[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism  (Read 22728 times)

Gilda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2003, 07:10:40 PM »

Judy. The Lord forgive you. I say you didn't supply any scripture and ask you for scripture supporting what you said, and you insult me and make yet another reply without scripture. If you cannot back what you say by God's word, just stop posting. No need to insult me by posting these juvenile retorts. I'm just looking for some proof, that's all.


You'll have to forgive Judaykanova, she always seems to have a chip on her shoulder. It seems that there needs to be a little more civility on her part in the discussion of the millennial issue. Good brethren have differed on this doctrine, and to insult others for having opposing views, and treat them all as some kind of evil prophets just doesn't sit well with me.

Why be so much hard on the premils, when some of us who are postmils also believe in a literal millennial kingdom, whether a spiritual length of time, or actual. Having said that, I disagree that your scriptures prove dispensationalism, but unlike others, at least you provided some, rather than insults.

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2003, 08:06:57 PM »
Quote
Judy. The Lord forgive you. I say you didn't supply any scripture and ask you for scripture supporting what you said, and you insult me and make yet another reply without scripture. If you cannot back what you say by God's word, just stop posting. No need to insult me by posting these juvenile retorts. I'm just looking for some proof, that's all.

David Knoles,  I did provide Scripture.  Let me backup and elaborate on the Scripture provided in my initial Dec. 4th response which was this:

Quote
Rev 21:1-8
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


Please note what this single passage alone teaches.... THIS is the Jerusalem of God -- not he middle East.  And THIS occurs at the end of time, when Chirst returns, when THIS earth is destroyed.


To elaborate, this passage particularly addresses your last 3 points which were:

6. The future Great Tribulation period for the Jews.
7. The fulfilment of OT prophecy of a Jewish supremacy, a restored nation, temple, sacrifices, and priesthood.
8. A one thousand years earthly reign of Christ.

I'm sorry I didn't elaborate earlier, instead of responding in an impatient and negative fashion in my last post.  But in all fairness, you've been around a good while, know the forum guidelines, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to prove or disprove something, when you don't even provide a Scriptural basis from which to start the discussion.  

I don't mind being brought to task, but at least be honest about it.

2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.


judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

David Knoles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2005, 07:28:37 AM »
Once again I read you guys misrepresentations, and I have to straighten you folks out. The doctrine of Dispensationalism has many more supporters than detractors. And most of the detractors don't know what they are talking about. While some objections are raised on reasonable theological grounds, most are raised on a false idea about what Dispensationalism actually teaches. I would haste to say most of you probably don't even understand what Dispensationalism teaches. And a lot of the objections of reasonable men are really objections to ultra-dispensationalism. That's a whole different thing all together. So since this is a bible forum, instead of just making wild claims, what bible teachings of dispensationalism do you not agree with?

Baerchild

  • Guest
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2005, 03:26:52 PM »
David Knoles,

Please give us one of your more controversial doctrines...I'm not sure what Dispensationalism is.

Jim

trailblazer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2005, 05:42:13 PM »
It is my understanding that the early Christian writers were Pre-mil - a conservative view of Dispensationalism though. Would you also say that about Pre-mils not being Christians?

Don't most consider dispensationalism to be in error but not apostasy?

I thought that there isn't a church around that isn't in error of some aspect of Christian teaching. What about those who hold that the gifts of prophecy, tongues and interpretaion are for today?

What about those who hold that women as pastors are ok?

What about baptism? Some do. Some don't.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2005, 07:33:15 AM »
>>>
It is my understanding that the early Christian writers were Pre-mil - a conservative view of Dispensationalism though.
<<<

That understanding is incorrect. The false gospel of Dispensationalism didn't exist in the early Church. In fact this eschatology of the kingdom is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only increased in the days of John Darby, and later the Scofield reference Bible help spread it across the earth. Chiliasm is not Dispensationalism. The early Church taught the truth under guidance of the Apostle Paul, Peter, Timothy, etc. Therefore it is impossible that it taught Chiliasm, Premillennialism or any of the diverse flavors of Dispensationalism. Because none of these doctrines of the Kingdom are the truth. The Judaic Religion, it's off-shoot Chiliasm, and later Premillennialism are all different versions of the very same religious program.


