Discussion:
Matthew- Time to Put UP
(too old to reply)
l***@hotmail.com
2006-09-09 05:44:48 UTC
Permalink
So says the man who is so weak, he is fooled by the many fallacies of
dispensationalism.
It is time that you post something substantial or give it a rest.
Dispensationalism is just the normative reading of the entire Word of
God. It is as simple as the gospel itself. You like to add works to
justification as you like to reduce all unfilled prophecy to
allegorical interpretation. But both are additions. Neither allow for
a simple reading of the Word. Simple, not simplistic.

So it is time that you substantiate your claim. What points in
particular do you disagree with? Which "dispensational" paradigm are
you specifically targeting. What is your counter proposal and where is
your defense of it.

It is easy to spew out these little negations, but a little more
difficult to actually make a case, let alone state your own position
with any sort of defense.

The ball is in your court. Go for it or it will be you who actually
comes off as being "so weak."
Matthew Johnson
2006-09-12 00:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So says the man who is so weak, he is fooled by the many fallacies
of dispensationalism.
It is time that you post something substantial or give it a rest.
Practice what you preach, Loren. There is nothing 'substantive' in
your volumes of alternating bombast and irrelevant out-of-context
citations.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dispensationalism is just the normative reading of the entire Word of
God.
Nothing 'substantial' in this claim of yours, either. Of _course_ that
is not true! Do you really expect us to believe that dispensationalism
predates Darby? Or do you really expect us to believe that the
'normative' reading of the Gospel popped into existence with Darby, as
did dispensationalism?

This is so unrealistic, it is hard to know where to begin to debunk
it. After all: most of the lurkers won't believe you, and you don't
believe the refutation already given to you.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is as simple as the gospel itself.
This too is obvious nonsense. If it were, "as simple as the gospel
itself", dispensationalism would be ancient. But clearly, it is
not. Even some dispensationalists admit this. It is a 19th century
fantasy.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to add works to justification as you like to reduce all
unfilled prophecy to allegorical interpretation.
But this is not what we critics of 'dispensationalism' do. This is
just another straw-man of yours.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But both are additions. Neither allow for a simple reading of the
Word. Simple, not simplistic.
No, rather, what you call 'a simple reading' IS simplistic. And it is in
OBVIOUS conflict with the Canonical Gospels themselves, especially
(for only one example) Mat 7:21-23.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So it is time that you substantiate your claim.
I have already done so. Often.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
What points in particular do you disagree with?
I have already answered all these questions. It is time for you to
admit it instead of repeating the question, along with the false
charges that I do not 'substantiate'.

In particular, I find that your _entire_ argument for
dispensationalism relies on your fictitious distinction between Israel
and the Church, which fictitious distinction ignores the way Paul
treats the Church as one unity, ONE Body of Christ. The Church IS the
New Israel, the ONLY True Israel. The "Israel according to the flesh"
is no longer even part of the true Israel.

Without this fictitious distinction, your _entire_ argument collapses
like a house of cards. I have no need to waste my time with the rest
of your voluminous pseudo-support.

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
* irenic *
2006-09-13 02:58:40 UTC
Permalink
<>
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dispensationalism is just the normative reading of the entire Word of
God.
Nothing 'substantial' in this claim of yours, either. Of _course_ that
is not true! Do you really expect us to believe that dispensationalism
predates Darby? Or do you really expect us to believe that the
'normative' reading of the Gospel popped into existence with Darby, as
did dispensationalism?
As a wise friend from my days in the Plymouth Brethren said, when he read
the Bible without dispensationalist blinkers, 'The best thing about the
Scofield Bible is the material *between* Scofield's notes :-)
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

'We need to learn to set our course by the stars, not by the lights of every
passing ship' (General Omar Nelson Bradley)

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 17,900 articles; 4000 jokes/funnies
l***@hotmail.com
2006-09-13 02:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is time that you post something substantial or give it a rest.
Practice what you preach, Loren. There is nothing 'substantive' in
your volumes of alternating bombast and irrelevant out-of-context
citations.
;-)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dispensationalism is just the normative reading of the entire Word of
God.
Nothing 'substantial' in this claim of yours, either. Of _course_ that
is not true! Do you really expect us to believe that dispensationalism
predates Darby? Or do you really expect us to believe that the
'normative' reading of the Gospel popped into existence with Darby, as
did dispensationalism?
First off, you are once again addressing nothing. You are merely
shooting from the hip. It's almost as if you don't know enough to make
a substantial address. Now, should I offer a reply to you who has yet
to provide anything more than sly little digs?
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is so unrealistic, it is hard to know where to begin to debunk
it. After all: most of the lurkers won't believe you, and you don't
believe the refutation already given to you.
;-) I'm a fool for Christ. Who's fool are you?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is as simple as the gospel itself.
This too is obvious nonsense. If it were, "as simple as the gospel
itself", dispensationalism would be ancient. But clearly, it is
not. Even some dispensationalists admit this. It is a 19th century
fantasy.
Yes, you keep repeating this but you still have not offered a single
reason as to why dispensationalism incorrectly interpets scripture.

