My personal eclectic view

[covenantee]

Salvation

Yes. "All Israel" is the saved remnant.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Yes. "All Israel" is the saved remnant.

Yes, but part of that remnant will be saved AFTER the last of the fullness of the Gentiles is saved.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, but part of that remnant will be saved AFTER the last of the fullness of the Gentiles is saved.

The Gentiles began to get saved when Paul began to take the Gospel to them. Fulness was fulfilled in the recognition of the full acceptance of the Gentiles as "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel". Ephesians 3:6

They've been getting saved ever since, and will continue to get saved until Christ returns. The remnant has never needed, and will never need, to wait for their fulness.

There is no such thing as a partially saved remnant. The remnant is, by definition and description, all saved. They are "according to the election of grace". Romans 11:5.

Every one of them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Luke focuses on teh fall of Jerusalem, the Matthew part of the discourse focuses on the other two questions, "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age".

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not dealing with separate questions and separate issues. You cannot prove that at all. All 3 Gospels list the same questions, and all 3 provide comparable answers. They are all quoting the same Discourse.

Your concluding Rome was the abomination does not fit history nor the biblical narrative unless you spiritualize it all! The abomination is singular not an army! And Daniel described the man as the one who on the wings of abomination, HE (singular) shall make it desolate. It is a man who enters the temple as Paul declared in Thess.

You are conflating different passages. 2 Thes 2 is speaking of the Antichrist, also referred to in Dan 7. The AoD is a term used for two different events in the book of Daniel, Antiochus 4 and Titus in 70 AD. The Olivet Discourse refers to the AoD that referred to Titus in 70 AD.

You are wrong to say the AoD does not fit, historically, an army. Jesus, in fact, identified the AoD as an army besieging Jerusalem in his generation. He did so by identifying it as an army in the same place where Matthew and Mark used the term AoD.

History records the only desolation of Jerusalem in Jesus' generation as happening via the Roman army in 70 AD. It fits.

 

[covenantee]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not dealing with separate questions and separate issues. You cannot prove that at all. All 3 Gospels list the same questions, and all 3 provide comparable answers. They are all quoting the same Discourse.

You are conflating different passages. 2 Thes 2 is speaking of the Antichrist, also referred to in Dan 7. The AoD is a term used for two different events in the book of Daniel, Antiochus 4 and Titus in 70 AD. The Olivet Discourse refers to the AoD that referred to Titus in 70 AD.

You are wrong to say the AoD does not fit, historically, an army. Jesus, in fact, identified the AoD as an army besieging Jerusalem in his generation. He did so by identifying it as an army in the same place where Matthew and Mark used the term AoD.

History records the only desolation of Jerusalem in Jesus' generation as happening via the Roman army in 70 AD. It fits.

There's no ignorance like dispensational ignorance.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The Gentiles began to get saved when Paul began to take the Gospel to them. Fulness was fulfilled in the recognition of the full acceptance of the Gentiles as "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel". Ephesians 3:6

They've been getting saved ever since, and will continue to get saved until Christ returns. The remnant has never needed, and will never need, to wait for their fulness.

There is no such thing as a partially saved remnant. The remnant is, by definition and description, all saved. They are "according to the election of grace". Romans 11:5.

Every one of them.

I see we interpret Scripture entirely at odds.

Thank you for the conversation. I think you and I are at an end.

 

[covenantee]

I see we interpret Scripture entirely at odds.

Thank you for the conversation. I think you and I are at an end.

And thank you. As you wish.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There's no ignorance like dispensational ignorance.

I won't win any arguments if I insult those I argue with, but I agree that there's a problem with "group think" in the Dispensational camp. We have to free their minds 1st, and only when they are free are they able to think outside of the Dispensational box.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I won't win any arguments if I insult those I argue with, but I agree that there's a problem with "group think" in the Dispensational camp. We have to free their minds 1st, and only when they are free are they able to think outside of the Dispensational box.

There have been many dispensations throughout world history. Before the Law, the Law, the Spirit. What is it you object to?

 

[Randy Kluth]

There have been many dispensations throughout world history. Before the Law, the Law, the Spirit. What is it you object to?

When I speak of the need to get outside of the "Dispensational box," I'm speaking of thinking outside of Darby's framework for the endtimes. His view is not the Biblical view entirely. Whatever eschatological school you belong to, you should recognize that your system is not likely to be right on every point. If you find yourself defending *every point* in an eschatological scheme, I suspect you lack objectivity. I hope that's not your mindset?

For example, I might not agree with everything in Covenant Theology. I might agree with the idea that the New Covenant is an entirely new and different covenant from the Covenant of Law, and that there is no longer a future for the Law. At the same time I might think it is possible for there to be a future Millennial age in which entire nations come to embrace the Christian faith, including Israel.

With respect to Dispensationalism I might accept Futurism as a way to interpret the book of Revelation. At the same time I might reject Imminency Doctrine, that Christ can come back "at any time," and I may reject Pretribulationism, the idea that Christ can come back for the Church *before* the reign of Antichrist and the 2nd Coming.

