tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post116205760362394879..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: Twenty-five stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalismDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-71875096010557140972009-01-31T22:37:00.000-06:002009-01-31T22:37:00.000-06:00Aw, thanks.Sure generated some silly responses on ...Aw, thanks.<BR/><BR/>Sure generated some silly responses on other blogs. Tradition dies hard.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-12476992429376358142009-01-31T20:22:00.000-06:002009-01-31T20:22:00.000-06:00Dan, this is awesome.Dan, this is <B>awesome</B>.SolaMommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07569633683299802644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-41518088946818898932008-10-21T10:39:00.000-05:002008-10-21T10:39:00.000-05:00Thanks, TG. That is also one of the most compellin...Thanks, TG. That is also one of the most compelling considerations to me.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-43839082338954371632008-10-21T10:17:00.000-05:002008-10-21T10:17:00.000-05:00Dan,I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I am a dis...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I am a dispensationalist who is tired of the misrepresentations so often made by the other side. I especially loved point #25. I believe the idea of finding Christ in every verse (as some non-dispies attempt) is quite scary. Tell me, what does the story of Amnon raping Tamar tell us about Christ? <BR/>I realize this is an old article, but for those concerned about the scary "Bean"ie Baby, you should see the Mr. Bean "Mii" on the Nintendo Wii. Talk about funny. <BR/>Great work on the article. Hopefully, the point of the article will not be lost in the obvious sarcasm.Theology Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03933595600451073783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-53280912026740187372008-10-06T00:31:00.000-05:002008-10-06T00:31:00.000-05:00So I am commenting on a 2006 post--but I feel comp...So I am commenting on a 2006 post--but I feel compelled to. And it's not because I've finished reading it, either--it's because of that REALLY UGLY OLD BABY that you have there, Dan. I don't even think that Rowan Atkinson looked THAT bad when he was a bona fide baby. That's some incredibly skillful--and MAD--Photoshopping there. It's really giving me the creeps (and it's not even midnight yet!)!! :P<BR/><BR/>All right. I'm going back to read the rest now....Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08289347868497438542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-44580627918520805822007-03-15T18:04:00.000-05:002007-03-15T18:04:00.000-05:00Excellent work DP, I'm in a similar boat, and deep...Excellent work DP, I'm in a similar boat, and deeply fed up with being looked upon with suspicion and disdain by some of the 'pure blood' Reformed. I left the Plymouth Brethren because of my Calvinistic views, and while I enjoy much of Reformed church life, there is at times a seemingly thin line between having a theological conviction that you have worked out from scripture and hold in good conscience and having a certain smugness almost condescending attitude to others, I know where my reformed Baptist Pastor is coming from I am happy to give an amillennial viewpoint a fair hearing and I hope that I walk away giving it all a good thinking over. So why can't amill's at least be benevolent towards us, you can strongly disagree with us but you don't have be little us in the process.SteveThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13344969352250351089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-27561370224468084142007-02-17T23:30:00.000-06:002007-02-17T23:30:00.000-06:00Though I am Reformed and no longer affirm enough o...Though I am Reformed and no longer affirm enough of the dispensational scheme to be regarded as one, I think you actually did a nice job of identifying some overstatements, straw men, and ad hominem slooge.<BR/><BR/>As a non-dispensationalist, I'm curious as to how those who are anti-dispensationalists will work to come up with other reasons to "diss" dispensationalism. <BR/><BR/>Sola gratia,<BR/>Gunny<BR/><BR/>P.S. Are you familiar with New Covenant Theology and it's emphasis on the uniqueness of the New Covenant and how it relates to the New Covenant. <BR/><BR/>This whole genre of discussion (Classical dispensationalism vs. Essential/Revised Dispensationalism vs. Progressive Dispensationalism vs. New Covenant theolgy vs. Covenant Theology) is fascinating and has been one of interest for me for years.<BR/><BR/>But, it's also an easy one in which to quickly get tired head and see tempers flare.