Why was it necessary for Christ to hide truth in a parable

Here is another "shocker"

Did Jesus Preach the Cross for Salvation?
YES, by his DEATH. as well as JOHN the BAPTIST. did you not HEAR?, John 5:38 "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:40 "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

what was the testimony of the OT prophets? the death, burial, and resurrection. did not the Lord himself spoke this? Matthew 12:39 "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:" Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

agent "J" what do you think the Lord Jesus was saying there? his death, his Burial, and his resurrection..... come on agent "J"... get with it.

101G.
 
Praise God @Complete-one question, if I may.

Are you for, or against Dispensational teachings?
'Philip saith unto Him,
Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the Father?'

(Joh 14:8)

Hello @Johann, :)

I appreciate the principle of 2 Timothy 2:15, which the dispensational teaching I have received advocates: but I cannot say that I am for, or against, ALL dispensational teaching; for I have found that there are differences in understanding expressed by dispensationalists here on the forum and elsewhere. But I study the Scriptures from a dispensational standpoint, yes.

I am an Acts 28 dispensationalist. Which some call hyper-dispensationalism.
https://www.bereanexpositor.church/about-bpt/

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
Last edited:
Acts 2:38 is Not the Preaching of the Cross
you cannot witness without the HOLY SPIRIT in You. for it is NOT you who speak, but God in you that Speak, the words are not yours. did you know that as an ambassador, one does not speak of him or herself, but speak the words of the Government they repersent..... J are U there ....... yet?

101G.
 
'Philip saith unto Him,
Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the Father?'

(Joh 14:8)

Hello @Johann, :)

I appreciate the principle of 2 Timothy 2:15, which the dispensational teaching I have received advocates: but I cannot say that I am for or against ALL dispensational teaching, for I have found that there are differences in understanding expressed by dispensationalists here on the forum and elsewhere. But I study the Scriptures from a dispensational standpoint, yes.

I am an Acts 28 dispensationalist. Which some call hyper-dispensationalism.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
The main tenants are the distinction between the 2 peoples of God- Israel and the church and the timeline with the end times regarding premillennialism. The order of events surrounding Christs 2nd Coming ( the nation of Israel )followed after His return with the Millennial kingdom where He rules and reigns from Jerusalem.
 
The main tenants are the distinction between the 2 peoples of God- Israel and the church and the timeline with the end times regarding premillennialism. The order of events surrounding Christs 2nd Coming ( the nation of Israel )followed after His return with the Millennial kingdom where He rules and reigns from Jerusalem.
Hello @civic,

A thread related to those subjects, individually, in the 'Dispensationalism' section of the form would be a good idea, don't you think? So that further clarification can be given.

Thank you
in Christ Jesus
Chris
 
I am an Acts 28 dispensationalist. Which some call hyper-dispensationalism.
(smile)....Acts 28:20 "For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain." Acts 28:21 "And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee." Acts 28:22 "But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against." Acts 28:23 "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." Acts 28:24 "And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not." Acts 28:25 "And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers," Acts 28:26 "Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:" Acts 28:27 "For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Acts 28:28 "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves." Acts 28:30 "And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him," Acts 28:31 "Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

101G.
 
It helps to define what it means since people misrepresent the doctrine.

Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.

There are at least two reasons why literalism is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate. Words are vessels of meaning. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. There is no non-literal fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If a literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me” instead of “the Bible says.” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called Bible study today.

Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the Church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the Church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (see Romans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).

Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.

Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the Church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.got?

hope this helps !!!
Yeah well-I disagree with Got Questions-it was @Grace ambassador who helped me make up my vacillating Lev.

Besides-I would hope we have discernment from the Holy Spirit to discern error from truth.
 
Yeah well-I disagree with Got Questions-it was @Grace ambassador who helped me make up my vacillating Lev.

Besides-I would hope we have discernment from the Holy Spirit to discern error from truth.
They are spot on with the meaning of dispensationalism.

What is your definition ?

And what did you disagree with?

I’ve been a dispensationalist for 45 years. I know the teaching very well.
 
1 Corinthians 12:4 "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:5 "And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord." 1 Corinthians 12:6 "And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all."

101G.
 
I appreciate the principle of 2 Timothy 2:15, which the dispensational teaching I have received advocates: but I cannot say that I am for, or against, ALL dispensational teaching; for I have found that there are differences in understanding expressed by dispensationalists here on the forum and elsewhere. But I study the Scriptures from a dispensational standpoint, yes.
I am in full agreement with you here.

I am an Acts 28 dispensationalist. Which some call hyper-dispensationalism.
https://www.bereanexpositor.church/about-bpt/
Is there a search feature on this site?


Much obliged.
Johann.
 
if any person reads the bible without a theological lens they would all be synergists. :)
Sure. Because they'd go by what's clearly implied. When the masses hear the message that they're commanded to repent that'd just assume God being sincere it must mean they can repent. Then comes Calvinism along and it's figuratively speaking like needing a shoe horn to somehow get it to fit on a rational mind. Even then it must feel awkward all the time.
 
