| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2008 01:34:20 PM |
| Object: |
Dispensationalism and the 1,000 Year Reign |
I'll leave the name out, but this is a response
I sent to someone who responded to someone
else and rightly pointed out to them that there
is only one way to God and that it is not by
what we did, or didn't do, trying to earn our
way there, as the Jews and Muslims and many
others in the world believe we should.
And no, I'm not saying that Jews and Muslims
are the same. I'm saying that *this* *part* of
their beliefs are the same and that they also
line up with the belief of many people who are
not saved and even the Roman Catholics, who,
while they claim Jesus is their Savior, believe
that it is "faith + works" that saves.
But anyway, on with the post. :)
Are you saying that Hitler hasn't been sent
to a "very special place in Hell" for what he
did to God's Chosen?
Hitler is in Hell, what he "did" does not matter.
Boy, are you a WEIRD "Christian!"
Nope !
I know that salvation comes by just one method,
an unsaved person cannot get there, by "not"
doing outward sins.
I agree with you. I am not a Dispensationalist,
but this does fly in the face of what most Christians
believe, since most of them (at least in the U.S.)
are Dispensationalists.
You see, they believe that Jesus is going to come
and rule for 1,000 years and that during this time,
He will sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
Now why is that important in this discussion?
Simple! Because the temple only has one purpose
and that is to perform animal sacrifices. And that
means that Dispensationalists believe (and they
aren't shy about admitting it) that Jesus will oversee
(and be happy about) Jews performing these
animal sacrifices. Why is this such a bad thing?
Simple! :) Because it says that there's more than
one way to God and Jesus said He is the *ONLY*
way to God!
So the Dispy's (just abbreviating) have Jesus
overseeing animal sacrifices, which as we know,
only serve one purpose and that is to atone for
sins and they have Him happy about it!
Now the Dispy doctrine always falls flat on its face
and is a self-contradictory doctrine, as is Futurism
as a whole (no personal offense meant toward you).
Why do I say that? Well, let's look at it, because
there are three contradictions in this part of the
doctrine alone!
1) Performing animal sacrifices is a rejection of the
*ONE* time sacrifice of Christ, FOR ALL. And so,
basically, the Dispy's have the Jews that deny Christ,
going into a "rebuilt third temple" performing these
animal sacrifices with Him seated in this temple!
How does that work?! How is it that they would be
able to say that Jesus isn't the Messiah, when He is
right there, running the show?! That doesn't make
any sense whatsoever!!!
2) The temple is built by man and that flies in the
face of what the Bible says! The Bible says that
God does not dwell in temples made with hands
and says that those (including the Jews) who
think so, "resist the Holy Ghost":
"...the Most High does not dwell in temples made
with hands, as the prophet says: Heaven is My
throne, and earth is My footstool. What house
will you build for Me? says the Lord, or what is
the place of My rest? Has My hand not made all
these things? You stiff-necked and uncircumcised
in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit;
As your fathers did, so do you!" - Acts 7:48-51
Of course, as Stephen said, he was quoting
a prophet, who happened to be Isaiah:
"Thus says the LORD: Heaven is My throne,
and earth is My footstool. Where is the house
that you will build Me? And where is the place
of My rest? For all those things My hand has
made, and all those things exist, says the LORD."
- Isaiah 66:1
And of course, Paul quoted Isaiah as well, to some
pagan Gentiles, when he ran across that altar to
"the unknown god"...
"Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said,
Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very
religious; For as I was passing through and considering
the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with
this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore,
the One whom you worship without knowing, Him
I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and
everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth,
does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is
He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed
anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all
things." - Acts 17:22-25
So to even suggest that Christ (Whom we state is God)
would live in this temple, is to "resist the Holy Spirit"!
It lowers Him to the level of the creation, rather than
being the Creator, since the prophet said that He does
not dwell in temples made with hands and that it is
by Him that all things exist in the first place, so to
claim He would dwell in a man made temple, is to,
as I said, lower Him and it flat out contradicts what
the Bible says!
3) To claim that Christ will sit in a temple and oversee
animal sacrifices, is to say that even He does not believe
that His "one time sacrifice" was sufficient! Furthermore,
the Dispy doctrine has Him coming to Earth for this
supposed "1,000 year reign" and even though they
claim "free will", the Dispy's have Him enforcing peace
on Earth for 1,000 years, even though not everyone
is born again! And then, after this 1,000 years,
He says, "Psyche!", picks up and leaves and lets Satan
take over and rule the world! What kind of sick, twisted
"Savior" would do that?!
So this "Savior" goes against the Scriptures and then
forces people to be at peace and then gives everyone
a taste of peace on Earth and then says "Psyche!" and
leaves everyone to be at the mercy of Satan, having
been booted off of His throne by Satan after 1,000
years, which is the only way that God would leave
His throne?! Yea, that's a "Lord" worthy of worship,
huh? NOT!!!