Your continuing harp about Darby or here, the 19th C, is every bit the
same rhetoric style of our visiting Jehovah Witnesses. It's the party
line. It is another talking-point rebuttal. It offers nothing but
negation. It is both unscholarly and unhistoric. It is certainly bias
and unresearched. It only reveals that you have not studies what
Dispensationalism actually teaches. You would have everyone believe
that, like one of its most distinquishing attributes, the Rapture, it
is not to be found in the early writtings of the Church. I've brought
Dan 12:9 into the argument more than once but you never address what it
specifies, namely that it will not be until the end of times before
eschatological mysteries begin to be understood. And so from that
declaration, why should we expect the early Church from understanding
what was not to occur for at least another 2000 yrs? Paul believed
that Christ was going to return in his life time. Peter, though told
that he would suffer a martyrs death, still writes to his generation
with the belief that Christ was going to return during their life time.
Why else would Paul have to discipline those who ceased working? They
stopped working because they believed what Paul had taught them -the
imminent return of Christ. Thus Paul had to remind them that they were
to work while it was still day.

Back to your presumption. You toe the line of the standard argument
that Dispensationalism took root in Darby's thesis. But if you really
knew what you were arguing against, you would know that, from a
scholarly debate, this is rarely stated. Rather, what is stated is
that it goes back to a publication of a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest in
1812 in Spain. Edward Irving translated this publication of Immanuel
Lacunza, "The Coming of Messiah in Majesty and Glory" in 1820's. An
"Irvingite" then. following on his teachings, prophecied that the
rapture would occur prior to the tribulation. That was Margaret
Macdonald from who Darby then, allegedly, came to hear of the pretrib
rapture and developed "dispensationalism" from that.