<BR/><BR/>For NCT, I'd recommend a look at <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Abrahams_Four_Seeds_menu.html" REL="nofollow">Abraham's Four Seeds</A> by John Reisinger.GUNNYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11422524342398284973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1166414498039365632006-12-17T22:01:00.000-06:002006-12-17T22:01:00.000-06:00creepy baby pic ... makes me {{{shudder}}} eeewwwcreepy baby pic ... makes me {{{shudder}}} eeewww4givenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604421713579961024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164680080649858402006-11-27T20:14:00.000-06:002006-11-27T20:14:00.000-06:00well dan, I've had a lot of time to evaluate this ...well dan, I've had a lot of time to evaluate this post...and have decided that your wrong on all 25 points!! This post should have been titled, "25 splendid reasons for dissing dispensationalism"<BR/><BR/>so there.joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00407734824168297388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164674672788704832006-11-27T18:44:00.000-06:002006-11-27T18:44:00.000-06:00Dan,I apologize if you felt they were in that tone...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I apologize if you felt they were in that tone. Anyone who knows me knows that is not the way I tend to be. I was merely commenting on your comments and drew a conclusion. I hope we can start with a clean slate:) In most of your points I agree with you, I really do. Most of the points you made were simply silly and shouldn't be used against anyone.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you visit my blog I will be cordial, though I am much farther down the food chain than yourself.<BR/><BR/>Now to part of your previous comments and the last one. In your previous ones you mention that Jesus places it as future and I agree it is in Jesus' future at that time. However, you place that and the end of history at the judgment (sheep and goats from Matt 25). Yet wouldn't you believe in a final judgment at the end of a thousand years, which would come 1000 years after Matt 25? <BR/><BR/>Second as to Christ's throne being distinguished in Acts. I will simply note that there is not two thrones mentioned in that passage, therefore there is not the distinguishing you mention. As for the earlier point you made when you said something about "Mount Zion.......Jesus, the church, whatever", again Psalm 2 comes into play. The apostles quote verse 7 as fulfilled in reference to his resurrection, but just before that the Psalmist records God saying, "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain." Are we really willing to break this up in time?? this gets to Nathan's question. These things are fulfilled in Christ and Mount Zion being spoken of here is none other than where Christ rules from today. Again, Revelation 2:26-28 make it clear that Christ has assumed this position. Am I looking for a verse that says "David's throne"? Of course not. That, to me, seems like someone asking for word Trinity to appear in the text (and I don't mean that condescending:)<BR/><BR/>As to your point two. I have given direct apostolic references to that fact. But you have dismissed it because it doesn't say "David's throne". Well, I could point to the NT references you gave and say the same thing. No mention of the throne of God and say you are inferring that. Would that be a legitimate argument. Of course not.<BR/><BR/>In regards to your point 3 towards me. I am not disappointed at all in the text, just at the lack of evidence for the quote you cited from the text. I never askedthe text to do something more. I just commented that it didn't do the "more" you claimed.<BR/><BR/>As to point four and I must say this one is the clincher as far as I am concerned. So are there two people of God or one Dan? The church is made up of Jews and Gentiles right? What did you just quote? How many bodies? One, not two. Is it really the dispensationalist's claim that there is the body of Christ and some other body (national Israel)? If so, where do the believing Jews fit in, with the Church or national Israel or both? What will their inheritance be? I'm sure many here can see that. The passage is so clear from 2:11-3:13 that Gentiles are fellow heirs with Jews of the promises in Christ. Now dispensationalism wants to put a big bridge in between that again sometime in the future. <BR/><BR/>If we go just a little farther into chapter 4 we find that verse you were mentioning, verse 4<BR/><BR/><I>There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling, <B>one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Now I ask, how were Old Testament people saved? Was it not the same as New Testament people? After all, there is only One Faith, not two different kinds and that faith is in One Lord, not two Lords. there is also only One body, not two and within that one body is One Spirit not two. Again, this comes on the heels of this connection of Gentiles with Jews. You say the church is not Israel in any sense. If you mean a national political entity, then I wholeheartedly agree with you, but if you mean that the Church, or elect are not "the chosen of God", which is what Israel means and that we are not the descendants of Abraham which Paul clearly refutes in Galatians, then not only are you and I at odds, but you and the Scriptures are at odds.