 |
Wait a minute, OK. Let me see if I got this right, you believe moses lived during Grace because of his faith? I will agree that Joseph, Abraham... the ones who lived before the law, lived under God's grace.. BUT I do not think poor ol Moses did. You do? Clearly it IS taking me a bit longer... in fact, we will discuss this very thread right after the rapture. Find me. Lol
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Sounds to me like Moses lived under God's Grace.
WG,
Wow. So if you have faith, you are automatically under God's Grace. I don't think you understand what Jesus died to give us.
Huh? You're NOT under God's Grace if you have faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Tell me. What did Jesus die to give us?
Well, let's see. What does that passage say again?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.
"By faith Moses [did all these things]. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ...because he was looking ahead to his reward."
Moses didn't just have faith, he had faith IN CHRIST, though he didn't understand it at the time. Still, the writer credits him with it. And the key element is faith. So yes, this does say that Moses had faith in Christ and was saved thereby.
So it would seem that if you have faith (in Christ, whether incipient or post-resurrection), you are under God's grace. Whether you're Moses or Paul. That's what it says.
Ok. I am not disputing that Moses had Faith. I know that, I get it and I get the blood of bulls and goats were a type and it only covered their sin until the true Lamb came to die. I disagree with you about Moses being under grace! The LAW was given by Moses BUT GRACE and TRUTH came trough Jesus Christ. What do you do with that verse? Moses was a man under law, the law is all about Man DOING to please God... you shall not, you shall not in order for God to bless them. But Grace supplies his blessings for free. Ephesians says we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing. Moses lived under demand, I live under supply. What Jesus did at the cross qualifies me for God to reign his grace on me, and it was NOT SO for those under the law. Moses first order of business was to turn water into blood and that brought death. Jesus turned water into wine, resulting in life and celebration. The first Pentecost when Moses came down from getting the two tablets about 3,000 men died! That was the very first Pentecost according to Jewish scholars, the first Pentecost after Christ rose from the dead 3,000 men were saved! Night and day... Also take note before the law was given, they way the Lord dealt with those children of Israel, was pure grace, the grumbled, they whined, they complained and God just supplied! No one died. There is not one recorded death until after the law was given. God changed his tuned with them and told Moses to tell them they could not draw near. I don't understand how you don't see all that? These people had to DO and WORK to please God, Jesus died and now I am accepted in the beloved just because I believe. They absolutely were not under GRACE! Oh yes, the Lord was still merciful with them, its not the same thing.
It's called the Old covenant and the New covenant. God found fault with the old. Now where sin abounds, Grace super abounds. Grace is the antidote for sin. This was not the case under the law. God visited the people under the laws sins to the third and forth generations, but ME? My sins and iniquities he remembers NO MORE. Paul clearly says God is not imputing sin to us. He did IMPUTE sin to the people under the law. Yes Moses was credited because of his faith. I know this but it is NOT the same as being under Grace. The man was under the law, he GAVE the Law for heaven sakes to the people. Remember the mount of transfiguration? Moses and Elijah were there shining like Jesus and Peter, said let's build tabernacles... what happened? God shut him up... It's not about the Law and the prophets anymore... he said This is my beloved son, HEAR HIM! It was time for the law and the prophets to go bye bye... Grace had come. It's was new and so new that poor Peter even had a hard time grasping it, Paul had to correct him.
I am so confused that you don't see this? You have to know this... right? And yes, all those people under the law and before Christ had faith and it was credited to them. BUT GOD didn't deal with those people under the law, like he does with us today. OK, I'm rambling but I don't understand how you can't see Grace is different from the Law.
I have more to reply but don't have the time right now. But I do want to address this:
"It's called the Old covenant and the New covenant. God found fault with the old."
God CREATED the "old." So I guess you're saying he goofed and had to fix it, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Hebrews 8:7 I didn't say it the writer of Hebrews did! For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, "behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the days when I took them by the had to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord! He didn't goof! He knew exactly what he was doing! The Law is perfect and righteous it just had no ability to make ME perfect and righteous! All it could do for me, is condemn me. Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the law, became my perfect sacrifice and made me righteous apart from the law... it's called GRACE! This is Christianity 101... I so don't understand what it is you believe! The law demands righteousness and grace supplies it. Moses did NOT live under grace!