As I said, the Dispy/Futurist doctrine is self-contradictory
at every turn and yet, when these things are pointed out
to the Dispy's, do they take the Scriptural correction?
NO!!! Rather, they change some details of their doctrine
on the fly, making it up as they go and then claim that
because I do not believe their doctrine, that I am not
of God and am antiChrist!
My point is, that Jesus is either the only way, or He
is not! And I know what the Dispy's THINK the Bible
says about this 1,000 year reign, but it does not say
what they think it does and to them, it's all about
Jesus redeeming some dirt, not people, since they
believe that's what happens and believe that Jesus
will be okay with animal sacrifices for sins, if the
folks are Jewish, which means that there are two
ways to God, not just one and these animal sacrifices
are plain and simple, an abomination to God, since
they are like slapping Jesus in the face and laughing
at Him on the cross!
Like I said, I agree with what you said and while
I won't say that you don't believe what you said,
how many Dispy's make the same claim and yet,
do not REALLY believe it? Hmmm...
--
"Love all, trust a few, harm none."
- William Shakespeare
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dispensationalism and the 1,000 Year Reign |
27 Jan 2008 02:30:47 PM |
|
|
1 Tim 3:2-3
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not
a lover of money. (NIV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient,
not a brawler, not covetous; (KJV)
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a
husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but
gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money, (YLT)
Titus 1:6-8
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must
be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to
drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must
be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled,
upright, holy and disciplined. (NIV)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children
not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the
steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no
striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a
lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; (KJV)
if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children
stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate -
for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not
self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not
given to filthy lucre; but a lover of strangers, a lover of good men,
sober-minded, righteous, kind, self-controlled, (YLT)
BISHOP
An overseer, elder, or pastor charged with the responsibility of
spiritual leadership in a local church in New Testament times. Before
the church was founded, the Greek word for bishop was used in a
general sense to refer to local gods as those who watched over people
or countries. The word was later applied to men, including those who
held positions as magistrates or other government offices. And
eventually the term was extended to refer to officials in religious
communities with various functions, including those who supervised the
revenues of pagan temples. The SEPTUAGINT (Greek translation of the
Old Testament) uses bishop to refer to those who exercise power;
sometimes it indicates those who hold positions of authority. It
represents a Hebrew term that refers to those who are overseers or
officers (Num 4:16; Neh 9:9).
In the New Testament, Jesus is called the "Overseer of your souls" (1
Peter 2:25). In this passage the word is associated with the term
shepherd. It is also used to identify the leader of a Christian
community or the one who filled the office of overseer. In Acts 20:28
the elders of the church at Ephesus summoned to meet Paul are
identified as overseers. Their responsibility, given by the Holy
Spirit, was "to shepherd the church of God." In Phil 1 bishops are
associated with deacons, and the qualifications are outlined in 1 Tim
3:2-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Included are standards for his personal and
home life, as well as the bishop's relationships with non-believers.
In Acts 20:17,28 and Titus 1:5,7, the terms bishop and elder are used
synonymously. Also the word bishop, or its related words, appears to
be synonymous with the word shepherd, or its equivalents (Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 2:25; 5:2). In his work, the bishop was to oversee the flock
of God, to shepherd his people, to protect them from enemies, and to
teach, exhort, and encourage. He was to accomplish this primarily by
being an example to his people. He was to do this willingly and with
an eager spirit, not by coercion or for financial gain. To desire a
position as bishop, the apostle Paul declared, was to desire a good
work (1 Tim 3:1). Also see ELDER.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
ELDER
A term used throughout the Bible but designating different ideas at
various times in biblical history. The word may refer to age,
experience, and authority, as well as specific leadership roles. In
ancient times authority was given to older people with wider
experience. These were often considered the most qualified to hold
places of leadership. The basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words
for elder is "old age." In the Old Testament those leaders associated
with Moses in governing the nation of Israel were called "the elders
of Israel" (Ex 3:16; 24:1), "the elders of the people" (Ex 19:7), or
the "seventy elders" (Ex 24:1). Moses called these elders together to
give them instructions for the observance of the Passover before the
Exodus from Egypt. Later, after the years of wandering in the
wilderness, bodies of elders ruled in each city. These elders were
viewed as the representatives of the nation and its people. The term
elder eventually came to be applied to those who governed in the local
communities, the rulers of the various tribes, and those who ruled all
of Israel. These leaders were responsible for legal, political and
military guidance and supervision. During the years of Israel's
captivity in Babylon and the following centuries, elders again
appeared as leaders who were responsible for governing in the Jewish
communities. These elders became the upper class, forming a type of
ruling aristocracy. Later in this period, a council of elders of 71
members, called the SANHEDRIN, emerged. This council had both
religious and political authority among all the Jewish people in
Palestine, particularly in New Testament times. The HIGH PRIEST was
the chairman of the Sanhedrin. Local Jewish synagogues, which emerged
in the period between the Old and New Testaments, were also governed
by a council of elders.