<BR/><BR/>As to the fifth point. Take each almost each chapter in John and you will find people doing exactly what you are doing and that is trying to interpret in some real sense the words of Christ. In Jn. 2 it's the temple: Jesus refutes that. In Jn. 3 it's the new birth: Jesus refutes Israel's teacher over that. In Jn. 4 it's the living water: Jesus refutes a wooden literal interpretation. This is all I'm saying. I haven't skipped over fulfilled prophecies. I just realize that many are affirmed as fulfilled in the NT by the apostles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164659250459793692006-11-27T14:27:00.000-06:002006-11-27T14:27:00.000-06:00Dan,Two quick things here:First, since you keep me...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Two quick things here:<BR/><BR/>First, since you keep mentioning the Old Testament, and since you keep demanding a verse that describes Jesus reigning from David’s throne, please consider this verse:<BR/><BR/><B>Isa 9:6-7:</B><BR/>For to us a child is born,<BR/>to us a son is given;<BR/>and the government shall be upon his shoulder,<BR/>and his name shall be called<BR/>Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,<BR/>Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<BR/>Of the increase of his government and of peace<BR/>there will be no end,<BR/><B>on the throne of David</B> and over his kingdom,<BR/>to establish it and to uphold it<BR/>with justice and with righteousness<BR/><B>from this time forth</B> and forevermore.<BR/><BR/>Will you please explain how an exegesis of this verse leads to the conclusion that ‘this time forth’ is in a completely different millennia from ‘unto us a child is born’? If so, then I’m sure you will stay consistent and deny that the ‘government is on His shoulder’, and ‘His name is called…’, since those happen at the same time as His rule from David’s throne. Are we wrong in calling Him Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace? If, after all, this verse is still unfulfilled prophecy. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, I keep hearing you mention things like ‘I affirm God’s promises are real’, so I have a question for you: Have you ever examined the timeframe of God’s promises? That is, where in scripture is it ever stated that God’s promises to Israel will be fulfilled in a 1000year period? You see, Dispensationals are correct in that God keeps His promises, but they arbitrarily apply a 1000year timeframe to these promises. You yourself quoted Jeremiah 31, which I will post here for clarification. Verse 38-40 says:<BR/><BR/>“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. <B>It shall not be uprooted or overthrown anymore forever.”</B><BR/><BR/>Now, to reiterate my last question, is this promise and others like it, given to communicate a period of 1000years, or a period of ‘forever’. [See the Abrahamic Covenant for the same language.] <BR/><BR/>How, in your system, is this promise of 38-40 and others like it, fulfilled if the earth (along with the literal Jerusalem)is destroyed at our Lord’s coming, as described in 2 Peter chapter 3? <BR/><BR/>Are the promises for 1000years, or are they for forever? And how are these promises fulfilled forever (literally), if the earth and modern-day Jerusalem are to be destroyed by fire? <BR/><BR/>SDGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164656731801854442006-11-27T13:45:00.000-06:002006-11-27T13:45:00.000-06:00Dan,Another friend of mine had critiqued your comm...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Another friend of mine had critiqued your comments on his blogsite (in some detail). Would you care to take a look at it? It's Bob Hayton's "Fundamentally Reformed" blogsite. Bob is a member of Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper). The link is at<BR/> http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2006/11/18/distressed-over-a-dissing-dispensationalist/#comment-3805Mister Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359700695541339747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164650719806813892006-11-27T12:05:00.000-06:002006-11-27T12:05:00.000-06:00Hi Dan,Perhaps you address this in the article you...Hi Dan,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you address this in the article you linked. I don't have time to read it right away, but I will add it to my links.