69058c No.6556
I'm sure a lot of you here believe in dispensationalist theology, and I'd like to talk about it for the sake of becoming more informed. It's been a concern for me as of late, since I got into a discussion with a friend and found out that he believes Jews are granted salvation, somehow, through Christ, without believing in Christ.
So here are my first objections:
1) To claim that God intended for Christ to be messiah only to the Jews, yet that they rejected him, upsetting God's plan, completely denies God's supreme sovereignty.
2) The belief that the ceremonial law, including the sacrificial system, will be reinstated during Christ's reign denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.
3) If Jews do not accept the New Covenant, they are still bound to the Mosaic Covenant, thus dooming them to hell.
4) This interpretive scheme is less than 200 years old.
5) Scofield himself was a heathen, and the publishing of the Scofield Bible was likely funded by zionists. ( https://www.wrmea.org/015-october/the-scofield-bible-the-book-that-made-zionists-of-americas-evangelical-christians.html http://pilgrim-platform.org/2010/c-i-scofield/ )
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e3de1d No.6558
I'm a progressive dispensationalist but I also find it very confusing.
>1
I don't believe God intended Christ only for the Jews, just the Jew first then the Greek. We agree that the claim is wrong, but you're redefining sovereignty in the calvinist way of meaning determinism. Sovereignty is rightly understood as beyond outside influence.
>2
Was the OT sacrificial system a denial of Christ's sacrifice too? Remember that Abraham was saved by faith just like us. What's the difference?
I'm not sure that the sacrificial system will be reinstated btw.
>3
Agreed
>4
Fallacious
>5
Agreed, Scofield was a Zionist puppet. He doesn't represent all of dispensationalism.
He was potentially right on other things though.
I think your friend is dead wrong as well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
69058c No.6560
>>6558
>Sovereignty is rightly understood as beyond outside influence.
If God is beyond outside influence, how could it be that he intended for the Jews to recognize him yet they did not?
>Was the OT sacrificial system a denial of Christ's sacrifice too?
No, they were a symbol of the great sacrifice to come. Like the Lord's Supper is a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, the OT sacrifices were done in anticipation.
>Fallacious
I thought it was widely accepted that dispensationalism cropped up only after Scofield.
Could you direct me to some sort of confession that details your beliefs?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ffaf2f No.6594
>>6556
>I'm sure a lot of you here believe in dispensationalist theology
You must be very new then. They've always been a tiny minority on imageboards, mostly because the denizens of these places tend to despise Jews, which dispenstionalists regard as the people of God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
91d8cd No.6610
>>6556
>1. This is a heretical claim, call them out on this immediately
>2. Never, and since most ziocucks are protestant make them point to absolutes in scripture, also again heresy
>3.if anyone does not accept the new covenant they are bound for hell
>4. Age isnt a determining factor in legitimacy, dont be stupid
>5. The spreading of the books to seminaries as learning materials was funded by yids and ziocucks, undeniable
All yids will burn if they do not accept Christ and repent,
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
615ec9 No.6697
>>6610
>Sola scripture is heresy
You're the one who literally sacrifices Christ again every week. As far as I'm concerned, that denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
615ec9 No.6699
>>6610
Also, if you're so concerned with tradition, shouldn't it raise red flags when a new doctrine isn't anywhere to be found in the history of the church?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
398fd8 No.6807
>>6699
>>6697
Guess I was unclear, my bad
<ceremonial law is THE heresy
<"also, again heresy"
<as in the concept of the ceremonial law, not scripture
>grab ziocucks and make them substantiate it with scripture
>almost all ziocucks are protestant, pedo-priests and ruskies are rarer
>force them to slit their own throat with Sola Scriptura and prove themselves heretics
>scripture is clear
>we are not saved in that manner
>the blood of beasts and mortal men does not wash our sin away
>only Christ's blood cleanses and its cleansing is complete and absolute
<I attend a Baptist church,
<We partake only once a year
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
799a95 No.6935
>>6697
Mass is the eternal mystical presence of christ, the sacrifice present is like rewinding a DVD since it's an eternal moment. As for sola scriptura
in 2 Peter 3:16
"In (the letters of Paul) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Oral tradition came before the canon, and Sola scriptura itself is nowhere in the bible, hence it's nature as heresy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
75dd2e No.6938
>>6935
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB — All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Expound on this given your view
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
615ec9 No.6963
>>6935
>These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
>Acts 17:11
Don't be deceived, my friend. Many of your so-called traditions are in direct conflict with scripture.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
799a95 No.7006
>>6963
Both are necessary for a fully functional theological understanding, scripture on it's own is not self sufficient yet it is wholly inerrant. There are many things not part of the biblesuch as the outright blatant ban on abortion found in the Didache penned in 50 AD, giving no breathing room to anyone who attempts to justify it among the faithful and further rebukes anyone who attempts to say it can be reconciled onto the faith.