Quote
>>>
Would you also say that about Pre-mils not being Christians?
<<<

God "alone" knows who is truly a Christian and who is not. But I would say that those who teach Premillennialism teach a false gospel that almost perfectly mimics the religion the leaders of Israel taught. Christ said concerning bread, that we should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. The gospel of national Israel and of genealogy rather than Grace is a leaven that is not the bread of Christ. There is one people of God, and that is what neither Israel nor the Dispensationalists understand.

Romans 10:11-13
  • "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
  • For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
  • For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Now that, is the unadulterated pure gospel of Christ. It's a gospel of Grace, not race. A gospel of a spiritual kingdom, not an carnal worldly one. A gospel of a spiritual government of Christ, not a political government in the middle east. Thus, these are "two" diverse gospels.


Quote
>>>
Don't most consider dispensationalism to be in error but not apostasy?
<<<

What "most" consider, doesn't even enter into the question. Consensus is no test of the truth. For "most" will not have the truth, and "most" will always be looking for the easy route. Being part of "most" is not hallmark of truth. All throughout biblical history it has been demonstrated that consensus is "not" the test of bread nor of faithfulness. For it has never been the many that are faithful, but the few.

Matthew 7:21-24
  • "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
  • Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
  • And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
  • Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:"

The many "professing" Christians will be protesting, Lord Lord, and will be told by Christ that He never knew them. Why? Clearly it is because they were talkers and not doers. They claimed they were Christian, but their works of disobedience revealed that they were not. i.e., doctrine matters. You can't say you are a Christian, and then say some were saved by their works, or that God is a respecter of persons, or that Jews are God's people despite the fact they reject His anointed, Christ. This simply cannot be the gospel of Christ. A tree is known by it's fruits. Dispensationalism is not from the gospel Tree in any way, shape or form. Denying this for the sake of appeasement or (alleged) unity is not profitable.


Quote
>>>
I thought that there isn't a church around that isn't in error of some aspect of Christian teaching.
<<<

This seems to be the "catch-all" phrase of Christianity in our day. Nevertheless, there is error, and then there is "departing from the faith," the creeping Apostasy. And to be sure, though the two are routinely mingled in our day, these are two very different issues.

Jeremiah 5:29-31
  • "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
  • A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
  • The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

The unfaithfulness of God's people is not a small matter, as the Church puts forth in our day. Doctrine is not insignificant, it is "paramount!"


Quote
>>>
What about those who hold that the gifts of prophecy, tongues and interpretation are for today?
<<<

Revelation 13:14
  • "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live."
Revelation 16:14
  • "For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."
Revelation 19:20
  • "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

These are not errors in the Church as some suppose, they are the teachings of false prophets and religious charlatans who will not listen to the truth of God's word. It is the gospel ramblings of those who have been deceived by the lusts in their own hearts, to follow the beast and seduce the Church by lying signs and miracles. i.e., miracles that are not true, a gospel that is not the true gospel (that the true signs represented). These are not the misguided, they are the misbegotten.

2nd Thessalonians 2:9-12
  • "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
  • And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
  • And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
  • That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Man is mocked and he is deceived by smooth words lips dripping with words like "praise the Lord," but God is not mocked. He knows the difference between error and rebellion. For he moves "his people" away from rebellion and false gospels. Do you think God would have allowed Paul to remain a Pharisee and chalk it up to him simply holding an error, or wink at it as a little misguidedness?


Quote
>>>
What about those who hold that women as pastors are ok?
<<<

What about them? What about those who hold that Mary is a perpetual virgin? What about those who hold that we get to heaven by our works? What about those who hold that Ellen G. White was a prophetess? i.e., what ABOUT those who hold that women can be the Pastor, the guiding authority of the Church. It's ALL about doctrine. And what doctrine we hold is the evidence of what gospel we are connected with, and ultimately, who we serve. To seat a woman in the Church as ruler is not just a benign error, it's a falling away. It's forsaking the truth.