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 1Co 10:2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 1Co 10:3 They all ate the same spiritual food 1Co 10:4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
"That rock was Christ." Moses followed Christ even though he didn't know it. Grace has been the theme throughout human history, and that includes Moses.
"This is Christianity 101" No, this is dispensationalism 101. The two are anything but synonymous. Moses was saved by Grace through faith (Eph 2:8) just like everyone else who ever was saved, because that faith is in CHRIST. Even in the Old Testament. There is no separate "age of grace" as the dispensationalists say. All of human history is the "age of grace."
Wow! Dave you don't understand GRACE at all nor what Jesus has done for us. Listen, I know that it was Jesus who saved everyone from Adam until now, but you are wrong about them being under grace. They were CLEARLY under the law, when the Lord dealt with them, they were dealt with under the law! Wow! You can't see that? Every now and again he would extend mercy, like with David. These dear people who lived during the law, had to keep the law in order to please God. The law DEMANDED righteousness, Grace supplies it. They did NOT live under grace. And I bet ol Moses would smack you for saying he did! Lol While we are in total agreement about how God saved these people, he dealt with them way different than he does me. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away behold all things are become new. And you want me to believe Moses got to live as a new creation? No he didn't. The Holy Spirit didn't take up residence in him. We on this side of the cross have a much better covenant! God DID impute sin to them in the way he dealt with them. There WERE curses that visited the children and their children, and their children's children! I can't believe we haven't discussed this before. I am a little taken back that you don't know what Christ did for you. He changed everything but it means nothing if you don't know what he died to give you.
When we discussed Jesus separating the sheep from the goats, and I asked you how many times do you have to bring someone water, visit them in jail, be kind to them... ect in order to have everlasting life, you stated you didn't know. How do you reconcile the book of Romans with Jesus' teaching? For grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is a gift from God lest any man should boast? What do you do with these 2 clearly different ideas. Are you more inclined to follow the Lord Jesus words in the gospel? Or do you see these thoughts as somehow complimenting each other? I don't how but if you could explain so I could understand that would be great.
I've known you for how many years and I never knew exactly what you believed. I can see now why we argue all the time. Lol
Dave,
No answer? Come on! You have to have one...
We took a mini-vacation over the weekend. But really, there's no much to say, because there's nothing of substance there to respond to. It's all empty speculation with no scriptural backing at all. You really can't see how you pervert the Bible by tossing your theology in there first and wresting the Scriptures to fit your theology. That's more than a little backward, in case you hadn't noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
And really, there's not much more we can talk about, and here's the reason:
"I never knew people believed some of the things they believe. I thought all Christians believed in different dispensations."
This is the most naïve statement I have ever seen from a seasoned Christian. Guess what? You are the minority. The vast majority of Christianity doesn't buy dispensationalism. That includes virtually all Protestant denominations, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and a host of others. You know NOTHING about the global Christian church. Hence, you are horribly unqualified to try and teach anybody anything about the Church. Go get some education about Christianity outside that little bubble of isolation that you live in, and find out what's going on in the Christian world. Then we can discuss this.
That one statement explains pretty much all of your narrow-mindedness. It's not so much narrow-mindedness as it is ignorance. Happily, the solution is easy: just learn about the rest of your Christian brethren and sistren.
Classy T quote "I never knew people believed some of the things they believe"..... "What do you do with these 2 clearly different ideas.". Well, the Bible is full of them:
Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 1:13 "Let no man say.. . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image."
Isaiah 2:4 ".. . And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."
Ma0641,
I disagree. It would appear there are contradictions but if the word is rightly divided, ( put in context, know who it is written TO, know what covenant it is under, the bible does NOT contradict itself. That is the reason the apostle Paul specifically said to rightly DIVIDE the word of God.
Dave,
Why won't you answer me? Do you NOT have an answer? I find that hard to believe, I'm asking sincerely, I really want to know and not so I can argue either. I'm curious. Let me ask one more time. What do you do with the book of Romans when you are reading what Jesus said about the sheep and the goats. Are we saved by grace, or do you need to work?
Actually, there are lots of apparent contradictions. 2 Samuel says God stirred up David's heart to number the people, whereas 1 Chronicles says it was Satan. In Genesis 14 we are told that Abraham pursued his enemies as far north as Dan. Except that in Abraham's time the city was called Laish. It wasn't called Dan until the time of the judges. And the list goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Refusing to face and consider these things isn't helpful. It's a cop-out.