Even moreso, I might reject the idea that Israel and the Church have different legal systems by which they please God. This appears to go completely against the conventional theology of Salvation through Grace by Faith.

Each person has to decide what he or she wants to believe. But I'm suspicious of anyone who defends every point in a particular eschatological or theological scheme. My biggest concern is that we hold to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith that determine our doctrinal orthodoxy.

Beyond that we should be free do discuss diffferences where they are questionable. But anybody closed-minded on every point different from their favored scheme is probably not worth debating with.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

When I speak of the need to get outside of the "Dispensational box," I'm speaking of thinking outside of Darby's framework for the endtimes. His view is not the Biblical view entirely. Whatever eschatological school you belong to, you should recognize that your system is not likely to be right on every point. If you find yourself defending *every point* in an eschatological scheme, I suspect you lack objectivity. I hope that's not your mindset?

For example, I might not agree with everything in Covenant Theology. I might agree with the idea that the New Covenant is an entirely new and different covenant from the Covenant of Law, and that there is no longer a future for the Law. At the same time I might think it is possible for there to be a future Millennial age in which entire nations come to embrace the Christian faith, including Israel.

With respect to Dispensationalism I might accept Futurism as a way to interpret the book of Revelation. At the same time I might reject Imminency Doctrine, that Christ can come back "at any time," and I may reject Pretribulationism, the idea that Christ can come back for the Church *before* the reign of Antichrist and the 2nd Coming.

Even moreso, I might reject the idea that Israel and the Church have different legal systems by which they please God. This appears to go completely against the conventional theology of Salvation through Grace by Faith.

Each person has to decide what he or she wants to believe. But I'm suspicious of anyone who defends every point in a particular eschatological or theological scheme. My biggest concern is that we hold to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith that determine our doctrinal orthodoxy.

Beyond that we should be free do discuss diffferences where they are questionable. But anybody closed-minded on every point different from their favored scheme is probably not worth debating with.

Thank you for pointing out that the modern use for the word "dispensationalism" used on Christian forums is not all dispensations in the history of man under God and they actually mean eschatology and is only about a very small part of history - end times. I'll try to remember that, though my logic screams, stupid! I still think it was a bad choice of words and confusing so not of God. Is that what that man, Darby, titled it? If so, that is just another reason not to waste my time on his thoughts.

I find studying the Bible for answers and asking the Spirit to lead us instead of seminaries and old church fathers and modern tall-tale fictional writers gives us the best and only true possible understanding of end times. Seeing as the Bible clearly shows us different dispensations as I pointed out from Scripture: Before the law, the covenant of the Law, and the new covenant of the Spirit, I find anyone who still uses the word, "dispensationalism" and is against it in general cannot be credible. Those are clearly pointed out in Romans 7 and 8. Perhaps a different word should have been coined from its beginning for this topic seeing as it is only speaking of "end times" and is incorporated in the last "dispensation." The New Covenant of the Spirit.

You see, I know nothing of Darby. He was not an Apostle or OT Prophet, so probably not worth my time. That is why this topic when brought up is always shocking to me. Also, those who base their end time philosophy on a series of fictional paperbacks instead of the Word of God is also shocking to me, especially seeing as they are based on a total misunderstanding of Scripture and wishful thinking.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thank you for pointing out that the modern use for the word "dispensationalism" used on Christian forums is not all dispensations in the history of man under God and they actually mean eschatology and is only about a very small part of history - end times. I'll try to remember that, though my logic screams, stupid! I still think it was a bad choice of words and confusing so not of God. Is that what that man, Darby, titled it? If so, that is just another reason not to waste my time on his thoughts.

I find studying the Bible for answers and asking the Spirit to lead us instead of seminaries and old church fathers and modern tall-tale fictional writers gives us the best and only true possible understanding of end times. Seeing as the Bible clearly shows us different dispensations as I pointed out from Scripture: Before the law, the covenant of the Law, and the new covenant of the Spirit, I find anyone who still uses the word, "dispensationalism" and is against it in general cannot be credible. Those are clearly pointed out in Romans 7 and 8. Perhaps a different word should have been coined from its beginning for this topic seeing as it is only speaking of "end times" and is incorporated in the last "dispensation." The New Covenant of the Spirit.

You see, I know nothing of Darby. He was not an Apostle or OT Prophet, so probably not worth my time. That is why this topic when brought up is always shocking to me. Also, those who base their end time philosophy on a series of fictional paperbacks instead of the Word of God is also shocking to me, especially seeing as they are based on a total misunderstanding of Scripture and wishful thinking.

You need to become more knowledgeable of the relationship between Darby's system and Dispensationalism before we can discuss this. If you continue to promote Dispensationalism without knowing its connection to Darby you will be sending a naive message to those you speak to about this.

