# A little humor but in truth sad.



## hobbs27

Dispensationalists are always changing with the times. Hal Lindsey had us all dead in the 80's. This ridiculous charade needs to stop, its a black eye on Christianity.

http://babylonbee.com/news/dispensationalists-frantically-adjust-charts-include-brexit-vote/


----------



## hayseed_theology

hobbs27 said:


> Dispensationalists are always changing with the times. Hal Lindsey had us all dead in the 80's. This ridiculous charade needs to stop, its a black eye on Christianity.
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/dispensationalists-frantically-adjust-charts-include-brexit-vote/



Babylon Bee is on top of it as usual.


----------



## hobbs27

hayseed_theology said:


> Babylon Bee is on top of it as usual.



...We all need a break from hearing the gloom and doom sometimes. Satire is a great way to get it.


----------



## Jeffriesw

Every time I speak with a  Dispensationalists, it always leaves me scratching my head,


----------



## formula1

Oh brother!

All I can say is this, God doesn't fit in anyone's timeline.  He transcends it.  He Is!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger

What's a good non-dispensational explanation of Ephesians 2:11-22?


----------



## EverGreen1231

Jesus was a dispensationalist.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> What's a good non-dispensational explanation of Ephesians 2:11-22?



Dispensationalism Always separates Jew and Gentile. Paul shows them here as one.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Doesn't Paul say that now they are one but were once far away?

"separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world."

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Related to this once separation of the Jew and Gentile comes from Romans 11;

"because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."

"their loss means riches for the Gentiles"

"their rejection brought reconciliation to the world"

"Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."


----------



## hummerpoo

formula1 said:


> Oh brother!
> 
> All I can say is this, God doesn't fit in anyone's timeline.  He transcends it.  He Is!!!



Exactly!
Just one element of what He created.

He also created the plants outside my window.
When one brings forth a blossom it does not indication of a change in the Creator, that's the way He made it.
When the seeds produced fall to the ground, and next year one of the plants has no blossoms, some appear to be just like the one I saw this year, and, then, there is this one that blooms a different color.  That does not show that the plant was changed; it shows/reveals what was already there in last years plant, but not yet revealed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What's a good non-dispensational view of the overlapping of the two covenants? Like the time between the cross and 70AD, when people were under the Law as grace made it's transgression? Until 70AD when the New Covenant was fully manifest marking the beginning of a new era without Temple sacrifices.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What's a good non-dispensational view of the Two Kingdom Doctrine? 
Is there a distinction between the two ages? Now but not yet?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> What's a good non-dispensational view of the overlapping of the two covenants? Like the time between the cross and 70AD, when people were under the Law as grace made it's transgression? Until 70AD when the New Covenant was fully manifest marking the beginning of a new era without Temple sacrifices.



Jesus was the seed of Abraham. Jesus received the promised inheritence . The remnant of Jews and the Gentiles were coming together as one body through faith as co-heirs not by bloodline..by faith!
 What came out of it was one people..Jew and Greek, and whatever by faith..it will always be so.
 Dispensationalism calls for a future separation of the Jew and Greek.


----------



## Artfuldodger

In post 9&10, I'm seeking knowledge of a time when there was separation of the Jew and Greek, not the future.


----------



## hobbs27

Hebrews 8:13. As the one was dying the other was coming to be.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> In post 9&10, I'm seeking knowledge of a time when there was separation of the Jew and Greek, not the future.



While the Gentile did not have the Covenant with God as the Jew...they were not completely separated. Many became proselytized.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12 says differently;

remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Not only were they not a part of the covenant, they were without hope and without God.

In Romans 11 we see that the blinding of the Jews brought this:

"because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."

"their loss means riches for the Gentiles"

"their rejection brought reconciliation to the world"

"Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Doesn't Hebrews 8:13 show a dispensation? I think Preterist see dispensations past but not future.

Wasn't there a time where people were under both covenants? Isn't this a dispensation? Times old and new that were different than after 70AD?