However, as I have already stated in a previous post, this is not
historically accurate as to the genesis of dispensationalism. For as
far back as the 5th C, we have manuscripts of sermons where pretrib
rapturism is declared. Specifically there is the sermon by
pseudo-Ephraem, titled, "On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End
of the World." There are sermons by Morgan Edwards in the very early
1700's in which he puts forth a detailed account of the end times which
is very similar to present day dispensational doctrine. There are also
several Medieval accounts (for one instance, 1316. "The History of
Brother Dolcino") which at least point to not only a pretrib rapture
of the Church, but also a distinction between Israel and the Church as
well as "economies" being distinquished within the plan of God.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to add works to justification as you like to reduce all
unfilled prophecy to allegorical interpretation.
But this is not what we critics of 'dispensationalism' do. This is
just another straw-man of yours.
Ah, but amillenialism rests on the allegorical method. It simply
cannot stand the test of a normative, literal reading. It is not a
"straw-man", it is the cold, hard facts of the case. You will not
afford a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, even though it was
the only doctrine taught up till the last decade of the 2nd C.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But both are additions. Neither allow for a simple reading of the
Word. Simple, not simplistic.
No, rather, what you call 'a simple reading' IS simplistic. And it is in
OBVIOUS conflict with the Canonical Gospels themselves, especially
(for only one example) Mat 7:21-23.
I feel sorry for you Matthew. The Gospel is simple because nothing is
to be added to it. It is "believe in your heart and you shall be
saved." Because it is elemental, the only way it can be corrupted is
by addition. And the gospel you would have us believe is one of
addition. You add on works. You add on baptism. There is no Grace in
your gospel. It is just another form of what the Judaizers were
attempting during the Apostolic era. Faith comes by hearing, not
doing. Doing comes an evidentury of true faith. As Christ Himself
illustrated, "Your sins are forgiven." But like you, the Jewish
leaders didn't like that. So what did Christ then do to prove His
authenticity? He told the man to "Rise! Take up your pallet and
walk." You would have us believe that only when the man took up his
pallet that he acquired salvation. You add to the Gospel because you
have to inorder to subvert it to your own selfish ends.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So it is time that you substantiate your claim.
I have already done so. Often.
Never have you provided anything more than what you are doing in this
"rebuttal" - if one would be so gracious as to afford it that term.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
What points in particular do you disagree with?
I have already answered all these questions. It is time for you to
admit it instead of repeating the question, along with the false
charges that I do not 'substantiate'.
Just what question was answered in this reply? Talk about hot air!
That is all you have brought to the table. Where is your
substantiation?
Post by Matthew Johnson
In particular, I find that your _entire_ argument for
dispensationalism relies on your fictitious distinction between Israel
and the Church, which fictitious distinction ignores the way Paul
treats the Church as one unity, ONE Body of Christ.
Who is arguing otherwise? That fact that the Body of Christ is a
definitive entity only substantiates the fact that it is to be
distinquished from Israel. That Israel was specifically called out
from the nations and elected and chosen as a nation, given national
promises, all speak to the distinction between Israel and the Church.
The "mystery" of which Paul speaks is that in the OT era, God never
revealed that there would be another entity, i.e. the Church. I've
already walked you through Matthews gospel showing the progression of
rejection and the progression of revealation that because of the
rejection, the parenthetical Bride of Christ would result. The Gospels
and the Epistles continue the OT prophetic paradigm that Israel would
be regathered in unbelief, scattered by the nations, only to be
purified and regathered to finally inherit the specific promises made
to it. Did Abraham, Issac, Jacob or David ever personally inherit the
promises made specifically to them in relation to the Nation? No. So
like the Nation, there yet remains a fulfillment of those promises.
And in that those promises are of a physical nature, they can only be
fulfilled here on earth. Where in the NT is the Church ever given a
physical promise? We are the inheritors of spiritual promises. We are
**adopted** sons.
Post by Matthew Johnson
The Church IS the
New Israel, the ONLY True Israel. The "Israel according to the flesh"
is no longer even part of the true Israel.
Ah, now here it the leap in logic. First, James and Peter's epistles
are specifically addressed to Jews. The Epistle to the Hebrews has
primary and historical application only to Jews. Then their is the
matter of Galatians, out of which the term "Israel of God" is used.
The whole epistles is a distinquishing between unbelieving, trouble
making Jews from those Jews who are believers, the "true Israel of
God." Rom 9-11 buttresses this paradigm. Paul never ceases to refer
to his Jewishness nor is there any call in the NT for Jews to
disinherit their heredity. You are bringing your prejudice to bear
upon the text. Romans clearly states that God has not forgotten His
elect nation, Israel. They will yet inherit their covenanted promises
when the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Without this fictitious distinction, your _entire_ argument collapses
like a house of cards. I have no need to waste my time with the rest
of your voluminous pseudo-support.
And this is it? This is all you could muster? It is you who begins
Post by Matthew Johnson
Practice what you preach, Loren. There is nothing 'substantive' in
your volumes of alternating bombast and irrelevant out-of-context
citations.
I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to who this really
applies to.

I must admit, Matthew. I thought you would finally come forth with
some substantiating points. You disappoint me even though I knew that
would cause me problems because my time is very tight at the moment,
working 6 days a week now besides all the other activities which steal
my time. But I was actually looking forward to it. It would have
forced me to restudy the doctrinal issues and the Biblical defense. I
haven't had to do that for sometime. But you haven't even bothered to
know the opening talking points. You haven't bothered to do anything.
This is a shame, Matthew, because through the years, though I often
take issue with you, I at least thought you knew what you are talking
about. But I have come to the conclusion that you only know OCism and
a little bit about RCism. You haven't shown me anything which would
lead me to believe you have made any attempt at learning the specifics
of Dispensationalism. The primary point of concern for you is that it
isn't an OC position, therefore it is evil and untrue. This sort of
ostrich mentality serves no one.

