My dear brother John UK, I see now where we disagree.
Let me just say that this age of grace WILL end in failure - failure by man to accept the Lord's grace, with the entire professing church ending up apostate (after that remnant still here are caught up, of course). God will not be upset - he already knows this will happen. No, it is men that will be upset (to put it far too mildly) when the Lord Jesus returns in wrath.
But perhaps you have another explanation of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5.
You know I prefer the AV (though am no KJVOnlyist), but neither the blessed brethren who did that great work nor the other Reformers had yet recovered all the truth that had been obscured by centuries of Roman suppression of truth. (I rather suspect most of them were paedo-baptists, for example; and almost certainly they all held to the unbiblical clergy/laity distinction perfected by the papists and still held by many teachers who are otherwise sound.)
But perhaps most surprising and disappointing is your use of the slur "dispy" - shortening the name of a doctrine for comic effect in order to dismiss as unworthy of discussion the teaching of some very godly men.
I have gotten my confirmation that I should not again visit this site, so I thank you for that. Fare thee well.
Dispy Are you getting desperate now just because we've proved that Margaret MacDonald's vision was delusional, and that Scofield was a professional forger and criminal, and that the 'rapture' hypothesis is baloney etc etc etc???
No, my friend, the lovely God-given gift of desperation ended the day I surrendered to the Lord Jesus.
Still, I will admit I was sinful for posting this earlier today. It reeks of the flesh upon re-reading. I have asked the Lord for forgiveness, and I ask any I may have offended for the same as well.
This does not mean, however, that I am conceding that you have proved anything regarding dispensations. You have still provided no scriptures to support your position.
But, I think that I shall stop defending the dispensational view on this forum, since it appears that most have made up their minds, and those who have not are not engaged in the discussion. So let it be known that my future silence in response to your (and your ilk's) feeble attacks on dispensational truths does not mean I agree with your statements.
In fact, I see no reason to post now as "Mr. Dispy." Perhaps it will be mildly entertaining for some to see if they can correctly identify future posts by me ... if any.
CoramDeo wrote: These folks should get together with those of the pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensational ilk.
Those of us of that ilk read our Bibles, so we know better than to set dates, though each day we look for the Lord to come at any time.
I wonder whether those of the amill disposition in old times mocked Noah as he built his ark, saying, "It has never been so before!" Or mocked Moses when he gave the law, saying, "We've never had a written law before!" Or mocked Jesus when he came to suffer, and not to restore Israel to its national glory (yet, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in), saying, "If he be the Christ, let him come down from that cross!"
Oh, wait, there were mockers then, too, weren't there?
Jim Lincoln wrote: It is sad to note of all the 19th century and earlier commentaries I have read, it appears that only Matthew Henry does not make racist remarks. Missionaries were wise to translate the Bible into native tongues and be rid of some the KJV's troubles.
Jim, missionaries have translated the Bible into native languages because they didn't speak English.
Also, all this talk about 19th century racism has got me doing a little research. There were certainly 19th century christians other than Matthew Henry who were not racist.
I recently came across a review of a book written last year that apparently deals with some of these issues, Enlightened Racism: Not from the Bible. Though I cannot recommend Christianity Today, and haven't read the book, the review was interesting.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, James White belongs to a Reformed Baptist church, and of course he is one of the most famous advocates for accurate Bible translations!
Well, if he's famous, that settles it!
I note that your James White has been published very often by the Christian Research Journal, the print mouthpiece for Hank Hanegraff. Now, if I were the sort to engage in ad hominem attacks, I could go on and on with that bit of data ... but I won't, beyond asking you, Jim, whether you are aware that Hank H. is one of the chief opponents of dispensationalism in these last days, and the CRJ is frequently used for that purpose?
Neil, I know you are right about the condition of the American church, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the English church, at that time. And the remarks about the racial theories prevalent then still apply to some in America to this day, though they tend to be much quieter about it now.
The article was very good indeed, and in the past I have had warm fellowship with some in the Reformed Presby denomination. This may help explain why.
I have noticed that the objectionable theories have a stronger influence among those who believe that the church has replaced Israel, since they are much more likely to believe that since Israel had slaves, they can too.