Maybe after 70AD the dispensations ended as with election. Past changes but after 70AD all was fulfilled. No more changes, no more two kingdoms, no more now but not yet. 

No more Jew or Gentile. But before 70AD thing were different. Time periods existed.


----------



## hobbs27

I disagree with your totalitarian interpretation of that. I will explain later when I have more time.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Ephesians 2:12 says differently;
> 
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
> 
> Not only were they not a part of the covenant, they were without hope and without God.
> 
> In Romans 11 we see that the blinding of the Jews brought this:
> 
> "because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
> 
> "their loss means riches for the Gentiles"
> 
> "their rejection brought reconciliation to the world"
> 
> "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."




 We see Paul pointing out the Gentile disadvantages here in Ephesians. Remember Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, yet they were becoming one with the remnant while the remnants' people had great advantages. Rom. 9:1-5 for the eternally blessed God ..Jesus Christ came in the flesh and ministered to them.

 Yet some in Jerusalem were gentile proselytes, not treated as a Jew but they were there...None of that mattered though as they thought it did. The inherited promise to Abraham was going to His seed Jesus Christ and to His co-heirs....The remnant and gentiles  one people joined by faith.

It's not a timing issue as dispensationalists make it out to be. It's a legal issue. It's about covenants. That's one of the many places we differentiate from dispensationalists. We are in the everlasting covenant..and we live in the world without end.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> We see Paul pointing out the Gentile disadvantages here in Ephesians. Remember Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, yet they were becoming one with the remnant while the remnants' people had great advantages. Rom. 9:1-5 for the eternally blessed God ..Jesus Christ came in the flesh and ministered to them.
> 
> Yet some in Jerusalem were gentile proselytes, not treated as a Jew but they were there...None of that mattered though as they thought it did. The inherited promise to Abraham was going to His seed Jesus Christ and to His co-heirs....The remnant and gentiles  one people joined by faith.
> 
> It's not a timing issue as dispensationalists make it out to be. It's a legal issue. It's about covenants. That's one of the many places we differentiate from dispensationalists. We are in the everlasting covenant..and we live in the world without end.



Hobbs, which group did Rahab belong to? The lost sheep of the house of Israel or the remnant?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Hobbs, which group did Rahab belong to? The lost sheep of the house of Israel or the remnant?



Neither.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Neither.



But don't you believe Jesus came for her also?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> But don't you believe Jesus came for her also?



Sure.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Sure.



Uhh?
Let me see if Ive got this straight.
First you said "Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Then you said Rahab was not one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

But yet you say Jesus did come for her.

What am I missing?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Uhh?
> Let me see if Ive got this straight.
> First you said "Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
> Then you said Rahab was not one of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
> 
> But yet you say Jesus did come for her.
> 
> What am I missing?



Sorry .. I read your last post too quickly and thought you asked if Jesus came from her , I didn't notice for her.

 She was dead and gone when Jesus came...you do know that..dont you?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Sorry .. I read your last post too quickly and thought you asked if Jesus came from her , I didn't notice for her.
> 
> She was dead and gone when Jesus came...you do know that..dont you?



Lol.
Whether she was already dead is irrelevant.She still needed Jesus to come FOR her.(to die for her sins).Agree?

But you said Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel,of which you say she was not part of.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Lol.
> Whether she was already dead is irrelevant.She still needed Jesus to come FOR her.(to die for her sins).Agree?
> 
> But you said Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel,of which you say she was not part of.



I'm just repeating what Jesus Himself said in Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

This is concerning His earthly ministry.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I'm just repeating what Jesus Himself said in Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
> 
> This is concerning His earthly ministry.



Jesus' earthly ministry was to the lost sheep of spiritual Israel.(not to be confused with the nation of Israel.)
Rahab and this woman of Canaan were part of spiritual Israel,and so are you and me,I trust.The proof was their faith.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Jesus' earthly ministry was to the lost sheep of spiritual Israel.(not to be confused with the nation of Israel.)
> Rahab and this woman of Canaan were part of spiritual Israel,and so are you and me,I trust.The proof was their faith.