>>6963
The traditions came first long before the church even began to use scripture. Ironically you quote the book of Acts, which part of the book details the Council of Jerusalem among the bishops in which Acts 17:11 in part condemns the need to follow Judaic law as part of the context given. It is not against our own Apostolic traditions as in that time there were Judaizers demanding that Gentiles follow the Judaic law such as circumcision and the abstaining from certain meats. The bishops were in attendance for this council and it was known as an Apostolic decree, which shows that even at the earliest points in history the church functioned as one body with distinctive authority.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ad4ddd No.7012
Just read what the Talmud says about Jesus. They're reprobate, do these guys even fig tree parable
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
69058c No.7013
>>7006
>Both are necessary for a fully functional theological understanding
Let me get this right: a fully functional theology requires numerous contradictions between scripture and tradition?
>There are many things not part of the biblesuch as the outright blatant ban on abortion found in the Didache penned in 50 AD
I think that was covered under the sixth commandment, but uh, thanks Didache.
>The traditions came first long before the church even began to use scripture
According to the verse I quoted, the church has, or should have, always used scripture. Any relevant traditions are appointed from scripture.
>bishops
Hm, I don't remember reading about bishops. I do remember hearing about elders though.
The rest of your post is entirely irrelevant, and you're off-topic anyway. Ironically, we agree on the issue at hand. Start another thread if you wanna continue this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1fd49f No.7014
>>7013
The bishop is a biblical title, just not in the usage of the RCC. It's synonymous with pastor.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
799a95 No.7113
>>7014
Pastor means parish priest, Bishop is a far higher role where they administer over an entire diocese, then archbishop for Archdiocese. The latter overseas historical sites.
>>7013 Bishop and elder can be interchangeable terms regarding their posts as Patriarchs.
Now to sync both together to put the thread back on topic, the council of Jerusalem was a landmark response for its time with the bishops of the church gathering to decide on the issue of the Judaizers. Among in the direction that the church functioning under the new covenant should not forcibly uphold Judaic customs regarding Gentiles, something that shocked the local Zealots.
Local, nonbinding pastoral measures were then undertaken to retain good relations with the Jews. Christians living in Jerusalem would undergo dietary restrictions seen in Acts:15:5-29 for the sake of diplomacy and to aid in converting the local Jews. St Peter's enforcement was much more strict, while St Paul would allow for it provided it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, hence he circumcised Timothy. When the Judaizers persisted to disobey the council and undermined St Paul's authority, he writes Galatians, warns in Romans 16:17-18 about their behavior, and warns in Philippians 3:2 about their conduct.
From here it can be reasonably concluded that Christ was the final, perfect sacrifice, Jews are unsaved for rejecting Christ and upholding legalism, and the old covenant is invalid.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0a9cd4 No.7116
>>7006
>The traditions came first long before the church even began to use scripture
Do you realize every citation of the Old Testament in the New Testament is use of scripture by the Church? What do you think scripture is?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
799a95 No.7256
>>7116
Yes, it's just that tradition first dictated what books of the Old Testament we used while books like Enoch were left out. The first three gospels weren't written until the final quarter of the first century, meaning that in order to cite them there was a preexisting tradition already in place.
Even among the various sects of Jews in the time of Christ each sect had distinctive traditions discerning what books were canon to themselves as there was no universal canon for the Judeans, and Christ would debate them based on that basis.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bbfa17 No.7257
>>7256
>tradition first dictated what books of the Old Testament we used
No, that's fallacious. Tradition doesn't dictate, it's a guideline. Even for the ancients.
Every book that was deemed Canon was done so on the basis of that book's merit, OT or NT
>Christ would debate them based on that basis.
Where?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3622e2 No.7258
>>7256
Man your ignorance is just astounding
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