I'm not going to answer that question because it's not germane to the discussion about dispensationalism. It's just you trying to dodge the subject again, and I'm not going to play your game. I gave you my reply and told you why. The ball is in your court to explain how you can be a Christian for so long and have no idea the rest of the Christian world exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
You disagree? Why am I not surprised? You disagree with everyone who doesn't accept your "enlightend" assessment. It's either your way or everyone else is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I looked up what "rightly divided" means. I'd never heard that term so much emphasized until it was used here on this forum. It seems from my Internet research that one has to be in a certain dispensation in order to "rightly divide" the Word. (I guess Moses was out of luck and didn't qualify....) One citation from rightlydividing.org:
http://www.rightlydividing.org/secon...ydividing.html
You know, it's OK for me to disagree. I wasn't rude to you and I never once said I was "enlightend". I'm not sure what your problem is, but I hope you feel better now. GeeshQuote:
Originally Posted by ma0641
Oh good grief, I am not dodging. I asked you a question and you can't answer it. I've asked you before not here but on FB. I find it very interesting your reluctance. But whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
We have to stay on topic. If you want to talk about sheep and goats (and what to feed them?), please start a new thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Thanks, WG. She doesn't seem to grasp the idea "stay on topic" when I say it. Maybe she can understand it from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Part of the problem is that most dispensationalists worship the Bible more than they worship Jesus. There's even a word for it: bibliolatry. The Bible has stuff we don't understand. It has stuff that seems self-contradictory. It has stuff that makes us uncomfortable, like genocide. Some of us like to take that material head-on and try to sort it out. That's one of the reasons I switched from New Testament to Old Testament in grad school: there's a lot more challenge there. The anachronism "Dan" in Genesis 14. What does it tell us? Why, if Moses was the author, does it say Dan and not Laish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Some people don't want to deal with these questions, so they just play ostrich and say "I have faith! It's perfect! We just don't understand it! I have faith!" These people are living examples of Mark Twain's definition of faith.
I trust the Bible with all its apparent flaws and issues. I trust it because I've dug into those hard questions, I've examined three and four cognate languages to try and sort out what some words mean, because there are lots of words in both Testaments that we simply don't know what they mean. Micah 6:8 - Do Justice, love mercy, and something-or-other walk with your God. We have no clue what that word means. "Humbly" is a best guess, because the word superficially resembles some possible weird form of the word "humble." But the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (dazzle your friends with that $10 word) reads "be prepared to walk with your God." A far cry from our current English translations! This is what we're up against, and people who just close their eyes and scream "I have faith!" aren't helping.
The Evangelical Theological Society doctrinal statement says "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." I can still sign that. The key phrase is "in the autographs." We don't have them. We don't even have something close to them in time. We can't even figure out when some of them were written. I spent a good 10 years learning and practicing textual criticism of both Testaments, trying to make my contribution toward sorting out what the autographs actually said.
Meanwhile, the Dispies (that's what we called them back in the day) sit in their ivory towers, oblivious to everyone else in Christendom, and say "I have faith!" I repeat: Mark Twain, tip your hat.
I'm just seeing this little jewel. Really? Well you have one thing correct, I am naïve. I had the audacity to think we were friends. My mistake. I don't think anyone has ever personally attacked me this badly. I'm blown away. I didn't deserve it. I was asking questions because I really wanted to know and I was honest about what I know and don't know. You can think I'm ignorant, narrow-minded, backward, horribly unqualified and in need of education. Trust me it doesn't compare to what I think of you right now. I suggest you learn to let the Holy Spirit lead you and love through you. You may have knowledge but that's about it. Whatever you think I am, I am not mean and nasty nor do I lack the ability to love my fellow Christians who think differently than I do. I call you out if I think you are way out there, but I don't personally attack you like this. You are over the top, Dave. I mean waaaay over the top. Who do you think you are? You need a reality check cause you ain't. Smh disappointing to the hilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I'm sorry if you were hurt. But I was blown away by the fact that you had no idea there were other views out there. I can't tell you how distressing that is, because you've been robbed. You haven't had an adequate chance to really evaluate different views and choose for yourself. You've had dispensationalism and nothing else.
And truthfully, it doesn't surprise me because I know how dispensationalists work. They don't want you to hear any other views. They refuse to teach other views in their schools - I know this from experience - because supposedly it causes "confusion." How is knowledge a bad thing? But they are afraid of you having broader knowledge, because the fact is, over half the people I went to school with who were dispensationalists there, abandoned it in favor of other views once they got out of the dispensationalist bubble and learned just how flawed that system is.
