C.I.Scofield applied DR DD to himself he sure did not earn it in a Seminary.C.I.Scofield was not qualified to be a pastor according to God`s book the Bible.
Read the incredible scofield and his book by Joseph Canfield and read Swarms of locust`s The Jesuit attack on the Faith by Michael Bunker.
Dispensationalism is nothing but Roman Catholic Jesuit Futurism that has deceived Christianity.
C.I.Scofield`s Bible was financed by the Jesuit order.Christians are supporting so-called Jews who are not biblical Jews but Khazars.Read Henry Fords the International Jew and how they are controlling Christians and America through un-biblical Satanic Talmud Zionism.
The Jesuit order has created the curse word Anti-Semitism to keep Christians in bondage.If anyone was Anti-Semite it was John the Baptist-Jesus and Paul.
True Anti-Seminism is rejecting and mocking Christ.{Gal 3:1}not seeds of many.{Romans 9:8}Israel according to the flesh are not the Children of God.{Ethnic Jews does not automatic qualify one to be of Israel-Rom 9:6}
Read Hebrews chapter 11 Abraham was looking for a new heaven and earth not an earthly one as Satanic Talmudic Zionism teaches.Hebrews 11:10,16.
Scofield was a Jesuit Gun.
God bless.
Church is mystery (seven were revealed to Paul)
Israel is Davidic kingdom...or kingdom of heaven.
Church is the kingdom of God over all the earth.
Israel is under wrath.
Church is not appointed to wrath.
Israel is under law given to them by Moses.
Church is under grace and truth in Christ Jesus.
Israel is the Father's bride. Hosea 2:14-23
Church is the bride of Christ; Eph. 5:21-33
Israel is promised land, kingdom and priesthood. Ezekiel 40-48
Church is seated in heaven with Christ. Ephesians 2:6 & Heb. 12:22-23
Israel is under an obsolete covenant that is fading away and will be replaced with a New Covenant for "the house of Israel and of Judah." Hebrews 8:7-13
Church is under an everlasting New Covenant in Jesus' blood that is a better New Covenant founded on better promises. Heb. 8:6; 9:15-17 & 12:24
But
From the beginning, God selected one people alone, from all the earth.
Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deu 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
1Ki 6:13 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.
[URL=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/dispensationalism.html]]]The NT Church IS the continuation of this people[/URL]
by Nathan Pitchford.
I will go on record as saying that Israel and the Church are two bodies.
In the same way that USA and the church are two bodies; Australia and the church are two bodies; Australia and USA are two bodies etc.
But Israel as a spiritual body, as God's covenant people, no longer exist. The State of Israel is no more the people of God than the State of South Africa. Although South Africa has abolished apartheid, but Israel still enthusiastically practises it.
Is the Church and Israel one body or separate bodies?
The following might be a better place for your discussion.
What is your theological system?
You might as well leave your bibles. It seems from the last few comments that you wont need them.
rogerant wrote:I would recommend that you read David Chilton's The Great Tribulation, William E. Cox: Amillennialism Today, Postmillennisalism, an Eschatology of Hope by Keith A. Mathison, and The Basis of Premillennial Faith by Charles Ryrie for a comparison. One must study all positions.
The book I have found much to my satisfaction in recent years is:Kim Riddelbarger, "A Case for Amillennialism". I don't agree with all of his views, but where I disagree is more around the edges than anything of great substance.
MurrayA wrote:I have read and considered the preterist view, and I find it far-fetched and entirely unconvincing.
I firmly believe that what purports to be about the future IS about the future; that when the disciples asked about the end of the world (sunteleias tou aioonos) they intended the end of this present age, as Jesus had often spoken before, and which He did again in Matt.28:20. When He speaks of His 'parousia' (Matt.24:3) He refers to His triumphant return in glory, as everywhere in the NT.
It is far-fetched to make so much refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the view that would refer the whole book of revelation to this one event is indeed far-fetched. Revelation is a book designed to encourage and prepare God's people to face the future, a long era of persecution not from Jews, but from Gentile powers, in the immediate circumstance imperial Rome, but beyond that various Gentile powers, even including a corrupt church (the harlot woman of ch.17), until His return, as depicted symbolically in ch.19.
I have read and considered the preterist view, and I find it far-fetched and entirely unconvincing.