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is just the difference of paradigms functioning here but neither your comments nor Johnson's deal with the fact that James quotes an extended passage, on the view you hinted at, only part of which is actually relevant to the point at hand: or the fact that the <I>purpose</I> of restoring David's tent is that the rest of men might seek the Lord. If that is correct, and the rest of men are seeking the Lord, then David's tent is necessarily restored --or at least in the process.Rubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12871194232591064277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164631347555936562006-11-27T06:42:00.000-06:002006-11-27T06:42:00.000-06:00Tim,1. Perhaps sometime I'll go on over to your bl...Tim,<BR/><BR/>1. Perhaps sometime I'll go on over to your blog. Will I see you embodying and modelling the "dialogue that is not condescending" that you request of me? From your two comments, I'm not all that optimistic.<BR/><BR/>2. So the count of verses "that [say], expressly and in so many words, that Christ currently sits in David's throne," stands at zero. I should say, I don't see it as a pivotal issue either way. One prefers to hold to a system that does not depend at its very core on inferences, hints, dubious connections, and vapors, rather than on direct statements.<BR/><BR/>3. Your disappointment in finding that Acts 15 simply states what I believe is palpable. The issue was, do Gentiles have to be circumcized to be saved (15:1)? The apostles answer with an emphatic "No" (vv. 2-21). In his own remarks, addressing both Judaizing and Pauline/Petrine factions, James says that this all "agrees" with the words of the "prophets" (plural), and then alludes to the prophecy of Amos, as predicting both the restoration of the fallen booth of David, and the Gentiles seeking God (vv. 15-18). Everything is right on schedule, he says. With this, all dispensationalists agree, without losing their minds and forcing foreign meanings into perfectly innocent prophecies. You want that text to do something more, I guess, but do not blame it (nor me) that it refuses your advances.<BR/><BR/>4. And (to your more recent sidepath) where did the Judeans' insistence on Gentile circumcision (Acts 15:1) come from? From proselytism in the OT and after. Gentiles joined Israel. But the church is not Israel; it is Jew and Gentile alike in Christ, one body, one <I>new</I> man -- and not Israel, in any sense (Ephesians 2:11-22).<BR/><BR/>5. And yes, you did brush aside piles and piles of literal fulfillment to focus on a single metaphor, as if John 2 (or 6, or 10, or 15; Psalm 23) mean that plain language isn't plain language if it interferes with your alien grid. Otherwise, what does it have to do with anything?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164595482361052522006-11-26T20:44:00.000-06:002006-11-26T20:44:00.000-06:00Dan, i did read the post and am writing my own pos...Dan, <BR/><BR/>i did read the post and am writing my own posts conerning your points. I am up to number 10 should you care to read them. For the most part I do think many of the arguments you bring about are simply silly and I would never argue them against you and I state that in my upcoming posts.<BR/><BR/>Sidestep?? LOL. You're joking right? Did you actually read the apostle Peter's sermon? He is clearly referring to the promise made to David. <BR/><BR/>As for ignoring the post. I didn't do that. I was addressing what followed later in the comments. You seem to be able to throw a lot of blather around without actually dealing with what I wrote.<BR/><BR/>You said, "The decoder-ring set has to fiddle with and twist just about every OT covenant in order to reduce 2/3 of the Bible to goo; it'd be great, from your perspective, to be able to point to something. But you'll have to keep looking.<BR/><BR/>With Jesus and the apostles, I simply again affirm that the OT means what it says, and God's plan for the present and future encompasses both ethnic Israel and Gentiles; and with them (in contrast to the decoder-ring set) I affirm that God's promises are real, and not bait-and-switch trickery."<BR/><BR/>Decoder ring?? Again, You speak about my comments fizzling, when I directly quoted you quoting Johnson and pointed to the fact that nothing could be derived from the text of Acts 15 to substantiate what Johnson said, nothing. Deal with that. <BR/><BR/>As far as bait and switch, I don't believe that either Dan. They are real promises. Tell me something, were all those of Israel ethnic in the Old Testament? What about Abraham's servants who received the sign of circumcision? What about the servants of Jacob and his sons? What about Rahab or any other Gentiles who came into the assembly of Israel, were they counted as Israel? Were there absolutely no Gentiles who were a part of Israel in the Old Covenant? Please when you answer, don't talk down to me. I am not a dog. I am a brother in Christ and would appreciate dialogue that is not condescending. Try doing that brother.