That's what I wish for you: a good, fair, even knowledge of ALL the various ideas and choices, so you can decide for yourself which (if any) is the most "biblical." I apologize if that sounded like an attack; it wasn't. I am just amazed and saddened that these people have sold you such a bill of goods. I want better for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Dave.
This is a quote from Carol in this thread... "I'd never heard of dispensationalism and the rapture until I saw them mentioned on this site years ago." I'm curious as to why you weren't blown away by her statement! Oh that's right, she agrees with you, never mind.
I have asked you questions like how you reconcile Romans with the Lord's parable of the sheep and goats and I can't get you to tell me. If you are so darn upset I haven't been exposed to different views, why not answer my questions? I will tell you why... you aren't sad I haven't been exposed to other points of views, you would rather use your gift of language to tear down and put down, rather than just give an explanation because you CAN'T reconcile them. It's OK to say you can't but it is easier to put me down. So you opted for easy.
That was NOT an apology, Dave. It was justification for being a rude and unkind. If that wasn't an attack, I'd hate to see one. What I would like to know is what you have that I don't? I mean it, if you are so concerned for me as you claim, explain in detail what you have that I don't. What has changing your view point about dispensation done for you that I am missing out on? What is it in lay man terms that you possess that I don't. How has changing your view point benefited you? Explain it slowly, you know how the ignorant are.
I have said it before and I will say it again. When people don't agree with you, you put them down. You make fun of them and then act completely justified. There is NOTHING of the Lord Jesus in that. I'm always amazed at the hate you spew and that's all it boils down to is utter hatred. There is nothing Christ like in that but you think if you have right on your side, it's OK in Dave's world. Sigh... You have a lot of knowledge, I give you that. But wisdom? None. Give me wisdom any day.
One last thought, "they" aren't the problem at all, YOU are. I read some of the stuff you put out there and I am so turned off I want to puke. If THAT is what being enlightened by your new view points have done for you, no thank YOU!
Dave knows I am a Missouri-Synod Lutheran pastor's daughter. The LCMS has never, ever believed in and talked about dispensationalism. That's why I had never heard about it and had no clue what it is. And I have never met and talked with anyone from Catholic churches and any Protestant denomination who mentioned it. It apparently is a teaching that is part of the beliefs of a small Protestant (???) group. I don't even know what group that would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I missed that one, apparently. But also, I've been a Lutheran and I know that most of them simply reject dispensationalism.
The main reason I haven't tried to answer your questions to date is because they tend to be departures from the topic at hand. I have mentioned that many times.
And now, I'm really not comfortable talking advanced theology because I'm going to feel like I'm bringing a billy club to a pillow fight. You asked what I have? I have a range of knowledge such that I can dialogue with just about any Christian tradition, in their own jargon and on their own level. I can do that because I'm intimately familiar with their views and theological distinctions.
I have never deliberately engaged in a "put down" with you. When I point out something erroneous, you seem to take it that way. I don't go after people unless I'm teasing. I go after viewpoints, because the goal is to determine what is the most consistently biblical. In this instance, I mentioned that you have a huge lack of knowledge, and now I understand why it's so difficult to dialogue with you and why we so often end up talking right past each other. I don't like that, I like being on even terms. All this time, I thought that even despite all my training etc. we were fairly close to even terms. Learning that we're not is most distressing.
I'd love to help you with this, but there's no way to do such a thing in a forum like this. You keep asking me about Romans vs. Matthew 25; there is no answer that will fit on AMHD or FB or any other such forum, because those things are bound up, defined and expanded by a vast array of other passages and factors. I haven't answered because it's impossible to do it in a few words. I've presented some things based on Kingdom theology and some other approaches, and I always wondered why you didn't respond to those.
Now I get it: much of the time I've been talking past you. I apologize for that, too. I wish I had known this a few years ago, because yes, it makes me feel like a bully. I don't like that feeling.
I can make you one promise: from here forward I will do my best to, as Walter Martin used to say, "Get the hay down out of the loft onto the barn floor where the cows can get at it." (No, I'm not calling you a cow.) In other words, I'll do my best to avoid Scholarese* and stick to English. I'll do my best to help you understand the other views. If you stay dispensational, cool. But at least you'll be doing it from a standpoint of thorough knowledge.