I recall hearing one Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher who taught that interracial marriage is prohibited to christians because it was prohibited to Israel. When I mentioned that the principle was carried over to the NT in the principle of not being unequally yoked, he hesitated. When I asked how Jesus could have a Moabitess and an Amoritess as ancestors if what he said were true, he was properly speechless, at least for a short time.
John UK wrote: Looks a good site to me, but no wonder Mr Dispy, you are upset at it. But have no fear, there are excellent biblical arguments against the dispensationalistic theory. Now don't get annoyed at me, just because I've got my endtimes scenario correct. Ha!
John, I have read some halfway good arguments from scripture against dispensations (none persuasive, obviously), but none of the covenant crowd here on SA appear to have read them. Rather, they engage in ad hominem attacks. That is my complaint.
Viridian Hue wrote: But fellas, we are merely warning you of this forger, Scofield was a professional 'con' in both senses of the word.
I gave up on Scofield years ago when his racism was brought to my attention. Partiality is one of the more obvious signs of unbelief, or (at best) a believer failing to walk in the Spirit. Satan has caused more havoc in the church in America using that ploy than almost any other. (I say 'almost' only because of the even more pervasive ruin caused by the judaising tendencies so rampant here and throughout christendom.)
Viridian Hue wrote: John this is a little off the beaten track but did you know these 'facts' about Cyrus Scofield The 'Daddy' of the Dispy Premills?
Desperate to promote covenant theology, the average adherent is reduced to ad hominem attacks such as this, since they are bereft of answers from scripture to the truths of dispensational theology.
The premillennial position does not depend on the character of Scofield, but on the arguments from scripture that have been set forth by many men before and after Scofield. As always, these arguments remain unanswered.
One need not read beyond the second sentence fragment of the article to recognize plain factual error:
"The Bible that Christian brethren read so frequently and with which they have made up their current doctrine."
Neither clause is correct. Perhaps that is why the word "facts" is in quotes.
This is very much akin to the attacks on the King James Version that begin with some statement about King James' moral failings. True or not, they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is really no point in answering further any assertions of either crowd.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, whenever did I say the church is a building?
I think it was implied when you said:
Jim Lincoln wrote: House churches are just for beginning Christian groups or in lands where Christians are persecuted as in Islamic and Communist countries. None of the seven churches mentioned in the book of Revelation, or in Paul's letters appear to be house churches.
Of course, there is but one body of Christ. But local assemblies of christians still here on the earth meet together (or ought to, anyway) to worship the Lord and remember his death every Lord's Day.
In fact, this is the meaning implied in the article you reference on "What to Look For in a Church," which never asks the most important question:
What is the purpose of christians gathering together each Lord's Day? If they say anything other than to show the Lord's death till he come, you know they have not really thought through the purpose of their meetings, and conduct their services based on the traditions of men, rather than basing their conduct on the word of God and conducting their meetings as led by the Holy Spirit rather than paid "ministry staff" as though they were a company rather than part of the body whose head is Christ.
huh wrote: Filigree, verdant, terebinth, satraps, qualm, portent, porphyry, pinions, parapet, offal, armlets, fomenting, dappled, forded, ibex, overweening, stadia, abashed, abutted, annotations, brooches and there are many more words that could be added to this list.
None of these words except 'terebinth' were unfamiliar to me. It took seven seconds to look it up and discover that it is a kind of tree common to the Mediterranean basin.
"The trees were greatly regarded for the shelter they provided, their beauty and ther pleasant aroma." - Wikipedia (not an endorsement, BTW!)
So, now I know that word, too. The others I learned in a similar fashion years ago (though from a nice OED or from Webster, not from the Internet).
I believe that the more willing you are to use a dictionary, the less you will find it necessary as you grow older. A mere 300 unfamiliar words is hardly a reason to abandon the AV and being using one of the emasculated new translations based on manuscripts so bad that even the Vatican was unwilling to use them in the 4th century.
New translation fans: Ever ask yourself why the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were preserved? The answer is, because they were not used - because they were corrupt.
âThe Bible says that we are to use âall possible meansâ (1 Corinthians 9:22) to reach lost people with the message of repentance and salvation,â Graham noted.
Which quote evidently indicates Mr. Graham is using either an NIV or a TNIV Bible, since that is the translation they give.
1 Corinthians 9:22 (Today's New International Version) "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."
How different from the AV!
