Kingdom Law verses Heavenly Grace

[DavidTree]

The post proves otherwise.

Then the OT is not nonexistent, as is claimed in the op.

Yep. You should try that sometime.

BEST lol of the day so far AND i never said it was "nonexistent"

The OT is NON Binding = it has been vacated by the LORD who gave it AND took it's penalties upon His Body on the Cross

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us.
And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. Admin

You better go see a Specialist on that.
If you cannot find one, i know of One who can help you.

 

[NetChaplain]

That is not an answer to the question asked. First of all, none of those verses is Jesus speaking. All three of them are from Paul's writings, not Jesus teaching.

Everything Paul teaches is the Lord Jesus' teachings (Act 9:6, 6). When Christ said, "it shall be told thee what thou must do" (v 6), it involved all the Scripture he wrote, along with what he said and did.

 

[NetChaplain]

Would you please show me where scripture necessarily infers the millennial kingdom is only for God-believing, Jesus-not-believing Jews of Israel?

It's directly inferred in many prophecies, esp. Jer 31;31-33; Eze 36:24-27. It speaks of the "house of Israel" in Eze 36:32. The entirety of Chapter 36 speaks of "the mountains of Israel," which is hyperbolic for "children of Israel."

Would you please provide a brief explanation why for why you prefer Dispensationalism as a means of parsing scripture over other alternatives?

Dispensational just means "a dispensing" or distributing.

 

[JoshebB]

BEST lol of the day so far AND i never said it was "nonexistent"

The OT is NON Binding = it has been vacated by the LORD who gave it AND took it's penalties upon His Body on the Cross

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us.
And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

i think you suffer from 'Techtonic Platelet Disease' for you are showing the symptons of it...............

You better go see a Specialist on that.
If you cannot find one, i know of One who can help you.

That's not an answer to the question asked.


I have asked the question three times. Three times I have received a response but none of the responses actually answer the question asked. I, therefore, will spend no more time with you on this question. I will, instead, ask you not to interfere further with @NetChaplain's effort to answer my questions. It's his op, he can speak for himself, and it's his answers in which I am interested.

 

[JoshebB]

Everything Paul teaches is the Lord Jesus' teachings (Act 9:6, 6). When Christ said, "it shall be told thee what thou must do" (v 6), it involved all the Scripture he wrote, along with what he said and did.

That is true but this op does not claim Paul taught three dispensations. This op claims Jesus taught that. I asked my question specifically based on what was stated in the op and I am seeking an answer that question based on that claim. My exacting question may not (yet) be valued but, if nothing else, it may aid in being more objective and exegetic with scripture and not teach things to others that can't or won't be proven succinctly with scripture. If you're actually a chaplain, then you understand yours is a heavier burden (Jms. 1:3). My questions are valid, op-relevant, and valid. I'm appreciative of the op's use of Gill (who was not dispensationalist), Barnes, and Benson but the truth is Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, was hard-core Dispensationalist. His book, "Dispensationalism," is, imo, the single best book on the subject (and I have read many), but he is not the measure of kingdom law or heavenly grace.

Let me, again, express my appreciation for the few questions that were answered, answered directly, immediately, and succinctly. On this occasion, however, Paul is not equal to Jesus; it was claimed Jesus taught the three were dispensations, and the question asked has not been answered because I did not ask about Paul. Think of me as an old Christian asking you questions as if I were exploring the option of sitting under your leadership, measuring your answers as posted against scripture as written.

You were at your best when you posted, "There's no direct Scripture word-for-word about the Millennial being only for Israel, but it is often inferred," because that's an actual answer to the question asked, it's factual and it's honest. Do more of that . At this point, I think it would be best if you just came right out and acknowledged the over-statement, and posted an amendment to the op, letting everyone know Jesus did not actually teach the Law, the new covenant, or the millennial kingdom were dispensations. I also think it would best serve the (unstated) purpose of the discussion of this "devotional" if the inherent and specifically Dispensationalist point of view (not one shared by most of Christendom) was acknowledged. But I'll leave that up to you.


Then we can discuss why it is believed Dispensationalism is what we should all be believing when discussing "Kingdom Law [versus] Heavenly Grace." Otherwise, give the question asked one more try:


Would you mind showing me where Jesus calls any of those a "dispensation"?