There is nothing shameful or "put down" about the word "ignorance." It means "lack of knowledge." Nothing more. It means someone doesn't know something. If they've never been taught it or exposed to it, then obviously they're not going to know it. Hence, they have ignorance on the subject. It's not a value judgment. It never has been, the word doesn't carry those connotations. It means "lacking knowledge." Part of my mission on Earth is to help people overcome that. Including you. I call you Sis because you're special to me. And I want to help you grow in knowledge. That's the bottom line.
*Scholarese, n. A dialect that consists entirely of multiverbal circumlocutions ane polysyllabic sentence units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
This does make me curious, though; how on Earth did you miss the whole Left Behind lunacy? Or were you here before that happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
A friend challenged me to read it (and the rest of the series). I did -- read only the first book, but didn't understand some of it. I read it as fast as I could, choking it down. It's so badly written, total pulp fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Wow, I'm sitting here praying for "pre trib" rapture. No more Hillary or Don.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Seeing how this thread has been used in a "did too - did not" scenario with someone apparently having all the right answers makes me wonder why they didn't run. Let's see, 1/144,000. Odds might not be too good! Hope the pilot on my next flight isn't raptured, at least not pre trib.
You won't be Left Behind?Quote:
Originally Posted by ma0641
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
You are a condescending JackA$$ ! Your excuses for not answering my question are becoming downright embarrassing. You can't answer it, Dave. It's NOT too much for this site, it's too much for YOU. Period.
Hey if it makes you feel superior to think you talk passed me... GO FOR IT DUDE! That comment made me laugh and laugh. You WISH!
As WG already said, if you want to start a new thread with that question, I'll see what I can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Incidentally, another thing I learned by dumping dispensationalism is, this stuff is just not that important I read the end of the book. We win. Nothing in eschatology carries enough significance to divide Christians, yet we do it all the time. I watched a friend of mine get railroaded out of his degree because he said that pre-tribs were way behind in their research and had a lot of catching up to do. That's ALL he said, and they denied him his degree because he "went post-trib" (direct quote from the dean of students). I myself lost one of my favorite teaching jobs because I couldn't say with absolute certainty that I was pre-trib. It goes on and on. The thing is, dispensationalists are the only ones who do this. They accuse everyone else of being divisive, but they are the ones who kick people out for not holding to every little point.
They also won't let their students learn other systems. When I tried to look at a couple when in college, I was "strongly encouraged" not to, because it would cause "confusion." Translation: their material is so tenuously constructed, as quickly as people get a solid handle on something else, they take it. So the dispensational answer is to keep their people in the dark, give them ONLY what "we" want them to have, and subtly suggest that anything else is of the devil (another direct quote).
This is not stuff of my construction. I just reports 'em. 40 years ago I was you. I had it all sorted out. Thank God he smacked me across the forehead and let me know just how much I didn't know. I've had the time of my life learning new things about the Lord every day since. One of the main things I've learned: I hate theology. Let the Word speak for itself. We westerners love to pigeon-hole everything, including God. That's why I don't embrace any one theological "system." I can find various merits in all of them. But I had to know what they were and how they worked before I could do that. It's still going on and I don't have a fraction of the answers. But I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to keep what I have entrusted to him, even to the end of the world (my own translation). That's the beginning and end for me.
Amen, well phrased. Too many people "pigeon hole", to use your term, I'm Catholic, Anglican, Methodist etc. instead of Christian. You accept Christ as saving us, do the best you can, the world will end and hopefully we will be there with Him. Of course, this is a Christian view. An all loving God will show mercy to non Christians, I would like to believe , if I get to Heaven, to be sharing a meal with a Buddhist, Navaho Indian, Muslim, Druid, prehistoric man- Wow, heaven better be big! One thing we also need to remember is that few people ever left the village where they were raised. There were no Christians then, there were Jews and Gentiles. To think that people existed in other continents was obscure except for Egypt and Asia Minor. Yes, Peter and Paul made it to Rome, but the whole world to most people was probably 50 miles by 50 miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Incidentally, rather than having to resort to the dollar signs, you might try playing with the word a little to make it come out "jay sack." It's more euphemistic, but it gets the point across in an ear-catching way.
That's compliments of my dad, who had an incredible way with words. Feel free to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 PM. |