No. It was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That was physical Israel. He never went outside of her and He only preached to the Jew's. That was His earthly ministry.. Read more of Matt. 15. Good Night.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> No. It was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That was physical Israel. He never went outside of her and He only preached to the Jew's. That was His earthly ministry.. Read more of Matt. 15. Good Night.



Then that would be a dispensation. As you know Reformist believe everything has been the same as it's always been. 
Reformist are the true non-dispensationalists.

Israel has always been the Church.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Then that would be a dispensation. As you know Reformist believe everything has been the same as it's always been.
> Reformist are the true non-dispensationalists.
> 
> Israel has always been the Church.



Two things.
1. Explain R.C. Sprouls preterism, and why so many reformist are becoming preterist.

2. I don't believe the church has replaced Israel. Israel is the church because the church was Israel. There was a remnant that come out of Israel as always God found a remnant. That remnant was Israel....but a new covenant was made, and salvation came to all Israel, just as promised.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Two things.
> 1. Explain R.C. Sprouls preterism, and why so many reformist are becoming preterist.
> 
> 2. I don't believe the church has replaced Israel. Israel is the church because the church was Israel. There was a remnant that come out of Israel as always God found a remnant. That remnant was Israel....but a new covenant was made, and salvation came to all Israel, just as promised.



You're missing it.
A remnant came out of the NATION of Israel.(not all)
Salvation came to all SPIRITUAL Israel.(which includes some gentiles too)


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> You're missing it.
> A remnant came out of the NATION of Israel.(not all)
> Salvation came to all SPIRITUAL Israel.(which includes some gentiles too)



That is exactly what I've been saying.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> That is exactly what I've been saying.



Well,you may be saying it in one breath,but then in another you quote "Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and interpret it as the physical nation(post 31).That's wrong.

"I must needs go through Samaria"


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Well,you may be saying it in one breath,but then in another you quote "Jesus only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and try to interpret it as the physical nation.That's wrong.
> 
> "I must needs go through Samaria"




It's not wrong. Read it in its context. A gentile woman begged for Jesus and His disciples for help with her daughter. Jesus at first refused because He did not come for her people..( physical) sense.
 When she showed her faith, He healed her daughter, because it is faith that made her an Israelite in the ( Spiritual) sense.

Jesus came to the house of Israel in a physical sense.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> It's not wrong. Read it in its context. A gentile woman begged for Jesus and His disciples for help with her daughter. Jesus at first refused because He did not come for her people..( physical) sense.
> When she showed her faith, He healed her daughter, because it is faith that made her an Israelite in the ( Spiritual) sense.
> 
> Jesus came to the house of Israel in a physical sense.



I know what the context is.It is worded in such a way that one(like yourself)will be thrown off track and think Jesus only came for the nation of Israel(physical).

Jesus said it to prove(show) her faith,but He also showed that He came for her ALSO.(she was of Canaan)

Maybe I don't have the comunication skills to say what Im trying to say clear enough.Maybe someone else that sees what Im saying could tell it more clearly.


----------



## Artfuldodger

In the eyes of the Reformist any mention of Israel in the Old Testament is Spiritual Israel. That was always God's original plan. It never was about physical Israel. 
The descendants of Abraham have always been Spiritual Israel. 
There are no "times" of anything. God's plan is always on schedule. 
God didn't change his plan from physical Israel to spiritual Israel because of their rejection in Romans 11. The Gentile was never without God as mentioned in Ephesians. 

There never was an overlapping of the covenants. God never changes. He doesn't have a plan A that changes to plan B when plan A fails.

Yesterday, today, forever is the same. The death of Jesus didn't "change" anything. It's just an event that happened in time but the grace of the event is beyond time.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I can kinda see it through Welderguy's eye's. The disciples are trying to get Jesus to send her away. Jesus say's "I have come only for the lost sheep if Israel." Then Jesus grants her request.
So in a hidden way he is showing who the lost sheep of spiritual Israel really are. Who he really came for in the first place.

