, because no one is saved without salvifically knowing and being known by God, that is one way to answer the question asked in this opening post.

I believe I said 'that was 'axiomatic' in post #114

The correct response to ALL of this is a plain, simple, unequivocal and unqualified, "Amen!" so don't be disagreeable, or disagree.

{ content edit}

 

[Josheb]

See post #18 here...https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/if-its-true-that-justification-by-faith.2682/#post-114301

I did.

I believe I said 'that was 'axiomatic' in post #114

Yep. It's not a point in dispute so I do not know why you think everything is disagreement.

End of 'discussion'? I could equally say, "don't be high minded".

You could also discuss how the Church could exist in the OT. That is, after all, the specified topic of this thread. I've approached the matter in different ways using a variety of scripture and most of it has been ignored. How about discussing the op-relevant content?

 

[prism]

One person's red herring is another person's meal.

@makesends responded with

...and i don't even like fish.

 

[Josheb]

Why? When all along you have been dodging the statement that "the incarnation and resurrection had not happened yet?"
... At stated in the OP

Never happened.

Every word I wrote about the Old Testament people and those saved in the gospels is an example of the op's "when the incarnation and resurrection had not happened yet..." Every word about the qahal, or assembly of the Old Testament describes what happened when the incarnation and resurrection had not happened yet.

Post 60:

The Church could exist in the Old Testament because God has always had those He "called out." Noah and Abraham would be prime examples of folks God called out, called out of the world into His service. In the Old Testament they are called the "qahal," or "assembly." This is observable in the fact that when the Jews translated their "Bible" into Greek they used the word "ecclesia" to replace qahal. The qahal stands in distinction to Israel (not all Israel is Israel). Not all Israel is qahal. Not all Israel is ecclesia.

Post 67:

To put it in Old Testament vernacular would be to say the qahal, the assembly of God, is the Israel that is Israel. It is those who live by faith in the Christological covenant promises of God that are the Israel that is Israel, the assembly of God's people. This is kinda important because the first time the word "Church" or "ecclesia" is used in the New Testament it occurs before Calvary or Pentecost!

Post 85:

Those knowing God and known salvifically by Him is how the Church can exist, how Colossians 1:18 can be true prior to Calvary.

Post 120:

Jesus was the life, the resurrection, and the only way to God salvifically long before his incarnation. That is who and what is Jesus eternally. It's not a post incarnation condition. It's not a post resurrection condition, either. Jesus stated he is the life, the resurrection, and the only way to God long before he hung on Calvary.

That's the second time in this thread my posts have been misrepresented.

I have approached the matter in different ways using a variety of scripture, most of it about people living prior to the incarnation and prior to the resurrection.

 

[makesends]

where does this come from.

in fact. I could say the same prety much about any ISM.. it is their theology, their hermeneutic. And they claim they are right and they are for God.

We can't all be right.

the basis of dispensationalism is how GOD (the creator) Deals with mankind in different seasons or different times.

Take world history and write it down.

Now separate time period into sections

In subsections explain what is special about this time, How did God and Man relate to each other in this time, What separates this time from another time

In the end you will have a paper where each age or dispensation is bulleted, And under each bullet is sub bullets concerning that time period

Its a way to divide history to make it easier to understand

there you have a basic understanding of what dispensationalism is.

That's the way it was addressed to me 50 years ago. That's the way I have always seen it no matter where I am in the country or what book I have read. and that is it in a nutshell.

In ALL ages. according to mainstream dispensationalists. Including Scofield (I know this because I had been accused of duel covenant theology and different gospels for different people. and I was told it all came through Scofield and others. So I looked it up. and found it was false.

Salvation has been by grace through faith.

David was not saved by the law. Sacrifice and burnt offering you did not desire. He understood it. Salvation was by grace through faith.

The only thing that changed is we now have a name (Jesus) we can put our faith in and a death (the cross) that we can trust.

we are in the church age, but it will continue to be like this until this earth ends.

Through any supposed tribulation period

through any 1000 year reign, it will still be by grace through faith.

Don't believe everything you hear. You want to know what we believe, Ask us.. Just make sure we are not one of the offshoots that are dual covenant. each group has a group that gives the whole a bad name. they are one..

I came from a dispensationalist background—you don't have to explain it to me.

Let me try again: Dispensationalism is of its own derivation.

And I don't think you can deny this, that there are not (relatively) many Calvinistic believers among them. It has taken on its own 'membership'. It nicely organizes what it sees in the Bible into its own mechanism. Needs a lot of lubrication, for sure, but by force of will, it continues to run.