Very, very disappointed.
Matthew Johnson
2006-09-14 01:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by * irenic *
<>
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dispensationalism is just the normative reading of the entire Word of
God.
Nothing 'substantial' in this claim of yours, either. Of _course_ that
is not true! Do you really expect us to believe that dispensationalism
predates Darby? Or do you really expect us to believe that the
'normative' reading of the Gospel popped into existence with Darby, as
did dispensationalism?
As a wise friend from my days in the Plymouth Brethren said, when he read
the Bible without dispensationalist blinkers, 'The best thing about the
Scofield Bible is the material *between* Scofield's notes :-)
Good one! But I can't help but wonder: what sort of major intervention did it
take to get those "dispensationalist blinkers" off?
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-09-18 01:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is time that you post something substantial or give it a rest.
Practice what you preach, Loren. There is nothing 'substantive' in
your volumes of alternating bombast and irrelevant out-of-context
citations.
;-)
What was that supposed to mean?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Dispensationalism is just the normative reading of the entire Word
of God.
Nothing 'substantial' in this claim of yours, either. Of _course_
that is not true! Do you really expect us to believe that
dispensationalism predates Darby? Or do you really expect us to
believe that the 'normative' reading of the Gospel popped into
existence with Darby, as did dispensationalism?
First off, you are once again addressing nothing.
Nonsense. I am addressing the historical fraud of dispensationalism,
which claims to have 'rediscovered' the original teaching of
Christianity, when in truth, it is a 19th century fiction.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are merely shooting from the hip.
Now _that_ accusation is an example of "shooting from the hip" itself.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's almost as if you don't know enough to make a substantial
address. Now, should I offer a reply to you who has yet to provide
anything more than sly little digs?
No. You should shut up and disappear into the woodwork. But I know you
will not do what you should -- since you have been doing what you
should not for so many years.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is so unrealistic, it is hard to know where to begin to debunk
it. After all: most of the lurkers won't believe you, and you don't
believe the refutation already given to you.
;-) I'm a fool for Christ.
NO, you are not. You are a fool for a dispensationalist fake-christ.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who's fool are you?
I met a real fool for Christ once. He was nothing like you.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is as simple as the gospel itself.
This too is obvious nonsense. If it were, "as simple as the gospel
itself", dispensationalism would be ancient. But clearly, it is
not. Even some dispensationalists admit this. It is a 19th century
fantasy.
Yes, you keep repeating this but you still have not offered a single
reason as to why dispensationalism incorrectly interpets scripture.
Yes, I have. You just refuse to see it.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your continuing harp about Darby or here, the 19th C, is every bit
the same rhetoric style of our visiting Jehovah Witnesses.
No, it is not.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's the party line. It is another talking-point rebuttal. It
offers nothing but negation.
Sometimes, negation is all that is needed.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is both unscholarly and unhistoric.
And you are doing it yourself here! The difference is, that when _I_
offer 'negation' it is true. When YOU offer it, it is not. As here. It
is both scholarly AND historic to observe that dispenstationalism came
into being under Darby.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is certainly bias and unresearched.
More negation, Loren?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It only reveals that you have not studies what Dispensationalism
actually teaches.
NO, it reveals no such thing.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You would have everyone believe that, like one of its most
distinquishing attributes, the Rapture, it is not to be found in the
early writtings of the Church.
It isn't. Early millenarianism was _quite_ different from 19th
dispensationalism -- and from 20th, 21st century dispenstationalism.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
I've brought Dan 12:9 into the argument more than once but you never
address what it specifies, namely that it will not be until the end
of times before eschatological mysteries begin to be understood.
You bring _lots_ of things into the argument, yet your arguments are
weak anyway. Why? Because you bring too many things all at once, like
someone addicted to the fallacy of "plurium interrogationum". And you
leave giant gaping holes in the argument, such as your fanatical and
fictitious distinction between 'Israel' and 'the gentile Church'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
And so from that declaration, why should we expect the early Church
from understanding what was not to occur for at least another 2000
yrs? Paul believed that Christ was going to return in his life time.
Peter, though told that he would suffer a martyrs death, still writes
to his generation with the belief that Christ was going to return
during their life time. Why else would Paul have to discipline those
who ceased working? They stopped working because they believed what
Paul had taught them -the imminent return of Christ. Thus Paul had
to remind them that they were to work while it was still day.
Back to your presumption. You toe the line of the standard argument
that Dispensationalism took root in Darby's thesis. But if you
really knew what you were arguing against, you would know that, from
a scholarly debate, this is rarely stated. Rather, what is stated is
that it goes back to a publication of a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest
in 1812 in Spain.
Name one scholarly debate that makes this claim.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Edward Irving translated this publication of Immanuel Lacunza, "The
Coming of Messiah in Majesty and Glory" in 1820's.
The author of this book was a Spanish Jesuit pretending to be a Jew
who had converted to Catholicism. Are you _really_ intrested in using
such a dishonest person as your source? You must be really desperate
for 'historical' sources to resort to this!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
An "Irvingite" then. following on his teachings, prophecied that the
rapture would occur prior to the tribulation. That was Margaret
Macdonald from who Darby then, allegedly, came to hear of the pretrib
rapture and developed "dispensationalism" from that.
However, as I have already stated in a previous post, this is not
historically accurate as to the genesis of dispensationalism.
Newsflash: that you stated it does NOT make it so.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
For as far back as the 5th C, we have manuscripts of sermons where
pretrib rapturism is declared.
5th C is not very far back, not in my book!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Specifically there is the sermon by pseudo-Ephraem, titled, "On the
Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World."
Take a closer look at the sermon. It is NOT dispensationalist. Show
me where it makes ANY such description. Show me where he makes ANY
distinction between the dispenstations, or between Israel and the
Church. Have you even _read_ it?