Maybe? Reformist?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> I know what the context is.It is worded in such a way that one(like yourself)will be thrown off track and think Jesus only came for the nation of Israel(physical).
> 
> Jesus said it to prove(show) her faith,but He also showed that He came for her ALSO.(she was of Canaan)
> 
> Maybe I don't have the comunication skills to say what Im trying to say clear enough.Maybe someone else that sees what Im saying could tell it more clearly.



Welder, I understand what you're saying. Jesus could have preached to the Gentile. He could have gone to Rome, but His earthly mission, the reason He was sent, was to save the lost sheep of Israel. He secured a remnant gave them the warning signs of the coming wrath so they could flee. 

His earthly mission to secure a remnant also brought in the Gentile by faith, but not until after His earthly mission was accomplished. He used Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore the only true Jew, was a Jew inwardly, not by bloodline, by faith.

His spiritual Kingdom came for the whole world, because of what He accomplished in physical Israel.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I can kinda see it through Welderguy's eye's. The disciples are trying to get Jesus to send her away. Jesus say's "I have come only for the lost sheep if Israel." Then Jesus grants her request.
> So in a hidden way he is showing who the lost sheep of spiritual Israel really are. Who he really came for in the first place.
> 
> Maybe? Reformist?



And here in Matt. 10? 

5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand


----------



## Artfuldodger

Hobbs, I know you were looking at the modern day meaning of a future dispensationalist but if Jesus came only to reach the physical lost sheep of Israel, isn't that a dispensation? 
Then Paul came later to reach the Gentiles, another dispensation.

Weren't the Jews once under the Old covenant, another dispensation. Then the time of the overlapping covenants, another dispensation. 
Then the age of grace after 70AD when Paul was sent to reach the Gentiles, another dispensation. Now before this time the Gentiles were without God and without hope as explained in Ephesians and Romans 11. During the beginning of this dispensation, through Israel's  transgression, salvation came to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.
Their rejection brought reconciliation to the world.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Wasn't something different before and after this hardening? An event in time with a different effect before than after?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Hobbs, I know you were looking at the modern day meaning of a future dispensationalist but if Jesus came only to reach the physical lost sheep of Israel, isn't that a dispensation?
> Then Paul came later to reach the Gentiles, another dispensation.
> 
> Weren't the Jews once under the Old covenant, another dispensation. Then the time of the overlapping covenants, another dispensation.
> Then the age of grace after 70AD when Paul was sent to reach the Gentiles, another dispensation. Now before this time the Gentiles were without God and without hope as explained in Ephesians and Romans 11. During the beginning of this dispensation, through Israel's  transgression, salvation came to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.
> Their rejection brought reconciliation to the world.



Jesus coming to save the lost sheep of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. Ezekiel 34:23-24; Micah 5:4-5.

 You keep trying to make preterism fit into dispensationalism, it won't work. You can't drive that square peg into a round hole.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Luke 21:20-24
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

We see in the passage above an event in time. What did this event change? Were things different before the event than after?

Was this event about physical Israel or spiritual Israel?


----------



## Artfuldodger

My point is preterism saw dispensations until 70AD. Then none after 70AD. Before all was fulfilled preterism had a round peg that did fit the dispensation round hole. Maybe dispensation is the wrong word of describing how there were different events in time that changed things. What happened to the dispensation which included gifts of the Holy Spirit?

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> My point is preterism saw dispensations until 70AD. Then none after 70AD. Before all was fulfilled preterism had a round peg that did fit the dispensation round hole. Maybe dispensation is the wrong word of describing how there were different events in time that changed things.
> 
> “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."



What we see is Covenants.


----------



## Artfuldodger

OK, so explaining the biblical timeline by using covenants is somehow different than using dispensations. 
Still there are events such as the Pentecost where things were different before and after the event, correct?

Israel as mentioned in some covenants is different than Israel mentioned in other covenants, correct? In some covenants it is physical and in others it is spiritual.

God's kingdom in some covenants is physical and in other covenants it's spiritual, correct?


----------



## hobbs27

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.


----------