1st Timothy 2:12-13
  • "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
  • For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

For or "Because!" Where is the mystery? Is this Paul's suggestion, or is it the divinely inspired command of God reaching back to creation? The real question is (and always has been), authority. Do we believe this "is" the word of God, and thus our "authority" here. Or do we believe whatever we want leaning to whatever seems right in our own eyes. Ultimately, rejecting the authority of God's word means rejecting the living Word of God, Christ.

Romans 6:16
  • "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

And as stated, God is not mocked by scholarly rationalizations and vain justifications of men. Man is, and Pastors are, but God is not.
 
Are these women Pastors saved? God only knows. It's not my place to say. But are those who allow this holding to false doctrines in religious declension? The answer is yes. And the faithful should flee a Church that has a woman as Pastor or leader as fast as their feet can carry them.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"


trailblazer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2005, 02:37:09 PM »
Tony,

Quote
That understanding is incorrect. The false gospel of Dispensationalism didn't exist in the early Church. In fact this eschatology of the kingdom is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only increased in the days of John Darby, and later the Scofield reference Bible help spread it across the earth. Chiliasm is not Dispensationalism. The early Church taught the truth under guidance of the Apostle Paul, Peter, Timothy, etc. Therefore it is impossible that it taught Chiliasm, Premillennialism or any of the diverse flavors of Dispensationalism. Because none of these doctrines of the Kingdom are the truth. The Judaic Religion, it's off-shoot Chiliasm, and later Premillennialism are all different versions of the very same religious program.

I think you misunderstood me. I was certainly not trying to say that the apostles nor the NT writers were either Pre-mil or Dispensationalists because I don't belive that at all. What I have understood is that many of the early writers AFTER 100 a.d. were Chiliast or pre-trib - although I would be the first to admit that I am not a church historian by any means and therefore, have read only clips of what others have said they have written. I do know that dispensationalism actually originated around 1830 from a vision of Margaret MacDonald.

As far as the other responses to my questions goes, I do actually agree with you. I was not defending those doctrines because I don't agree with any one of them either nor do I hold the view that "status-quo" is acceptable. I grieve terribly at the watering down of Christian doctrine to suit the wants and desires of its members in order to hold church membership or to attract new and younger members. However, I was merely posing them as examples because it was the Corinthian church that was the most notable as the "weakest" and carnal, yet, still considered to be a Christian church.

I recently had the experience of having to locate a Christian church as we had relocated to another state in New England. We were surrounded by churches - but could not find ONE that was not in doctrinal error of at least one of my question that I posed. If it wasn't dispensational - it was charismatic. If it wasn't charismatic - it had a woman for a pastor. If it had a woman for a pastor - she was most likely gay. We ended up in a church with a pastor that is pre-mil but does not push it from the pulpit. They have a woman as assistant pastor but she does not, or as of yet, preach. (We were disturbed at a young lady teaching one Sunday School class for one day however.) You say run from it? I even agree - but to where? Do we sit home and listen to Harold Camping? That is what he is advocating people do? Check out Family Radio.

I find it most disturbing that there is so much false doctrine around too but I have not come to accept that it is the same as being apostate.

Baerchild

  • Guest
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2005, 07:45:13 PM »
David Knoles and MR,

What is an easy-to-understand definition of Dispensationalism?  Is it a doctrine which excludes Matthew 13?  Are they looking for a literal, 1,000 year reign of Christ from National Israel, prior to Judgement Day?  If so, I do believe that The Word of God teaches that they are unsaved.  That is not to say, that they are not of The Elect.

Am I on the right track here, concerning Dispensationalists?

Jim

Dutch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2005, 08:07:11 PM »
Baerchild,
  If you want to learn what Dispensationalism is, you have to read about dispensationalism

http://mountainretreatorg.net/searchit/searchit.cgi?dispensationalism

It covers a whole gambit of false teachings, it's not just looking at the gospel in time dispensations.

trailblazer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2005, 08:15:21 PM »
Baerchild,

The "elect" are the "saved ones."