1 Corinthians 9:22 (King James Version) "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
Still, I don't recall Paul setting up, for example, a 'sanitized' version of Greek temple worship in order to win the Corinthians to Christ, or setting up Ashteroth on the high places so he could preach the gospel to the idolators in between 'sets' of their pagan 'worship.'
Leveller, I note that per the article there are also hip-hop and rap artists in addition to the rock music. Apparently 'Christian rock' does make as much sense as 'holy hip hop'!
Witness wrote: If ONLY people would understand that the Church is NOT a building, but born again, Spirit led, Redeemed, human beings, we could move on and become the salt and light that Jesus speaks of in the Gospels. We are to be a holy people - a Godly people.
Ah, indeed again! This is it exactly!
Psalm 107:1-8 "O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy; And gathered them out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south. They wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way; they found no city to dwell in. Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them. Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distresses. And he led them forth by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation. Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!"
John UK wrote: You can trust the Lord, of course, but be wary of direct revelation unless it tallies with the written, inerrant word of God. But if you want doctrine to be perfect, go for the Particular Redemption, as Charles Spurgeon, and stop limiting or denigrating the person of the eternal Christ.
As Peter said, specific revelation has been closed. God has said what he will say to us in this age in his holy Word.
2 Peter 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts"
John MacArthur calls it "actual atonement," which I think also avoids the error of those who try to shoe-horn God into their narrow logical constructs, rather than constructing their logic from the Word of God.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, Mr. Dispy, I will agree that the AV,is unfixable, because it was in such sad shape. It had 3 or 4 revisions even before the 1679 edition, Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy) as you can see there has been many who saw the problems with the AV, and some excellent ones came from it the Darby Bible being one of the best, and which of course, I use over the AV, except here where I usually quote from the ASV, basically the Authorized replacement to the AV. I much prefer the NIV over the AV, for readability and accuracy. I don't want a Catholicized Bible, but a very interesting article on gender changing in Bibles such as the admittedly poor TNIV, Theological orientations of various translations [e.g. gender-switching]. This is a very interesting article. Also nothing to do with the AV, as does, King James Onlyism.
My point was that in order to read the modern versions, I invariably end up referring to the AV (or KJV, if you will). So, I have mostly given up on the modern versions.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Oh, Mr. Dispy, and here we do agree on one thing, Dispensations. If a church isn't organized then why did the the Apostle Paul under divine inspiration say, Titus 1 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; 6. if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; 8 but given to hospitality, as lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled; 9 holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers. Now, that's hard to do in a house church isn't it?
Actually, this is about how Paul had Timothy organize the assemblies in Crete. I would say it is not hard at all, since there is nary a word there about where they meet. Most assemblies that meet in purchased buildings contain a high percentage of unbelievers and are disorderly.
Patrolling wrote: "But Rev Foreman told the Edinburgh Presbytery this week that he would stay pending the outcome of the special commission," WHY??? Cant he read the Bible?
A more appropriate passage is found in Matthew 18:15-17:
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
Like all denominational churches, the Presbyterians have not consistently practised sound church discipline for centuries. Eventually the remnant will separate and there will be a split, much as is happening with the Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, et al.
In the case of Presbyterians, they tend to prefer to hold a council of elders to discuss the matter before acting, said councils often going on for years before any decision is made, even when the controversy is as plain as this; and this in spite of the commands of scripture.
John Yurich USA wrote: I agree with Jim Lincoln that house churches are just for churches just starting out with a small number of congregants and are just for churches in countries where there is persecution such as in China and the Islamic nations.
And you cite just as much scripture as Jim Lincoln did in support of your opinion.
Scott McMahan wrote: How can a translation from the late 70s need revision? We still read books from the 19th century with no problems at all, and even back into the 18th without glosses or helps.
I must confess that at times I have felt like I needed glosses and helps when reading some of the modern translations. For example, what does this mean?
"First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no functionâ just darkness ... total. And floating above it all, Godâs Holy Spirit, ready to play. Day one: Then Godâs voice booms out, âLights!â and, from nowhere, light floods the skies and ânightâ is swept off the scene."
(Allegedly Genesis 1:1-3, from 'the word on the street' "Bible".)
I have found that the best gloss on this is the Authorised Version, at least for English speakers.