A governing structure similar to the ruling elders among the Jews was
followed in the early church. The title elder was continued, but the
significance of the office changed. Thus, the term elder is used in
the New Testament to refer to the Jewish elders of the synagogue, to
the members of the Sanhedrin, and to certain persons who held office
in the church. It also implied seniority by reason of age (1 Tim 5:2;
1 Peter 5:5). The presence of elders in the church in the New
Testament indicates that this office was taken over from the
synagogue. Elders were associated with James in Jerusalem in the local
church's government (Acts 11:30; 21:18) and, with the apostles, in the
decision of the early church council (Acts 15). Elders were also
appointed in the churches established during the apostle Paul's first
missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus
(Acts 20:17-35). Elders played an important role in church life
through their ministry to the sick (James 5:14,15). They were
apparently the teachers also in a local congregation. In addition to
ministering to the sick, their duties consisted of explaining the
Scriptures and teaching doctrine (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Peter 5:5).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
Let us consider the qualifications of a Christian Bishop, and then we
shall soon discover who is fit for the office.
1. This Christian Bishop must be blameless; anepileepton, a person
against whom no evil can be proved; one who is everywhere
invulnerable; for the word is a metaphor, taken from the case of an
expert and skillful pugilist, who so defends every part of his body
that it is impossible for his antagonist to give one hit. So this
Christian Bishop is one that has so conducted himself, as to put it
out of the reach of any person to prove that he is either unsound in a
single article of the Christian faith, or deficient in the fulfilment
of any duty incumbent on a Christian. He must be irreprehensible; for
how can he reprove that in others which they can reprove in him?
2. He must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but
he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a
time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die,
he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized
this, and say, that by one wife the church is intended! This silly
quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle's meaning appears to be
this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and
married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not
appear to have been any part of the apostle's design to prohibit
second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But
it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while
they neglect the weightier matters of the law.
3. He must be vigilant; neephaleon, from nee, not and pino, to drink.
Watchful; for as one who drinks is apt to sleep, so he who abstains
from it is more likely to keep awake, and attend to his work and
charge. A Bishop has to watch over the church, and watch for it; and
this will require all his care and circumspection. Instead of
neephaleon, many MSS. read neephalion, this may be the better
orthography, but makes no alteration in the sense.
4. He must be sober; soophrona, prudent, or, according to the
etymology of the word, from soos, sound (healthy), and phreen, mind, a
man of a sound mind; having a good understanding, and the complete
government of all his passions. A Bishop should be a man of learning,
of an extensive and well cultivated mind, dispassionate,
prudent, and sedate.
5. He must be of good behaviour; kosmion, orderly, decent, grave, and
correct in the whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The
preceding term, soophrona, refers to the mind; this latter, kosmion,
to the external manners. A clownish, rude, or boorish man should never
have the rule of the church of God; the sour, the sullen, and the
boisterous should never be invested with a dignity which they would
most infallibly disgrace.
6. He must be given to hospitality; philoxenon, literally, a lover of
strangers; one who is ready to receive into his house and relieve
every necessitous stranger. Hospitality, in those primitive times, was
a great and necessary virtue; then there were few inns, or places of
public entertainment; to those who were noted for benevolence the
necessitous stranger had recourse. A Christian Bishop, professing love
to God and all mankind, preaching a religion, one half of the morality
of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress and
destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the church
over which they presided must have furnished them with the means.
Such a Bishop as Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands
for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a
considerable difference between an Apostolical Bishop and an
Ecclesiastical Bishop: the one was generally itinerant, the other
comparatively local; the former had neither house nor home, the latter
had both; the Apostolical Bishop had charge of the church of Christ
universally, the Ecclesiastical Bishop of the churches in a particular
district. Such should be addicted to hospitality, or works of charity;
especially in these modern times, in which, besides the
spiritualities, they possess the temporalities, of the church.
7. He should be apt to teach; didaktikon, one capable of teaching; not
only wise himself, but ready to communicate his wisdom to others. One
whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of
the way. He must be a preacher; an able, zealous, fervent, and
assiduous preacher. He is no Bishop who has health and strength, and
yet seldom or never preaches; i.e. if he can preach-if he have the
necessary gifts for the office.
8. An eighth article in his character is, he must not be given to
wine; mee paroinon. This word not only signifies one who is
inordinately attached to wine, a winebibber or tippler, but also one
who is imperious, abusive, insolent, whether through wine or
otherwise. Kypke contends for this latter acceptation here. See his
proofs and examples.