<BR/><BR/>Brushing aside piles and piles of literal fullfillment for a single metaphor? Come on. You can do better than that. I have not brushed aside anything. I simply commented. I'm not even going to go there since you cannot see the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164584763979835332006-11-26T17:46:00.000-06:002006-11-26T17:46:00.000-06:00Hi Tim,1. Since you ignore the post and prefer to ...Hi Tim,<BR/><BR/>1. Since you ignore the post and prefer to change the topic, we'll score it as 25 direct hits.<BR/><BR/>2. As to Acts 15, I guess I can sympathize with you to a degree. It must be very disappointing to feel that you have a devastating knockout punch, and see it fizzle into nothing, with no effect.<BR/><BR/>The decoder-ring set has to fiddle with and twist just about every OT covenant in order to reduce 2/3 of the Bible to goo; it'd be great, from your perspective, to be able to point to <I>something</I>. But you'll have to keep looking.<BR/><BR/>With Jesus and the apostles, I simply again affirm that the OT means what it says, and God's plan for the present <I>and</I> future encompasses both ethnic Israel and Gentiles; and with them (in contrast to the decoder-ring set) I affirm that God's promises are real, and not bait-and-switch trickery.<BR/><BR/>3. When you say that the throne of David belongs to Jesus, you say nothing more than Scripture (and therefore dispensationalists) say. Have you yet found a verse that says, expressly and in so many words, that Christ <I>currently</I> sits in David's throne? Jesus places sitting in His own throne as a future event (Matthew 25:31), distinguishes His throne from the throne He currently occupies (Acts 3:21).<BR/><BR/>If you ever find a verse that <I>directly</I> says otherwise, do share. Until then, I'll go ahead and accept what strikes me as the more obvious signification of Jesus's words.<BR/><BR/>4. And as to you brushing aside piles and piles of literal fulfillment to focus on a single metaphor... great job. I guess we dispensationalists will just have to allow for metaphor in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Oh, wait -- we have. <I><B>ALWAYS</B></I> (see #13 above; did you even <I>read</I> the post?)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164582802855690722006-11-26T17:13:00.000-06:002006-11-26T17:13:00.000-06:00Dan,I was linked from Nathan's blog and read the c...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I was linked from Nathan's blog and read the comments. There is much I would like to respond to. However, I am pretty much taking my time doing that over at my blog via some exposition:)<BR/><BR/>This last comment, and I don't know who Ruben is:), that you made concerning Acts 15, you made mention of Johnson's quote. The problem as I see it is precisely what you cited. No where in that passage is anything remotely like a "nod to the Jewish faction, assuring them that the nation will have the promised future." As a matter of fact, nothing of the Jewish nation is even mentioned. Simply a mention of the tabernacle of David and this rebuilding is so that the Gentiles may seek the Lord. Surely this would be referenced in other NT passages where the church is spoken of in such terms (ie. Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 6; Rev. 3:12). Of course in these passages the believer as well as the church is spoken of as the temple of God. The term used in Acts 15 denotes the movable tabernacle. In either case, the nation is not in focus.<BR/><BR/>This leads to part of the problem I see where you say others are denying the perspecuity of the Scriptures. Were the Scripture unclear to the Pharisees and disciples during Jesus' time concerning the nature of the kingdom??? It seems their "literal" (and I use that lightly) reading of Scripture led them to the wrong concclusion. Jesus seems to constantly be correcting them in regards to a "physical political kingdom" (see Luke 17:20,21).<BR/>Maybe somehow the words of Christ were unclear when He stated, <BR/><BR/><I>Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."