The typical of disparagement of Church Fathers and Theologians that I often hear from those who "go by the Spirit" is, I think, an excuse not to do the work of reading them. It is, in my opinion, not only unfair to them, but unwise, if you wish to reach anybody with your message who is remotely knowledgeable of these issues.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

You need to become more knowledgeable of the relationship between Darby's system and Dispensationalism before we can discuss this. If you continue to promote Dispensationalism without knowing its connection to Darby you will be sending a naive message to those you speak to about this.

The typical of disparagement of Church Fathers and Theologians that often hear from those who "go by the Spirit" is, I think, an excuse not to do the work of reading them. It is, in my opinion, not only unfair to them, but unwise, if you wish to reach anybody with your message who is remotely knowledgeable of these issues.

That is sad. The Holy Spirit is all I need to understand end times. Or maybe you don't believe the Spirit is enough, or ended speaking after Darby came along. That is like having to study Darwin before I can knowledgeably discuss Creation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is sad. The Holy Spirit is all I need to understand end times. Or maybe you don't believe the Spirit is enough, or ended speaking after Darby came along. That is like having to study Darwin before I can knowledgeably discuss Creation.

No, ultimately the Spirit will be enough in Eternity. But for now there is the problem of Knowledge.

1 Cor 13.8 ...where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

No, ultimately the Spirit will be enough in Eternity. But for now there is the problem of Knowledge.

1 Cor 13.8 ...where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

I have found that when I have a question it is God who put it there. I've then prayed that question to God, and immediately He gives me the answer. The gospel is revealed from faith to faith. It is not all at once, but He does tell us to study to make ourselves approved. Remember the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth. Another thing that is important is to expect an answer. James 1:5-6

Unfortunately errors are taught as gospel, and no one challenges them. Why?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have found that when I have a question it is God who put it there. I've then prayed that question to God, and immediately He gives me the answer. The gospel is revealed from faith to faith. It is not all at once, but He does tell us to study to make ourselves approved. Remember the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth. Another thing that is important is to expect an answer. James 1:5-6

Unfortunately errors are taught as gospel, and no one challenges them. Why?

The mystery of sin, or the mystery of self-deception? I think we all suffer a little myopia. But some don't let that stop them. ;)

 

[ewq1938]

I have found that when I have a question it is God who put it there. I've then prayed that question to God, and immediately He gives me the answer. The gospel is revealed from faith to faith. It is not all at once, but He does tell us to study to make ourselves approved. Remember the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth. Another thing that is important is to expect an answer. James 1:5-6

Unfortunately errors are taught as gospel, and no one challenges them. Why?

Those are always challenged but the issue is most people have their own understanding and it usually differs from everyone else so everyone thinks they are right and others are wrong so there are challenges by all to all perceived errors.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The mystery of sin, or the mystery of self-deception? I think we all suffer a little myopia. But some don't let that stop them. ;)

Cute, LOL! But I have a unique situation. God actually spoke to me in June of 2000 in the Arizona desert and said, "I am giving you the office of Teacher." That wasn't my choice, but His. I'm not one of those self-appointed teachers or pastors full of self-deception...

Not everyone always has their prayers answered either. And I don't mean, "No." For the first 30 years of my life of going to church a couple times a week, not one prayer was answered. Not one! But in 1977 I became born again of the Spirit. Since then I've received an answer to 100% of my prayers. That is because since then I've been able to hear God's voice and knew in my spirit to ONLY pray for myself what He, Himself, speaks to me to pray. For instance, in John 15:7 John uses the word, rhema, for My "words" instead of "logos." Those are God's words spoken to us that when we pray them and they, being His will (1 John 5:14-15), comes to pass. God also placed on my heart about 10 years ago to pray that He wipe my mind of all false doctrines of man and demons I've heard on these forums, and to reteach me what the one and only true interpretation of the New Testament verses are, and He started immediately. And it is He that also places questions in my mind for me to ask Him, and I know that I know that I know He will immediately answer, and He does.

This is why, if you read my conversations with people with false ideas, I will sometimes ask if their prayers are answered. 1 John 3:22, 1 John 5:14-15, John 15:7. It is a way to test ourselves whether we are His and He has taught us to wait on Him. Sometimes we can get ahead of God and pray for something that is not His will. After decades of praying His way, I asked something impulsively - once. I received it, and it was definitely a supernaturally answered prayer, but like the Israelites who wanted meat, God gave it to them, but they dropped dead when they placed it in their mouths! I received mine also, but will forever wish I had kept my mouth shut!!! God really does chastise those who are His.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Those are always challenged but the issue is most people have their own understanding and it usually differs from everyone else so everyone thinks they are right and others are wrong so there are challenges by all to all perceived errors.

I've always WANTED the truth. That is why I've been in three different denominations, and found I needed to finally shed them all and just be in a continuous questions and answer session with Jesus.

What you said is probably why some are in the same denomination their entire lives!

 

[ewq1938]

I've always WANTED the truth. That is why I've been in three different denominations, and found I needed to finally shed them all

That's wise. Denominations are full of false doctrines, all of them.

What you said is probably why some are in the same denomination their entire lives!

It will be very hard for them to get things right if they adhere to what their denomination teaches. Definitely better to leave and search for truth without denominational bias.