.

 

[DavidTree]

That's not an answer to the question asked.


I have asked the question three times. Three times I have received a response but none of the responses actually answer the question asked. I, therefore, will spend no more time with you on this question. I will, instead, ask you not to interfere further with @NetChaplain's effort to answer my questions. It's his op, he can speak for himself, and it's his answers in which I am interested.

(Edited) is worse then i originally thought for you cannot SEE the Simple Scriptural TRUTH that was written for children.

(Edit), and he is lost in Dispensational heresies to which he thinks is Bible Gold!!!
Climb to Higher Ground and it starts by humbling yourselves at the Feet of JESUS.

keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. Admin

 

[JoshebB]

It's directly inferred in many prophecies, esp. Jer 31;31-33; Eze 36:24-27. It speaks of the "house of Israel" in Eze 36:32. The entirety of Chapter 36 speaks of "the mountains of Israel," which is hyperbolic for "children of Israel."

No, it is not directly inferred.

Dispensational just means "a dispensing" or distributing.

No, it does not.


Would you like me to cite some of the founders of Dispensationalism defining a dispensation?

 

[JoshebB]

What do you see as the definition of "Israel" that scripture asserts?

The Jews who believe in God, but not the Lord Jesus.

Where does scripture assert that definition?

bump


Where does scripture define Israel as Jews that believe in God but not Jesus?

 

[NetChaplain]

That is true but this op does not claim Paul taught three dispensations.

it's ok, but I don't think we're understanding one another.

 

[JoshebB]

it's ok, but I don't think we're understanding one another.

Are you understanding the words I post? Is there some difficulty apprehending what's posted? If so then just ask and I will gladly clarify what I can for your understanding. Otherwise, keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. The op says Jesus taught the three are dispensations and you were asked to provide evidence for that statement..... from Jesus. We're two pages of posts into this conversation and that hasn't happened.

I will, therefore, mark that down as 1) a baseless claim that 2) comes accompanied with an inability or unwillingness to prove the claim.


How about one of the other still-outstanding inquiries? Where does scripture define Israel as Jews that believe in God but not Jesus?

.

 

[Mod2]

Worth Repeating.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/love-one-another-as-i-have-loved-you.908/

Every Christian form I've ever been on the members disrespect each other day in and day out. I call it walking in the flesh. Oh yes I've been guilty of being quite good at it. The Holy Spirit helped me realize how my behavior towards my brothers in Christ is going against what Jesus called me to do. I wasn't alone in that change of behavior my partner in this forum was going through the exact same thing. And that's how we came up with our goal and vision for this forum. We're going to keep working on our goals to provide A safe loving and caring place to share our faith. Part of that is not allowing posters to disrespect or call each other names. We expect our members to follow the rules that they agreed to when they joined BAM. All we're asking is be polite and follow the rules.

It is sad when Christians fall short of the standards of etiquette that the world has come to take for granted. As Christians, we need not feel out of place in terms of the natural graces that are expected between human beings because hopefully we have been taught to be courteous.

Paul says this: “Love has good manners. Love is courteous. Love is not rude.” Replay some of the recent tapes in your mind of your conversations with your wife, husband, or parents. How effectively you communicated the truth is not the issue. All of us can get our point across, but you can say all of the right things and say them in the wrong way. We need to examine ourselves before God. Is our love rude or is it courteous? And when we find out the answer, the good news is that God communicates this to us not so He can put us under a load of guilt and conviction, but so He can show us a better way! Courtesy is the better way. May God help us apply it to our hearts.

 

[NetChaplain]

bump


Where does scripture define Israel as Jews that believe in God but not Jesus?

"Ye believe in God, believe also in Me" (Jhn 14:1).

 

[civic]

Heb 7:18,19; 8:7; 10:9


The Father's covenant is with His Son (Heb 13: 20, 21), nowhere does it show a covenant with Christians; they are just recipients of the covenant.

When there is little direct Scripture concerning a doctrine, many commentators use the method of "inference," e.g. the Covenant of Redemption was inferred when the Lord Jesus said, "For this is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Mat 26:28).

I would suggest looking up the Covenant of Redemption.

Keep those devotions coming my friend