I ask then, has God rejected His people?

[Arial]

Never mind. You just wanna be a smarty pants.

You asked the questions. I answered them honestly. Why is that being a "smarty pants"? That is insulting and dismissive.

 

[Josheb]

I will have to get the book. I started a thread awhile back Who is the Vine? Who is the Root? in Bible Questions and Study you may find interesting. I would appreciate your input when you feel more rested. I did a study on it comparing the OT terms applied to Israel and those same terms. "vine" and "root" applied to Jesus in the NT.

Just that one thing puts Dispensationalism's literal thousand years and two peoples in the dust. At least it did for me. One covenant---the Covenant of Redemption with the Godhead, the promise of Gen 3:15, and everything else (including the Old Covenant with the descendants of Jacob and its Law) are a part of, stages of, the plan of the Covenant of Redemption unfolding through history. @Josheb posted an interesting post there too that brings us back to remembering that it was Jacob whose name was changed to Israel, long before God brought them out of Egypt and into a land.

Israel became a nation made up of the "people of God". Israel inherently encompasses "the people of God" who are in a covenant relationship with him. And that is no longer national/ethnic Israel (they definitely are not as they can no longer have a temple or a High Priest to offer the atonement sacrifice. Plus, in general, they still reject Christ as Messiah). The people of God are those in Christ through faith, in a New Covenant.

if memory serves me correctly Michael Williams addresses this topic a bit in "As Far As the Curse is found;" asserting the vine is Jesus.

 

[Josheb]

...when you feel more rested....

who knew posting could be so fatiguing?

 

[Josheb]

Never mind. You just wanna be a smarty pants.

Well, if the post is smart then perhaps it shoul be given credence and not dismissed with ad hominem.

 

[Arial]

if memory serves me correctly Michael Williams addresses this topic a bit in "As Far As the Curse is found;" asserting the vine is Jesus.

If he did I don't remember it which means little to nothing. But it wouldn't surprise me. I need to read that book again. It was excellent.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, if the post is smart then perhaps it shoul be given credence and not dismissed with ad hominem.

If you noticed there never wasn't a reply.

I mentioned 6 periods of time...all of which have a name for the period of time and @Arial thumbed her nose at it.

The reply from her was a smarty pants non-answer. No credence for their answer was deserved.

 

[Arial]

If you noticed there never wasn't a reply.

I mentioned 6 periods of time...all of which have a name for the period of time and @Arial thumbed her nose at it.

The reply from her was a smarty pants non-answer. No credence for their answer was deserved.

Since I answered the questions exactly as they were asked---"What do I call---" exactly as I would "call" those time periods, to say that it deserves no credence and no response other than a dismissive and inaccurate one to avoid actually responding to my answers, is to say that I as a person am irrelevant and anything I say is junk. Just because I do not call them by the same artificially derived name that you do does not mean it is a smarty pants non-answer. It was an honest answer.

Do you think God would be pleased with an attitude towards a sister in Christ like that?

I suggest you start treating everyone with respect or the grace you have been shown so far will come to an end.

 

[Josheb]

If you noticed there never wasn't a reply.

I mentioned 6 periods of time...all of which have a name for the period of time and @Arial thumbed her nose at it.

The reply from her was a smarty pants non-answer. No credence for their answer was deserved.

(post dripping with irony)

 

[CrowCross]

Since I answered the questions exactly as they were asked---"What do I call---" exactly as I would "call" those time periods, to say that it deserves no credence and no response other than a dismissive and inaccurate one to avoid actually responding to my answers, is to say that I as a person am irrelevant and anything I say is junk. Just because I do not call them by the same artificially derived name that you do does not mean it is a smarty pants non-answer. It was an honest answer.

LOL.....no, I see right through you. If you called them anything then you would have to admit to dispensationalism.

 

[Arial]

LOL.....no, I see right through you. If you called them anything then you would have to admit to dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is not a matter of "names" for time periods. It is a whole theological interpretive framework. You thought you were setting a trap and fell into it yourself.

 

[atpollard]

who knew posting could be so fatiguing?

Personally, I find it is not the POSTING that is exhausting, but the other POSTERS.

 

[CrowCross]

Dispensationalism is not a matter of "names" for time periods. It is a whole theological interpretive framework. You thought you were setting a trap and fell into it yourself.

No, I was asking a serious question. You didn't answer it.

You currently believe we are in the millennial reign....which is a dispensation distingue from Noah time or even Davids time.

 

[Arial]

No, I was asking a serious question. You didn't answer it.

You currently believe we are in the millennial reign....which is a dispensation distingue from Noah time or even Davids time.

And I gave a serious answer. Who are you to determine how I should answer.