Preacher wrote:He has just finished telling them how they could see the signs pertaining to the end of Jerusalem, so why would He tell them that no one can tell when that would happen? Likewise, when you read Revelation, don't read it as pertaining to still future. John wrote to comfort the church then. What comfort would events 2000 years later have given them in their current situation? John was talking about AD 70, not about 2020. It was a document of God's covenantal judgement on Israel, not futuristic mystery.
The "signs of the times" phrase comes from the Olivet discourse. People forget that Christ was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age. The disciples thought this would be the end of all time, which is why they phrased their question as they did. But when Jesus said to them in Mat 24:33, "When you see all these things, know that it is near", He was not referring to the end of time, for He immediately said, "This generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled."
THEN He answers the question about the end of all time in vs 36, "But of THAT day and hour no one knows."
He has just finished telling them how they could see the signs pertaining to the end of Jerusalem, so why would He tell them that no one can tell when that would happen?
Likewise, when you read Revelation, don't read it as pertaining to still future. John wrote to comfort the church then. What comfort would events 2000 years later have given them in their current situation? John was talking about AD 70, not about 2020. It was a document of God's covenantal judgement on Israel, not futuristic mystery.
As to signs of the times, I have some views, but when I share them I always preface them with the proviso that I could well be wrong, but I do believe that the signs are given in such a way that one may reasonably expect the Lord's return in his own lifetime. The fact that all such speculations (and there have been many) have so far been wrong does not on one hand invalidate such enterprise, since we need to be ever watchful, but it does caution us all against any dogmatism. For example, during the Napoleonic era 200 years ago many Christians firmly believed that Napoleon was the Antichrist, the little horn of Dan.7, and that Christ would come very shortly - within 20 years. But it was not Christ's coming which overthrew him, but the Duke of Wellington!
I agree entirely that 1948 and the modern state of Israel has little or nothing to do with either the prophetic restoration of Israel, or with end times prophecy. The Israel-watching fad, which so excites the Dispies, is a rabbit trail.
Every generation thinks theirs is the ultimate age, that it could all end any day. This is not a bad thing, for it keeps us all on our toes. But there is only one certainty - No one knows that day or that hour.
As to Israel's future conversion, that has always been a conundrum. Romans 11 indicates that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. This suggests that ethnic Jews will continue to be converted.
But I do not see 1948 and national Israel as being part of prophetic fulfillment. These prophecies found in the Old Testament have been fulfilled in the return from the captivity.
National Israel was the caterpillar from which the butterfly of the church came. There is no relationship with God possible outside of Christ. And in Christ there is no nationality, for we are all citizens of that heavenly Jerusalem which the patriarchs already looked forward to.
Hope my response has been helpful to you.
Preacher wrote:...he cannot see and will not see that God has one people, one church, one plan of redemption which was first delivered to Israel and then to the whole world. That it would go beyond ethnic Israel into all nations was already foreseen and foretold in the Old Testament.
Preacher, how do you understand Rom.11:25-6? Do you see there a regrafting of the Jewish branches in a mass-conversion to Christ as the Gospel age closes? I have believed for a long time that such is the case: and the movements in God's plan may well be opening up that scenario as I write.
God has withdrawn His grace from the formerly 'Christian nations' (speaking very broadly) of the West: there is no question about that. Africa and the Far East are now the arenas of His grace. And then? I believe that we may witness a mass-movement of Jewish people into the Kingdom before the en
As I have said before, your view of the whole of Scripture determines your view of the parts. I finally realised that this discussion is going nowhere when Casob started quoting the same passages I had been quoting to him.
That is why he cannot answer my questions, because he cannot see and will not see that God has one people, one church, one plan of redemption which was first delivered to Israel and then to the whole world. That it would go beyond ethnic Israel into all nations was already foreseen and foretold in the Old Testament. But because some can't get past their view that ethnic Israel is still the people of God they are blind to this truth.
So I will ask one more question of Casob. You refer constantly to Romans 11. If I, as a non-Jew, am grafted into the olive tree, am I now not a Jew? I partake of the same root and richness. I am ingrafted into Israel.
One is either in the tree, whether natural or not, or out of the tree. Or is there more than one tree?
It is just a good thing you did this before we delved into Roman 11 because that would have been awful for you. However, it is a very good place to show the difference between Israel and the church.
I know DJC49 cannot ignore me for long but I might take a few days away so you all can lick your wounds and heal and get your confidence back.
Yes, I might just do that!
MurrayA,
Sorry, but there are still genttiles and Jew apart from the church. You failed to read the preceding verse as your custom is.
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself
of twain
one new man, [so] making peace;
I am surprised that you missed that!