This is just another example of you providing out of context citations
of works you do NOT yourself understand! How do I know? Because the
empire restored in that account is the _Roman_ Empire, NOT the Nation
of Israel!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are sermons by Morgan Edwards in the very early 1700's in which
he puts forth a detailed account of the end times which is very
similar to present day dispensational doctrine.
And again: Show me where he makes ANY distinction between the
dispenstations, or between Israel and the CHurch. Have you even _read_
it?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are also several Medieval accounts (for one instance,
1316. "The History of Brother Dolcino") which at least point to not
only a pretrib rapture of the Church, but also a distinction between
Israel and the Church as well as "economies" being distinquished
within the plan of God.
This is the closest you have got to real support yet. And even it is
not support. Again: where do you actually see support for the
distinction and the 'economies' in Dolcino's work? What mention did he
even make of Israel?

Dolcino did not go beyond teaching a pre-tribulation rapture, and some
kind of 'millenium'. He did NOT teach any of the other tenets of
dispensationalism. He even contradicted it pretty radically by saying
that he, Dolcino, would be Pope during the Millenium!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to add works to justification as you like to reduce all
unfilled prophecy to allegorical interpretation.
But this is not what we critics of 'dispensationalism' do. This is
just another straw-man of yours.
Ah, but amillenialism rests on the allegorical method.
So you dispensationalists love to repeat. But if that were so, then
why do so many Reform preachers come out _against_ dispensationalism?
They don't embrace the "allegorical method" either.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It simply cannot stand the test of a normative, literal reading.
This is empty bravado, Loren. Your reading is NOT "a normative,
literal reading.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is not a "straw-man",
Sure, it is. We don't _add_ to the 'justification' you preach, because
it is NOT there in Scripture. It is in your imagination only. And the
'works' we find there are what are _clearly commanded_ by
Scripture. You are too clever at only one thing: inventing excuses for
failing to see the works _already_ in the Scriptural notion of
'justification'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
it is the cold, hard facts of the case.
Well, you clearly know much about 'cold' and 'hard', but not about
'facts'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You will not afford a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth,
even though it was the only doctrine taught up till the last decade
of the 2nd C.
And why should I admit it, as long as you 'support' it only with such
blatant falsehood? No, Loren, it was NOT "the only doctrine taught up
till the last decade of the 2nd C."
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But both are additions. Neither allow for a simple reading of the
Word. Simple, not simplistic.
No, rather, what you call 'a simple reading' IS simplistic. And it
is in OBVIOUS conflict with the Canonical Gospels themselves,
especially (for only one example) Mat 7:21-23.
I feel sorry for you Matthew.
Don't. Feel sorry for yourself, since you have deceived yourself so
deeply. 'Irenic' put it SO well, when he mentioned "dispensatianal
blinkers".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Gospel is simple because nothing is to be added to it. It is
"believe in your heart and you shall be saved."
Why, yes, it is. But you do NOT understand the sense of the word
'believe' he used here. That is your problem, Loren. Your fundamental
problem. We have been over this before, too.

You _subtract_ from the Gospel by pretending that this one verse is
the whole Gospel. And then you _add_ to it your fanciful _excuses_ for
treating this one verse as the whole Gospel!

But get back to the topic of the thread.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Because it is elemental, the only way it can be corrupted is by
addition.
And add to it you do, when you add the requirement to believe in "a
normative, literal rendering". Espeically since what you call
'normative' is not, as so many of your own fellow Reform theologians
would be glad to tell you.

What is 'normative', Loren, about a _parenthetical_ Church? NOTHING.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
And the gospel you would have us believe is one of addition. You add
on works. You add on baptism.
Ah, yes, the old Loren "ace-in-the-hole". Pile on false accusation
after false accusation when losing an argument!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is no Grace in your gospel.
This is nonsense. If you would ever read Lossky, you would know
this. But of course, you prefer to pass judgment on matters you do not
understand.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is just another form of what the Judaizers were attempting during
the Apostolic era.
You and your fellow dispensationalists are the Judaizers, not me.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Faith comes by hearing, not doing.
Scripture never says this. We have been over this before too. Stick to
the topic of the thread.