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2005, 10:15:00 AM »
>>>
David Knoles and MR,

What is an easy-to-understand definition of Dispensationalism?
<<<

Dutch is right. There are no easy definitions to understand Dispensationalism. We cannot learn about Amillennialism just by a brief definition that it is the doctrine of those who understand the Millennium as a spiritual length of time preceding Christ's second coming. And we can't understand Premillennialism just by a brief definition that it is the doctrine of those who understanding Christ comes back pre or before a literal earthly Millennium. Likewise we cannot understand Dispensationalism by a brief definition that it is the doctrine of understanding the gospel is given in epochs or dispensations of time throughout history. It's impossible to define Dispensationalism briefly.

i.e., if I didn't know what Dispensationalism was, I wouldn't call it another gospel either. However, I do know what Dispensationalism is, therefore I can call it nothing less.

Galatians 1:9-11
  • "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
  • For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
  • But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man."

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2005, 02:57:13 PM »
trailblazer wrote:
Quote
"What I have understood is that many of the early writers AFTER 100 a.d. were Chiliast or pre-trib  - although I would be the first to admit that I am not a church historian by any means "

Trailblazer....thanks for being open and honest.  There is alot of misinformation about pretrib's origins; as well as premills origins; and also, there is alot of attempts at historical re-writing and out-of-context proof-texting going on.

I was raised from a pretrib dispensational background; and I could have at one time in my life, quoted the same line you stated above.

I can also tell you, that with just a little study; you yourself can break through all the misinformation; and find the truth about pretrib and premillennialism fairly easy.

One of the greatest tools on the internet is that there are storehouses available of almost all extant anctient Christian writings.

You can even go to places like the Calvin College Library, and read and research most of them on your own.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

As for your statement above; there is one strong and clear misunderstanding in it hopefully I can clear for you; and you can verify on your own with just a little study.

(Remembering also, that while historical writings and ancient documents show us glimpses of what the church held, **or didn't hold in the case of Pretrib**, it is no replacement or par for the scriptures themselves.  Historical writings for the most part, only show **what did not exist**)

Pretrib itself never existed in the ancient church. 
Pretrib didn't exist prior to AD 500.
Pretrib didn't exist prior to AD 1000.
Pretrib didn't exist prior to AD 1500.
Pretrib didn't exist prior to the 19th century.

It is, as was told before, an very modern doctrine formatized by John Darby, and popularized with the 20th century publication of the Scoffield Reference Bible.

Dispensationalists will often through around names like:  Iraneaus, Ephraem, Riberia, Edwards, Mather, Lacunza, etc...as examples of pre-Darby pretrib teachers; but when you spend any time examining the writings of those folks; you can find quickly on your own, that none of them beleived, taught, or had any remote notion of Pretrib.


As for Premillennialism, it too, is mostly of new and Darby-descent origination.

Most of the tenants and precepts of Premillennialism are new; and while many will purposefully confuse it with; and try to liken it to ancient Chiliasm; it really isn't.

You will be hardpressed to find any ancient adherent's who wrote much on endtimes and were chiliasts outside of Iraneaus and Justin Martyr.

Even with them, their writings on Chiliasm was much more similar and common to the historic Amillennial view and its characteristics than that of modern Premillennialsm.

Chiliasm died out fairly quickly in the 1st millennia AD; and didn't really ever revive; but with the emergence of Premillennialism in the 19th century; has been mostly only revived by zealous dispensationalists who are trying to find any ancient similarity to attempt to tie to as an ancient source for their modern creation.

If you do a careful study of those who held to Chiliasm, and the attributes and characteristics of it; you will find it much closer resembling historic Amillennialsim and almost nothing in common with Darby Dispensational Premillennialsm or the so-called 'historic Premillennialism' of modern scholars like G Eldon Ladd....

hope this helps....first and foremost, though, check things out for yourself.  Don't listen to folks 'word for it' but study history yourself, and you will see that it matches and does not conflict with the Bible; as dispensationalism does on some many fronts and perspectives.




trailblazer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2005, 04:00:25 PM »
Thank you....that was a kind and inforamative post.