</I>John 2:19<BR/><BR/>Yet those around him believed he spoke about the standing temple and not the temple of His body. If you were standing there would you have assumed He spoke of His body? In regards to that several passages that dispensationalists claim are somehow future, such as the reign of Christ from David's throne are simply shot down in the face of apostolic New Testament statements. I point this out in a recent post on <A HREF="http://clay-pot.blogspot.com/2006/10/psalm-2-king-takes-throne.html" REL="nofollow">Psalm2</A>. There is no reason to assume that we are waiting on Christ to come to a throne in the middle of the desert to reign from earth when He already is seated at the right hand of His Father (Mr 16:19; Ac 2:33; Ro 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 10:12; 1Pe 3:22) till all His enemies are put under His feet (1Cor. 15) and already has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) and is currently ruling the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 3:27). If this is indeed the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and I believe it is since the inspired apostle Peter says so in Acts 2, and I quote,<BR/><BR/><I>25 "For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. 27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’ 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."’ 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."</I><BR/><BR/>This has been fulfilled. Now I ask anyone in the forum, what is not clear and literal about that passage??? If that is true, then at its heart dispensationalism's foundations crack. Respectfully submitted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164457864270245182006-11-25T06:31:00.000-06:002006-11-25T06:31:00.000-06:00My apologies. I am not actually a Highlander, but ...My apologies. I am not actually a Highlander, but of Scottish, Huguenot and English descent, living in Norfolk, England.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164301153029459662006-11-23T10:59:00.000-06:002006-11-23T10:59:00.000-06:00Ruben -- thanks for more thoughtful interaction.If...<B>Ruben</B> -- thanks for more thoughtful interaction.<BR/><BR/>If you had had the time and inclination to labor through the essay I link to, where I expand on the hermeneutical principle you quote, you'd see that it's my conviction that that <I>is</I> apostolic hermeneutics. I provide some examples.<BR/><BR/>Galatians 4:24 is an issue for anybody, or at least for any Reformed Christian, since the Reformers so heartily rejected allegorical interpretation. I recall their general take as being that Paul's meaning here was that the story was "typical," not strictly allegorical. See Calvin's <A HREF="http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol41/htm/iii.vi.iv.htm" REL="nofollow"> vehement rejection</A> of allegory here.<BR/><BR/>As to Acts 15, I've just never really understood why non-D's think it's a problem for D's. "David" is, as far as I know, never used in any other sense than literal in the NT. The issue in Acts 15 is the inclusion of the Gentiles. James quotes a passage from the OT which predicts that the Gentiles will be included in God's salvation. No Dispensationalist denies this. How is this supposed to be a problem?<BR/><BR/>The late, great S. Lewis Johnson, who's quoted as describing himself as a covenant theologian with a dispensational hermeneutic, said James' quotation is a nod to the Jewish faction, assuring them that the nation will have the promised future, and that that future is in no way exclusive of the blessing to the Gentiles promised in the Abrahamic Covenant.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164300412420123762006-11-23T10:46:00.000-06:002006-11-23T10:46:00.000-06:00AJLin -- thanks for your comment. I forwarded it t...<B>AJLin</B> -- thanks for your comment. I forwarded it to Phil. I do doubt, however, that you'll see discussion about dispensationalism per se in Pyro posts. We have a certain focus, there; and that isn't it.<BR/><BR/>Here? Whole different issue.<BR/><BR/><B>Tim</B> -- good for you! One day, God willing, those terms may form a tautology!<BR/><BR/>(c:DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164299928183948522006-11-23T10:38:00.000-06:002006-11-23T10:38:00.000-06:00Highland Host -- well, I should expect a crusty re...<B>Highland Host</B> -- well, I should expect a crusty response from a Highlander. If the reason you're not emailing me is that you think I want to argue prophecy, think so no longer. I think I just wanted to talk about Scotland, which I visited and loved. But I asked you to write me so long ago, I've forgotten.<BR/><BR/>How delightful to hear someone allude to 'The gift and the calling of God are without repentance' <I>in context</I>, and not as if it had something to do with tongues! Thank you, thank you!<BR/><BR/>As to the rest you said, sounds to me like we're closer to each other, rather than farther.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164299691169772942006-11-23T10:34:00.000-06:002006-11-23T10:34:00.000-06:00Okay, now I have enough time to try to give more f...Okay, now I have enough time to try to give more focused, substantial responses.