[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Never have you provided anything more than what you are doing in this
"rebuttal" - if one would be so gracious as to afford it that term.
That is a lie, Loren. But why am I not surprised that a
dispensationalist would cover up his failures with lies?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
What points in particular do you disagree with?
I have already answered all these questions. It is time for you to
admit it instead of repeating the question, along with the false
charges that I do not 'substantiate'.
Just what question was answered in this reply? Talk about hot air!
Ah, ah, ah! You changed the question! I did not say that I answered
the question in that post. I said that I have already answerd ALL
these questions. But you pretend not to notice, and 'answer' with your
hot air, usually resorting to your volumes of alternating bombast and
irrelevant out-of-context citations.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
That is all you have brought to the table. Where is your
substantiation?
I already answered that question too. You do not recognize
'substantiation' when you see it. Otherwise you would have rejected
dispensationalism LONG ago!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
In particular, I find that your _entire_ argument for
dispensationalism relies on your fictitious distinction between
Israel and the Church, which fictitious distinction ignores the way
Paul treats the Church as one unity, ONE Body of Christ.
Who is arguing otherwise?
You are.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
That fact that the Body of Christ is a definitive entity only
substantiates the fact that it is to be distinquished from Israel.
No, it does no such thing. You do not even realize how shocking it is
that you can mouth such nonsense with a straight face.

[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
The Church IS the New Israel, the ONLY True Israel. The "Israel
according to the flesh" is no longer even part of the true Israel.
Ah, now here it the leap in logic. First, James and Peter's epistles
are specifically addressed to Jews.
No, the "leap in logic" is yours. We do NOT know for sure that he
meant only Jewish-Christians when James wrote "twelve tribes in
dispersion". This could easily have become a title for all
Christians. Especially since by that time, the original "twelve
tribes" were not all still there!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Epistle to the Hebrews has primary and historical application
only to Jews.
This too, is false. It has "primary and historial application" to ALL
Christians.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Then their is the matter of Galatians, out of which the term "Israel
of God" is used.
And the term is used to refer to the WHOLE Church. We have been over
this one before.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The whole epistles is a distinquishing between unbelieving, trouble
making Jews from those Jews who are believers, the "true Israel of
God."
"The whole epistles"? This makes gibberish out of what you are trying
to say.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rom 9-11 buttresses this paradigm.
Your interpretation of Rom 9-11 is pretty demented, too. We have been
over this before, too.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Paul never ceases to refer to his Jewishness nor is there any call in
the NT for Jews to disinherit their heredity.
You are combining two separate issues, as if that would buttress your
weak argument. Give it up, since it does not.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are bringing your prejudice to bear
upon the text.
No, that is what you are doing.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Romans clearly states that God has not forgotten His elect nation,
Israel. They will yet inherit their covenanted promises when the
time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled.
That is not what it says. We have been over this before, too.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Without this fictitious distinction, your _entire_ argument
collapses like a house of cards. I have no need to waste my time
with the rest of your voluminous pseudo-support.
And this is it? This is all you could muster? It is you who begins
Post by Matthew Johnson
Practice what you preach, Loren. There is nothing 'substantive' in
your volumes of alternating bombast and irrelevant out-of-context
citations.
I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to who this really
applies to.
Don't be too surprised if the conclusion they come to is that it is
YOU who displays the "ostrich mentality". MANY have already reached
such a conclusion about ALL dispensationalists -- and with GOOD
REASON.

"Dispensationalist blinkers", he said. How appropriate.

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2006-09-21 03:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
It isn't. Early millenarianism was _quite_ different from 19th
dispensationalism -- and from 20th, 21st century dispenstationalism.
Only in degree of specificity even as the 1st C understanding of the
Trinity or Justification. The early Church never developed any
doctrine to the degree of maturity that has come to fore in present
day. So your argument's presupposition is null and void.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
I've brought Dan 12:9 into the argument more than once but you never
address what it specifies, namely that it will not be until the end
of times before eschatological mysteries begin to be understood.
You bring _lots_ of things into the argument, yet your arguments are
weak anyway. Why? Because you bring too many things all at once, like
someone addicted to the fallacy of "plurium interrogationum". And you
leave giant gaping holes in the argument, such as your fanatical and
fictitious distinction between 'Israel' and 'the gentile Church'.
And for the umpteenth time you have not answered the proposition. Why
is that Matthew, Why is it so hard for you to put forth a straight
forward answer rather than ranting about something off the subject?