9. He must be no striker; mee pleekteen, not quarrelsome; not ready to
strike a person who may displease him; no persecutor of those who may
differ from him; not prone, as one wittily said: To prove his doctrine
orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks? It is said of Bishop Bonner,
of infamous memory, that, when examining the poor Protestants whom he
termed "heretics", when worsted by them in argument he was used to
smite them with his fists, and sometimes scourge and whip them: But
though he was a most ignorant and consummate savage, yet from such a
scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of surrendering his
mitre.
10. He must not be greedy of filthy lucre; mee aischrokerdee, not
desirous of base gain; not using base and unjustifiable methods to
raise and increase his revenues; not trading or trafficking; for what
would be honourable in a secular character, would be base and
dishonourable in a bishop. Though such a trait should never appear in
the character of a Christian prelate, yet there is much reason to
suspect that the words above are not authentic; they are omitted by
ADFG, many others, the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic (and Sahidic),
AEthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac (but it appears in the margin), the
Vulgate and Itala, and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has
left it out of the text, in which it does not appear that it ever had
a legitimate place. The word covetous, which we have below, expresses
all the meaning of this; and it is not likely that the apostle would
insert in the same sentence two words of the same meaning, because
they were different in sound. It appears to have been borrowed from 1
Tim 3:8.
11. He must be patient; epieikee, meek, gentle; the opposite to
pleekteen, a quarrelsome person, which it immediately follows when the
spurious word aischrokerdee is removed. Where meekness and patience do
not reign, gravity cannot exist, and the love of God cannot dwell.
12. He must not be a brawler; amachon, not contentious or litigious,
but quiet and peaceable.
13. He must not be covetous; aphilarguron, not a lover of money; not
desiring the office for the sake of its emoluments. He who loves money
will stick at nothing in order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to
him alike, provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of
reputation he may wish to get all honourably; but if that cannot be,
he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother pagan gives him
this counsel: "Get money if thou canst by fair means; if not, get it
by hook and by crook."
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Titus 1:6-8
[If any be blameless] See the notes at 1 Tim 3:2, etc.
[Having faithful children] Whose family is converted to God. It would
have been absurd to employ a man to govern the church whose children
were not in subjection to himself; for it is an apostolic maxim, that
he who cannot rule his own house, cannot rule the church of God; 1 Tim
3:5.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy
lucre;
[Not self-willed] Mee authadee. Not one who is determined to have his
own way in everything; setting up his own judgment to that of all
others; expecting all to pay homage to his understanding. Such a
governor in the church of God can do little good, and may do much
mischief.
[Not soon angry] Mee orgilon. Not a choleric man; one who is
irritable; who is apt to be inflamed on every opposition; one who has
not proper command over his own temper.
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy,
temperate;
[A lover of hospitality] Philoxenon. A lover of strangers. See the
note at 1 Tim 3:2. Instead of philoxenon, one manuscript has
philoptoochon, a lover of the poor. That minister who neglects the
poor, but is frequent in his visits to the rich, knows little of his
Master's work, and has little of his Master's spirit.
[A lover of good men] Philagathon. A lover of goodness or of good
things in general.
[Sober] Prudent in all his conduct. Just in all his dealings. Holy in
his heart. Temperate-self-denying and abstemious, in his food and
raiment; not too nice on points of honour, nor magisterially rigid in
the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions. Qualifications rarely
found in spiritual governors.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Folks, take at look at the qualifications set out by God Himself and
take note of how many of them Dave Raymond violates. It is numerous
enough that he disqualifies himself from any leadership position in
any Christian church. According to God's standards as set out the
verses I cited above, Dave Raymond is not a legitimate "Pastor" nor
qualified to be a leader in any Christian church. Keep those passages
in mind each and every time Dave Raymond tries to claim to be a
"Pastor" while behaving in a ungodly and unholy manner.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
[Say, Dave, why don't you email Pastor Jim West
(Pastor@CovenantReformedChurch.org) and Dr. Kenneth Gentry
(KennethGentry@CompuServe.COM) and discuss Preterism with them so they
may explain in greater detail where you err? Or are you too cowardly
to do so?]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Dispensationalism and the 1,000 Year Reign
Dispensationalism and the 1,000 Year Reign
H.E. EICKLEBERRY - WHERE'S THE 1,000 YEAR REIGN ON EARTH???
1,000 Year Reign of Christ
PSALMSMITH: 1,000 YEAR REIGN
H.E. EICKLEBERRY - DID PAUL SAY 1,000 YEAR REIGN ON EARTH?
1,000 Year Reign of Christ
PSALMSMITH: 1,000 YEAR REIGN
| 1,000 Year Reign of Christ
1,000 Year Reign of Christ
1,000 Year Reign of Christ
Re: WE SHALL REIGN ON THE EARTH
1000 YEARS REIGN OF CHRIST
1000 YEAR REIGN OF CHRIST???
millennial reign of Christ When?
|
|
|