 

[makesends]

@makesends responded with

...and i don't even like fish.

Well, your saying, "One person's red herring is another person's meal", can be taken two ways. Think of it as, "One debater's red herring is another debater's meal."

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I came from a dispensationalist background—you don't have to explain it to me.

Let me try again: Dispensationalism is of its own derivation.

And I don't think you can deny this, that there are not (relatively) many Calvinistic believers among them. It has taken on its own 'membership'. It nicely organizes what it sees in the Bible into its own mechanism. Needs a lot of lubrication, for sure, but by force of will, it continues to run.

lets get the truth out there

Any ism is of its own derivation.

It is making up a doctrinal make-up including what we call our doctrinal statements, our statement of faith. Our own systematic theology.

They ALL claim to be according to the word of God. But as we have said. they all can not be right.

My point is I do not like when dispensational theology is accused of doing things it in effect does not do.

A licentious believe will claim he is of the sim of salvation by grace though faith (although he does not have real saving faith nor has he repented)

You do not throw out the whole grace alone theology because one group has distorted it and given it a bad name (sadly. I have seen many groups do just this..

 

[John Bauer]

Any "-ism" is of its own derivation. It is making up a doctrinal make-up including what we call our doctrinal statements, our statement of faith, our own systematic theology. They ALL claim to be according to the word of God.

But as we have said, they all can't be right.

Who is the "we" in your statement? Because you and they are wrong. For example, trinitarianism can't be right? Creationism can't be right?

Rather, it's that they can't all be right. (Word order makes quite a difference.) And that's correct, for some "-isms" are mutually exclusive, which means at least one of them is wrong. In other words, some are right and some are wrong.

Let me underline that part, to grab your attention: Some "-isms" are right.

Therefore, calling something an "-ism" is a pointless exercise—because maybe that particular "-ism" is right.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Who is the "we" in your statement? Because you and they are wrong. For example, trinitarianism can't be right? Creationism can't be right?

Rather, it's that they can't all be right. (Word order makes quite a difference.) And that's correct, for some "-isms" are mutually exclusive, which means at least one of them is wrong. In other words, some are right and some are wrong.

Let me underline that part, to grab your attention: Some "-isms" are right.

Therefore, calling something an "-ism" is a pointless exercise—because maybe that particular "-ism" is right.

You missed the whole point of my comment (sadly I have become used to this)

ALL people can not be right

SOME are probably right.

But I have yet to find any that is completely right (trinitarianism can not even all agree what this means)

so when you sit to discuss. Don't discuss the ISM. When you do.

1. You will be tempted read what the other is saying based on YOUR ISM.. and as we have seen multiple times (actual proof of this is going on) . falsely accuse the other person of believing something they do not (as I have been falsely accused numerous times, and I am sure I have falsely accused others when I do not take my own advise)
2. If you just come out and say, My ism is right, yours is not. Well how more puffed in pride can we get? Where is there any possibility of learning? I think it is prety much stopped. Not to mention. Any level of honest discussion is out the door.


finally, you proved my point. Everyone loves to assume, And they come in like blazing saddles I guess expecting they will set the person (me) straight?

I never said there was no right ISM..

so anyway. Continue on. it could be said You just waisted a few minutes of my morning. because you assumed something that was not true and I had to counter it with truth and set the record straight

 

[Josheb]

lets get the truth out there

Any ism is of its own derivation.

It is making up a doctrinal make-up including what we call our doctrinal statements, our statement of faith. Our own systematic theology.

They ALL claim to be according to the word of God. But as we have said. they all can not be right.

Welll..... if we're going to get the truth out there then we will not and do not generalize the problem at the expense of the specific ~ism being addressed. If someone says, "Dispensationalism" is self-derived," then the appropriate response is NOT, "Yeah, well a bunch of other ~isms are, too." That response commits the fallacies of tu quoque, red herring, and shifting onus.

Tu quoque = "you do it too." What others do is irrelevant to what X does.
Red herring = something asserted as a distraction or diversion from the specific point being discussed.
Shifting onus = trying to change the subject away from ourselves onto others

The fact is Dispensational Premillennialism was literally invented. Most of its doctrines were literally "made up"!

My point is I do not like when dispensational theology is accused of doing things it in effect does not do.

Well, if a statement is true then it is not an accusation. It's a statement of fact that can be objectively demonstrated and verified by any willing to examine the facts objectively. Furthermore, what we "like" or don't like about something is another fallacy. It's called an appeal to emotion. Just because I do not like how a fact makes me feel does not mean the fact is not a fact. The fact is every person here is a former sinner in need of salvation. I may not like the fact of my own sin but my disliking it is immaterial.