Also, where and when have you ever posted and substantiation, any
evidence which would incure any sort of conviction, for
supersessionism, or the common day terminology, replacement theology?
RT is a relatively new terminology but the theology behind it is found
in the Apostles letters against such a heresy.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rather, what is stated is
that it goes back to a publication of a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest
in 1812 in Spain.
Name one scholarly debate that makes this claim.
Do your own research. You refuse to put forth any effort in your
rebuttals all the while you expect by the mere fact of your incessant
negation that it is obligation of others to substantiate their claims.
You don't like. Here you want proof. Well so do others when you
debate their points. Correct that, when you negate the points made by
others. You don't debate because debate requires substantive
point-counter point.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Edward Irving translated this publication of Immanuel Lacunza, "The
Coming of Messiah in Majesty and Glory" in 1820's.
The author of this book was a Spanish Jesuit pretending to be a Jew
who had converted to Catholicism.
Now just above you asked for proof. Here you are pressing a claim with
no proof whatsoever. You live by a double standard. That makes you a
hypocrit.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Are you _really_ intrested in using
such a dishonest person as your source? You must be really desperate
for 'historical' sources to resort to this!
Not desperate, just stating historical fact. Dispensationalism did not
simply pop forth from the mind of Darby as you so often declare. There
is a history to the events. Whether you wish to deny them makes no
difference to me. They are history and therefore they are part of the
record. It is you who are desperate to negate anything which is
contrary to your elitist OC religion. However, OC doctrines are not
infallible or all pervasive. Like *all* doctrinal statements and
confessions of faith, there are errors or misrepresentations in all.
Personally, I think progressive dispensationalism have errored in their
blinded wish to reunite with Covenant Theology. I certainly disagree
with ultra dispensationalist who only allow the epistles of Paul to be
studied and followed. However, the general teachings of
dispensationalism are sound, biblically defendable, and germain to
present day strife in the world.

There is one thing which only Dispensationalism has an answer for.
Something which gauls non-dispensationalism nearly as much as it does
the Arab countries, Israel is once again a sovereign nation. This sort
of thing has NO historic presidence. It is assuredly a thing of God.
And a literal interpretation of the OT and NT prophecies accounts for
it. Unbelieving Israel has been brought back into the land as
predicted. It has maintained, with tenascity, its national identity
which even atheistic, socialistic cultural anthropoligist admit having
no reason for. It defies everything they know about the history of
civilizations. And like them, you too have no answer for it other than
to run and hide your blind thinking head in the sand.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
An "Irvingite" then. following on his teachings, prophecied that the
rapture would occur prior to the tribulation. That was Margaret
Macdonald from who Darby then, allegedly, came to hear of the pretrib
rapture and developed "dispensationalism" from that.
However, as I have already stated in a previous post, this is not
historically accurate as to the genesis of dispensationalism.
Newsflash: that you stated it does NOT make it so.
"Not historically accurate" in that others put forth it as all
conclusive that Dispensationalism either started with Darby or from
Irvingites. If you read other theological thesis with the same
self-only-serving presuppositional blinders, it is no wonder that you
don't know how to substantiate your own position. You can't read the
opinions others except by your own presuppositions. Truth/reality is
not subject to perception. Again, you are either the modern or the
postmodern umpire calling them only as you see them, not as they are.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
For as far back as the 5th C, we have manuscripts of sermons where
pretrib rapturism is declared.
5th C is not very far back, not in my book!
Herein lies the hypocracy of your faith. You wish to buttress your
position by, 1) your denomination can be traced back to move of the
Roman capital to Constantinople, 2) you insessently cling to "orginal
Greek speakers," both point based on the premise that because it is
older, it is better. However, the early church was not merely
millennial, it was premillennial and you refuse it. You want history
to support your position while at the same time denying history to
support a doctrine which stand foundationally opposed to your
theological system. You're a hypocrit Matthew! You intellectually
dishonest in your presuppositionalism.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Specifically there is the sermon by pseudo-Ephraem, titled, "On the
Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World."
Take a closer look at the sermon. It is NOT dispensationalist. Show
me where it makes ANY such description. Show me where he makes ANY
distinction between the dispenstations, or between Israel and the
Church. Have you even _read_ it?
Of course I've read. I've also read several accounts of it in not only
dispensatinal theological journals, but even in Covenant/Reform
theological journals who, though their eschatological position denies
dispensationalism, yet are scholarly enough to state that there are
dispensational presuppositions found within the sermon. IF they are
willing to admit this, why not you? Both of you are amil. Either you
are dishonest or you don't know dispensationalism. Which is it?
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is just another example of you providing out of context citations
of works you do NOT yourself understand!
Evidently it is you who stands in the dark.
Post by Matthew Johnson
How do I know? Because the
empire restored in that account is the _Roman_ Empire, NOT the Nation
of Israel!
Quoting from the work which you seem unable or unwilling to reference
directly:

Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and
prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may
draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world?...For all
the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that
is to come, and are taken to the Lord in order lest they see the
confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins"

[Caspari, 211.4, "Omnes enim sancti et electi Dei ante tribulationem,
quae uentura est, colliguntur et ad Dominum adsumuntur, ne quando
uideant confusionem, quae uniuersum propter peccata nostra obruet
mundum." The entire text is found in Caspari pp. 208-20 and the
German commentary on pp. 429-72.]