Thinking the time between the two advents is what the "thousand years" is representing, is a dispensation only in the raw sense of the definition. Much like the1960's is a different time period than 1980's.

Amillennialism as the time period between the two advents of Christ---the first to deal with sin and his return in judgement and consummation of redemption---does not designate that millennium as an interpretive framework. It is the result of an interpretive framework---that of covenant. The interpretive framework of Dispensationalism's dispensations, even though it is attempting to keep the unity of Scripture, actually breaks it into sections and national/ethnic Israel becomes a focus and the OC with its promises, requiring a dogmatically literal covenant that requires dogmatic literal fulfillment. That is a discontinuity in redemption. God deals in part with Israel, they fail, he judges, but then he must return to them as a national/ethnic entity and finish the job of fulfilling promises in a dogmatically literal way.

Covenant theology with its amillennial view of the time period between the two advents, agrees with Scripture without imposing anything onto it. Christ is always the focus, always the center and purpose. It does not separate Gen 3:15 from any other "dispensation" or from any page of Scripture. It sees Christ in the Scripture as the fulfillment of all the promises made to Israel because he, the Son of David, was crowned King in his ascension after his death and resurrection. And he is not King of Israel only is he? He is King of his kingdom, above every power and authority. It was never about land boundaries and ethnicity.

 

[CrowCross]

agrees with Scripture without imposing anything onto it.

It imposes symbolism where symbolism isn't required.

does not separate Gen 3:15 from any other "dispensation" or from any page of Scripture.

Neither does a dispensation view.

Somewhere in your life someone taught you the biblical rapture of the church was heretical.

 

[Carbon]

It imposes symbolism where symbolism isn't required.


Neither does a dispensation view.

Somewhere in your life someone taught you the biblical rapture of the church was heretical.

How can you be so sure @Arial didn't see the error of the pre-trib rapture through Bible study? I personally believe that to be the case. Even if someone told her something she is obviously the type of person to research.

 

[CrowCross]

How can you be so sure @Arial didn't see the error of the pre-trib rapture through Bible study? I personally believe that to be the case. Even if someone told her something she is obviously the type of person to research.

Because the pre-trib rapture isn't an error.

Why do you believe in the future christians will enter into the tribulation, that is....we are destined for wrath?

 

[Bruiser]

Because the pre-trib rapture isn't an error.

Why do you believe in the future christians will enter into the tribulation, that is....we are destined for wrath?

Lord, I hope we don't...

 

[Arial]

It imposes symbolism where symbolism isn't required.

You say that because of your Dispensational hermeneutic which is literal even when the genre is truth revealed through symbolism. Things become symbolic only when it doesn't interfere with the already derived opinion. It often has half on one sentence being literal and the other half symbolic, even when what is being described is a vision that is obviously symbolic in its nature.

Neither does a dispensation view.

It indeed does separate Gen 3:15 from the narrative of national/ethnic Israel with its promises. It loses sight of the Seed and sets its eyes upon national identity and power and the ethnicity of the people. It has the Seed, Christ, focused on Israel, and not his earthly mission of conquering sin and death for his people. And who are his people? The elect of every nation and tribe and peoples who he died for.

Somewhere in your life someone taught you the biblical rapture of the church was heretical.

Three mistakes of overreach and overstatement there.

1. It presumes to know what I have been taught.
2. It announces that I believe/was taught the premil rapture is heretical. Considering something wrong and unscriptural is not the same things as considering it heresy.
3. You say "biblical rapture" when what you mean is the premil rapture, as though that is the only option, and without having ever proved that that view is biblical.

 

[Arial]

How can you be so sure @Arial didn't see the error of the pre-trib rapture through Bible study? I personally believe that to be the case. Even if someone told her something she is obviously the type of person to research.

And you would be correct. I began my life in Christ firmly believing in the premil rapture. I never heard anything different and the people promoting it had been Christians much longer than me. They surely couldn't be wrong. So, I was a blind follower. The way in which they use the Scripture sounds right.

But then, only Reformed theology teaches how to put scripture with scripture keeping the entire Bible consistent with itself so one learns to detect the discrepancies and contradictions presented in Dispensationalism and Arminianism. My change from both fields of theology was an outflow of first rejecting Arminianism to then moving away from Dispensationalism which I did not even know that premil rapture was Dispensationalism.

"My people perish for lack of knowledge."

 

[CrowCross]

Lord, I hope we don't...

The bible says we won't....As Christians, the bride of Christ, Jesus tells us we'll experience "tribulations"...but not the "great" tribulation.

The tribulation is about the wrath of God poured out...judgement of God, the restoration of Israel...and when you think about it Jesus took our judgement upon Himself as He hung and died on the cross.
As the bible says...we are not destined for wrath.