A licentious believe will claim he is of the sim of salvation by grace though faith (although he does not have real saving faith nor has he repented)

You do not throw out the whole grace alone theology because one group has distorted it and given it a bad name (sadly. I have seen many groups do just this..

That is correct. However, the problem is the very real fact Dispensationalism teaches a bad soteriology and there are millions of Christians raised in that theology who think it's the only true, orthodox, historical theology the Church has ever held and they're not very familiar with any alternative even if they know such things exist.

 

[Arial]

My point is I do not like when dispensational theology is accused of doing things it in effect does not do.

Just because you do not agree with certain things in dispensationalism does not mean that "ism" does not contain those beliefs. ANd it may be doing things that you do not believe that it does, but can scripturally be shown that it indeed does. Now, that is about as much as can be said about it without any specifics given and without turning the thread completely away from the forum it is in. Which is not Eschatology, but the Christian Church.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Just because you do not agree with certain things in dispensationalism does not mean that "ism" does not contain those beliefs.

again, I have already admitted that not all dispensationals are the same. No ism is.

You can't go attacking an ISM and assume they all believe the same

How many times do I have to try to explain this?

Just because some CAN believe a certain way., you don't attack the whole group as if they do.

ANd it may be doing things that you do not believe that it does, but can scripturally be shown that it indeed does

Keep on trying. I have yet to see one scripture that shows otherwise...

Don't just say it does. back it up with evidence..

. Now, that is about as much as can be said about it without any specifics given and without turning the thread completely away from the forum it is in. Which is not Eschatology, but the Christian Church.

I did not start this conversation.. if we need to open a new thread. that is fine.

But when someone says as a dispensationalist. You believe this, and That thing they say we believe is not true. I will call it out. If nothing else to show that not ALL of us believe that way (and I did admit that there are some who do)

 

[prism]

Well, your saying, "One person's red herring is another person's meal", can be taken two ways. Think of it as, "One debater's red herring is another debater's meal."

Personally, I don't like debates nor do I like fish.

 

[Arial]

You can't go attacking an ISM and assume they all believe the same

I never have, and I don't. You are putting yourself in that position.

How many times do I have to try to explain this?

Just because some CAN believe a certain way., you don't attack the whole group as if they do.

It is the teaching that is being debunked, not groups who are being attacked. Is that allowed?

Keep on trying. I have yet to see one scripture that shows otherwise...

Don't just say it does. back it up with evidence..

I have presented them many times in the appropriate forum. Which is not this one. Will you agree with anyone who does/has posted them? No. I guess that means they didn't post them.

Do you realize that you argue and bicker with almost everything anyone says, and with everything I say? Argue and bicker. Argue and bicker. It provokes argument and bickering. And it breaks the rule of not bickering and the rule of not provoking others.

I was once married to a man who did not like silence. There always had to be talking when people were together. Not necessarily a bad thing. The problem was he thought having a conversation was arguing and bickering back and forth. So no matter what anyone said, or what the subject was, he began to argue about it. If he didn't do that he did a one up ya, so he could talk about himself. That was not the greatest rescue God rescued me from. That was from the kingdom of darkness. But it wasn't far behind it where my gratitude is concerned.

Stop arguing and bickering.

 

[makesends]

lets get the truth out there

Any ism is of its own derivation.

Not really. Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine is not. It is not even a whole systematic theology. It does not, for example, posit a last days position. And it draws its conclusions from orthodoxy. It hangs together because it is based on truth and reason. It hangs together in spite of the fact that its tenets are EACH built separately, and not built upon each other.

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system that bends every use of scripture, and every tenet, to its use of last days.

I was called a Calvinist before I even knew what that was, but for the caricatures of it. I was called it before I knew what TULIP was. I still have several leftover assumptions from before I realized the errors of dispensationalism, that no doubt will be redone in me. And there is the difference— Calvinism doesn't interpret the whole of scriptures according to a lens of where each portion lies in respect to any particular pattern. Calvinism doesn't operate according to any mechanism. Even the most structured Calvinist will admit that their Ordo Salutis is subject to improvement. Their tenet, concerning Salvation, is utter inability, and utter Grace. Their tenet concerning God, is omnipotence and utter sovereignty.

It is making up a doctrinal make-up including what we call our doctrinal statements, our statement of faith. Our own systematic theology.