As I said, you are either dishonest or you prove yourself uneducated in
theological reasoning.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are sermons by Morgan Edwards in the very early 1700's in which
he puts forth a detailed account of the end times which is very
similar to present day dispensational doctrine.
And again: Show me where he makes ANY distinction between the
dispenstations, or between Israel and the CHurch. Have you even _read_
it?
And again you display your ignorance of the historical record. You
negate simply to stand opposed without any substantive basis. You're
integrity is impundged. All you have to do is read Thomas Ice's
website. Search for the article that was published in the Conservative
Theological Journal, April 1997, titled, "Morgan Edwards: A Pre-Darby
Rapturist."

Matthew, you need to repent of your blind hatred of anything or anyone
outside of the OC. You do not display a spiritual intergrity taught
and displayed in the Scriptures. You call for my ban from the NG, but
I continually catch lying in your responses. Now what does the
"charter" have to say about that?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are also several Medieval accounts (for one instance,
1316. "The History of Brother Dolcino") which at least point to not
only a pretrib rapture of the Church, but also a distinction between
Israel and the Church as well as "economies" being distinquished
within the plan of God.
This is the closest you have got to real support yet. And even it is
not support. Again: where do you actually see support for the
distinction and the 'economies' in Dolcino's work? What mention did he
even make of Israel?
Dolcino did not go beyond teaching a pre-tribulation rapture, and some
kind of 'millenium'. He did NOT teach any of the other tenets of
dispensationalism. He even contradicted it pretty radically by saying
that he, Dolcino, would be Pope during the Millenium!
sigh! ibid.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to add works to justification as you like to reduce all
unfilled prophecy to allegorical interpretation.
But this is not what we critics of 'dispensationalism' do. This is
just another straw-man of yours.
Ah, but amillenialism rests on the allegorical method.
So you dispensationalists love to repeat. But if that were so, then
why do so many Reform preachers come out _against_ dispensationalism?
They don't embrace the "allegorical method" either.
WHAT!!!!! How stupid a remark! How absolutely uninformed you are!
Where do you come up with this stuff? You are merely writing off the
top of your head hoping that what you declare has some measure of
truth. Are you kidding? I've got tapes by Sproul explaining a
prophectic passages allegorically. Reformed/Covenant theologians almost
without exception admit that amillennialism requires the "allegorical
method" or a "spiritualization of the text". They plainly admit that
if the prophetic passages are interpreted by the literal hermeneutic,
then not only is premillennialism THE biblical eschatological doctrine,
but so is pretrib rapturism.

How many times in one post do you have to be caught displaying either a
deliberate defiance of the truth or a serious naivette to it?

I'm not even going to bother to respond any further. There is no point
in debating with such an inaccurate post as this. You have exceeded
yourself this time. In a way, I'm glad you posted this response
because it clearly illustrates for all who read how dishonest a
theologian you are. I wonder what you are like in your personal
affairs if you cannot accurately handle simple historic proofs. I am
not passing judgment on you but I certainly evaluate you as a dishonest
person. And for what purpose? Obviously it isn't to glorify the
gospel.
l***@hotmail.com
2006-09-21 03:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Ah, but amillenialism rests on the allegorical method.
So you dispensationalists love to repeat. But if that were so, then
why do so many Reform preachers come out _against_ dispensationalism?
They don't embrace the "allegorical method" either.
Read: "Literal and Allegorical Interpretation in Origen's Contra
Celsum" by Dan G. McCartney in the fall of '86, Westminster
Theological Journal. Point #7 in the thesis is titled: "Allegorical
Meaning Is for the Mature."
Post by Matthew Johnson
They don't embrace the "allegorical method" either.
Such a blatant lie. But will we ever hear you recind? Never, rather
you will attack as per usual. Caught in a lie but like our now
thankfully out of office postmodern president, you will argue on what
the meaning of "is" is. Truth is what you make it, eh Matthew? Sorry,
but that don't cut it here.

Loading...