I do love to do research but do find even the KJV style of writing difficult to follow so I will check into those writings when I really, really, want to take the extra time to find out for myself. It is not very often that I do rely on other's quotes, but, I rarely take someone's "opinion" about what someone wrote.

Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2005, 03:06:30 AM »
The Judaic Religion, it's off-shoot Chiliasm, and later Premillennialism are all different versions of the very same religious program.

Tony,
  Why do you say that? They seem to be very diverse to me.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Bible Versus Dispensationalism
« Reply #29 on: February 02, 2005, 04:07:48 PM »
>>>
The Judaic Religion, it's off-shoot Chiliasm, and later Premillennialism are all different versions of the very same religious program.

Tony,
Why do you say that? They seem to be very diverse to me.
<<<

Sorry Colleen, I missed this one earlier.

The reason is because the Old Testament belief that the Messiah would come to earth in the future, deliver Israel, and rule/reign from Jerusalem in peace, was the religion of the unbelieving Jews. Beside from the thousand years, it is the exact same erroneous ideas that Christ warned the people about in illustrating what His Kingdom was likened unto, and what it was not likened unto. They didn't get it then, the revolutionary Chilists didn't get it later, and Premillennialists today don't get it. Because they are all cut from the same cloth of tunnel vision and traditions.

Luke 17:20-21
  • "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
  • Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

This belief in a carnal, earthly or political rather than spiritual millennium, where the kingdom of God would be posited on this sin cursed earth, is the error of the ages. It's the mistake the Jews made, the mistake the Chilists made, and the mistake the premillennialists made. And Dispensationalism is just the further convoluting of an already confused doctrine.

They all have all those things in common, including a erroneous exaltation of national Israel and the Jewish people, a blatant disregard for fulfilled prophesy, the true nature of the Kingdom, and most importantly, an unsound hermeneutic in interpreting Old Testament scriptures literally.

John 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."

Even though Christ expounded to the Jews again and again and again about the nature of the Kingdom of God, they just kept looking for a coming king, deliverer, earthly reign and genealogical glory.

As I said, they are "ALL" different flavors of the same religious program  in not understanding what Christ taught. They didn't study to show themselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth. And you cannot interpret scripture correctly that way.

Romans 14:17-18
  • "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
  • For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men."

The kingdom of God and of Christ is spiritual, not carnal or temporal. In Christ's Kingdom we don't worry about these little things like meat and drink, but about serving our master, about righteousness towards Him, and about Christian love wherein we find unity in the Holy Ghost. National Israel's understanding of Messiah's Kingdom erred greatly, and that err was carried over into Christianity by some who couldn't let go of this tradition. By reading into the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20, A earthly Jewish deliverance, time of perfect peace, earthly reign, they adulterated the gospel of the kingdom. In fact the Greek word [chilioi], from which we get the word Chiliasm means "thousand." It seems to me that the "thousand years" is the only thing new from added to what the Jews believed. Because without the thousand years, Chiliasm/Premillennialism is essentially the same Jewish dreams morphed into Christianity.

So while they all may "seem" diverse, look closer and you will find it is the same error that has plagued man even in the Old Testament. Christ told the Jews to Search the scriptures because that is where they would find prophesy of Him. But they searched the scriptures only to find justification to prop up their own views. ..as is done today. That's not simple error, that's unbelief, and that's why Israel was judged. Humanly speaking we would say that there were many loving people in that nation, but they were judged of God because of unbelief. Unbelief Cloaked in pious, studious robes looking very much like they were Godly. Just like much of the Church today. Remember, Babylon is a golden cup. But it's what is inside that is filthy and abominable, not how it looks on the outside to us. If you never look inside, you would think, "how Precious." God looks inside.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]