<BR/><BR/><B>Jason</B> -- you say you're not obsessed with rationalizing your abandonment of the perspicuity of Scripture, I say it strikes me that you were. The beauty of this forum is that people can survey your writings, and form their own opinion. I'm not appealing to private correspondence, or revelation. This has been a great comfort to me when I've been grossly mischaracterized over at Pyro, particularly. If you feel (as you insist) that I've mischaracterized you, you can have that same comfort.<BR/><BR/>But once again I point out: I gave three specific reasons why Fide-0 hasn't been the must-read for me that it formerly was.<BR/><BR/>You and Scott objected to all three.<BR/><BR/>I instantly proved that two of the three were simply fact, and proved that you had mischaracterized <I>me</I>. My third issue is indeed my own opinion, my own impression, and nothing more. It was why <I>I</I> was reading Fide-0 less. It was not offered as a reason why <I>nobody</I> should read Fide-0. Anyone and everyone is free to reject, share, or ignore my impression.<BR/><BR/>Yet neither of you has acknowledged that my first two were well-founded, you haven't withdrawn your mischaracterizations, <I>and </I>you continue to complain that <I>I</I> don't admit mischaracterization.<BR/><BR/>As to my more general attitude, I spelled it out above (I thought), and you haven't responded. Indeed, we are co-combatants on a wide variety of critical issues. Stick to them, you'll find me with you. Say silly things about people who still take <I>all</I> of the Bible seriously, we may have words.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164213135488775572006-11-22T10:32:00.000-06:002006-11-22T10:32:00.000-06:00Thanks for what you are doing. I'll proudly call ...Thanks for what you are doing. I'll proudly call myself a Reformed Dispensationalist.<BR/><BR/>Christ's,<BR/>TimTimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249766968557076715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1164211106502346572006-11-22T09:58:00.000-06:002006-11-22T09:58:00.000-06:00What I'd like to see is more extensive interaction...What I'd like to see is more extensive interaction between the Pyromaniacs bloggers and the Fide-O bloggers on the issue of dispensationalism/Covenant Theology. Those at Pyromaniacs represent the foremost bloggers who are both Calvinistic in their soteriology and consider themselves dispensational. The Fide-O guys have been vocal recently in educating and trying to persuade others concerning Covenant Theology. But what are the real issues? Each side accuses the other of improper readings of Scripture. Could specific examples of this be given by each side? I think it would be very beneficial to the Christian blogging community as a whole if these issues could be addressed without vitriol or personal attacks.Andrew Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543222209236040112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1163800832758371852006-11-17T16:00:00.000-06:002006-11-17T16:00:00.000-06:00No, Mr. Phillips, it is that I have very little in...No, Mr. Phillips, it is that I have very little interest in discussions on eschatology. I dislike the fact that in some circles it has become a test. A friend of mine who wanted to join a nondenominational mission to the Jews was distressed by the mission's making premillenialism a requirement for all their workers. As if you have to be pre-mil to believe in the restoration of the Jews.<BR/><BR/> What do I believe about the O.T.? Firstly, it is all FOR US. There is (Romans 11) one purpose of God, and finally one people of God. There is NO part of the Bible that is not for the Church, yet the prophecies cannot be emptied of all content as referring to the gentile church only. 'The gift and the calling of God are without repentance.' <BR/><BR/> I believe that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, not according to any artificial system. Poetry is to be interpreted as poetry, parable as parable, symbolic language to be interpreted symbolically. In other words, unlike the Swedenborgian, I cannot allegorise plain history.<BR/> God saved me from liberal protestantism, and I suppose that I have enough of that rationalising instinct left to be safe and not to wonder from the text.<BR/><BR/> And so, because of the witness of the prophets and the apostles, not forgetting our Lord, I have to believe that God will restore Israel to faith.<BR/><BR/>Do I call myself a dispensationalist? No. A Covenant Theologian? Not really. I am uncomfortable with both labels.<BR/><BR/>And as for my lack of communication, I have been more than a little unsettled in life recently.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.com