Lol, you should appreciate this, since you dislike -isms: Someone's systematic theology may be considered comprehensive, if it is seen to encompass all aspects of truth. Calvinism doesn't do that. If a Calvinist writes a systematic theology, it is THEIR systematic theology, and not Calvinism's. Calvinism does indeed affect all aspects of systematic theology because of Calvinism's tenets, but its tenets are not the systematic theology.

Consider the thread we have going, about

They ALL claim to be according to the word of God. But as we have said. they all can not be right.

True that. It is possible that none of them are quite right.

My point is I do not like when dispensational theology is accused of doing things it in effect does not do.

A licentious believe will claim he is of the sim of salvation by grace though faith (although he does not have real saving faith nor has he repented)

Please rewrite that last sentence there —"A licentious believe...". I can't follow it, so I don't know how it expands on the first—"My point is..."

You do not throw out the whole grace alone theology because one group has distorted it and given it a bad name (sadly. I have seen many groups do just this..

I don't know what your point is here— that is, I don't know why you are saying it. What has that to do with what you wrote above it, or with what I said, to which you responded, or with the subject of the thread?

 

[prism]

If a Calvinist writes a systematic theology, it is THEIR systematic theology, and not Calvinism's.

Can't the same be held true for a dispensationalist?...not darby's or Hal Lindsay's or dispensationalism's?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Not really. Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine is not. It is not even a whole systematic theology. It does not, for example, posit a last days position. And it draws its conclusions from orthodoxy. It hangs together because it is based on truth and reason. It hangs together in spite of the fact that its tenets are EACH built separately, and not built upon each other.

It still is an ism

As the example I used shows tributaries is not a systematic theology.

When you say it is based in truth that is your opinion. It does not make it fact

I would venture to say we agree on most thing. It is the few that seem impassible that appear to separate us

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system

No not really. It is less than a system that Calvinism is.

that bends every use of scripture, and every tenet, to its use of last days.

lol this just shows again you do not understand it or you were misled. Most of biblical history and future is past tense so most of dispensationalism would focus on the past not the future

People wa t to point to the future because that is where the disagreement ends that the point of confrontation

I was called a Calvinist before I even knew what that was,

Same here

but for the caricatures of it. I was called it before I knew what TULIP was.

Same here

I still have several leftover assumptions from before I realized the errors of dispensationalism, that no doubt will be redone in me. And there is the difference— Calvinism doesn't interpret the whole of scriptures according to a lens of where each portion lies in respect to any particular pattern. Calvinism doesn't operate according to any mechanism. Even the most structured Calvinist will admit that their Ordo Salutis is subject to improvement. Their tenet, concerning Salvation, is utter inability, and utter Grace. Their tenet concerning God, is omnipotence and utter sovereignty.

Yet regeneration is a pattern.

Reformers left the church each with their own views. Calvinistic and Arminian are two of those views

But they still kept some of the old beliefs. Future theology is one Calvin or reformers kept from the Roman church

Lol, you should appreciate this, since you dislike -isms: Someone's systematic theology may be considered comprehensive, if it is seen to encompass all aspects of truth. Calvinism doesn't do that. If a Calvinist writes a systematic theology, it is THEIR systematic theology, and not Calvinism's. Calvinism does indeed affect all aspects of systematic theology because of Calvinism's tenets, but its tenets are not the systematic theology.

I do appreciate it and would say that goes the same for all of us

I gre up Baptist have kept most of my Baptist beliefs would venture to agree with Baptist systematic theology. But I no longer consider myself a babtist. But I would have no issue going to a Baptist church would probably have no issue going to a Calvinist church. I doubt regeneration and free will are taught every church service in fact if not for being in a chat room where these issues seem to be popular I would venture to say we would
Never discuss it

Consider the thread we have going, about

True that. It is possible that none of them are quite right.

Please rewrite that last sentence there —"A licentious believe...". I can't follow it, so I don't know how it expands on the first—"My point is..."

Licentiousness is a word Jude used. They turned the grace of god to
Licentiousness

This is a person who believes we are saved once but can live completely sinful lives it does not matter. They live for sin and dare you to judge them

You would be called licentious or a lover of sin just because you believe you are saved forever. Even though you and I know your not
.

I don't know what your point is here— that is, I don't know why you are saying it. What has that to do with what you wrote above it, or with what I said, to which you responded, or with the subject of the thread?

The licentious person above believes in grace alone

Yet they teach a false gospel based on pride

You do not cast out the whole grace along doctrine (that you and I hold onto) because of a group of people who turn it into a false
Gospel use it to excuse their sin