You can if you believe Christ's words.
I do, and you can't. You would say believe His words, but deny His nature.
And if you don't try to justify the non rational idea of hiding truth from one who has no capacity to believe truth.
Just because you don't feel it means anything, that reflects on God how? Are you God's spokes person now? Does God need a reason or an excuse to get by you?
They would have been shut out of truth in the first place if Calvinist theology were true
Ah, so you don't believe God can act as He wants. Understood.
A blindfold is not needed on a dead man. Hiding truth from one who has no capacity to believe truth is not rational
So God isn't rational now? God can't do what He wants? You do realize that God sees far ahead in any situation, probably because He determined it. All things work out for good, to those who love him. I'm pretty sure you can point out a lot of horrible things that have happened to people who love God, however, if you look down the road, it really does work out for good. However, when you are short-sighted, you start calling everything that doesn't fit what you believe, not rational. Are you trying to say you understand God better than your fellow man? Have you read Job?
Sorry, you had clearly implied they could have believed had truth not been hidden.
No, you implied it from what I said. I am telling you that it doesn't matter whether or not the truth was hidden, except that God decided to present the situation to us in that manner. Why do you believe God would be afraid that someone He doesn't want to save, might hear and choose to be saved? You seek to thwart God as though He doesn't know what is going to happen at any time, before it happens?
Contrary to your doctrine of total inability.
That is Jesus doctrine of total inability. Some have said that a certain verse in scripture was mistranlated, due to the similarity in words in Aramaic. Does that change the original meaning of the verse...simply mistranslating it? No. So shouldn't you consider what it means if one uses the alternate meaning? Here it is, with the alternate rendering. It is easier to thread a rope through the eye of a needle, then for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The rope in question is the kind used in ancient times for boats and such. You know, about an inch or two in diameter, that holds the huge block and tackle on boats. Try putting that through the eye of a needle of that type that existed at the time. It isn't happening. Rope back then was made from camel hair, so the words are virtually identical. (I read that the words are the same, but I'm not sure anymore.) It is the original that was inspired, and the latter versions are copies. Carefully copied over, but still only copies. Yet if you talk to textual critics, the overall message presented by the Bible has not changed with copies. There are some places with errors, but they actually don't have any real impact on the Biblical context. The Bible has been miraculously preserved.

After Jesus said these words about the rich man, the disciples were astonished. Why? Because Jesus just said it is a little more difficult for that rich man to enter into heaven, or because He basically said it is impossible? His answer to that question tells us. "With man it is impossible..." FULL STOP. After this point, there is NOTHING about man anymore. What do we read next? "but with God, all things are/become possible" (depends on translation). Total inability without God, taught by Jesus Himself.
 
He chose to reveal deeper things to those who chose to have a hunger and thirst for righteousness. It would have been of no avail if he would have shared it to the masses they would need to have a spirit which would stand up and pursue with diligence and perseverance in order to produce a crop in their lives. More can be said.
Again, that isn't what Jesus said. And that denies John 6.
 
It wasn't granted to the others for they didn't show due diligence to want to hear Jesus out on the meanings.
Do you have any actual scriptural references on this? Preferably Jesus saying that this is true, and not that it wasn't grated to them because of them. What did Jesus say about the disciples after they answered His question "And who do you say that I am?" You will find what you need in His response.
 
I do, and you can't. You would say believe His words, but deny His nature.

Just because you don't feel it means anything, that reflects on God how? Are you God's spokes person now? Does God need a reason or an excuse to get by you?

Ah, so you don't believe God can act as He wants. Understood.

So God isn't rational now? God can't do what He wants? You do realize that God sees far ahead in any situation, probably because He determined it. All things work out for good, to those who love him. I'm pretty sure you can point out a lot of horrible things that have happened to people who love God, however, if you look down the road, it really does work out for good. However, when you are short-sighted, you start calling everything that doesn't fit what you believe, not rational. Are you trying to say you understand God better than your fellow man? Have you read Job?

No, you implied it from what I said. I am telling you that it doesn't matter whether or not the truth was hidden, except that God decided to present the situation to us in that manner. Why do you believe God would be afraid that someone He doesn't want to save, might hear and choose to be saved? You seek to thwart God as though He doesn't know what is going to happen at any time, before it happens?

That is Jesus doctrine of total inability. Some have said that a certain verse in scripture was mistranlated, due to the similarity in words in Aramaic. Does that change the original meaning of the verse...simply mistranslating it? No. So shouldn't you consider what it means if one uses the alternate meaning? Here it is, with the alternate rendering. It is easier to thread a rope through the eye of a needle, then for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The rope in question is the kind used in ancient times for boats and such. You know, about an inch or two in diameter, that holds the huge block and tackle on boats. Try putting that through the eye of a needle of that type that existed at the time. It isn't happening. Rope back then was made from camel hair, so the words are virtually identical. (I read that the words are the same, but I'm not sure anymore.) It is the original that was inspired, and the latter versions are copies. Carefully copied over, but still only copies. Yet if you talk to textual critics, the overall message presented by the Bible has not changed with copies. There are some places with errors, but they actually don't have any real impact on the Biblical context. The Bible has been miraculously preserved.

After Jesus said these words about the rich man, the disciples were astonished. Why? Because Jesus just said it is a little more difficult for that rich man to enter into heaven, or because He basically said it is impossible? His answer to that question tells us. "With man it is impossible..." FULL STOP. After this point, there is NOTHING about man anymore. What do we read next? "but with God, all things are/become possible" (depends on translation). Total inability without God, taught by Jesus Himself.
Would have been so more powerful if you inserted scriptures after every exclamation mark.
 
the HEALING and of any Sickness .... HERE .... is the result of Sin, spiritually. this term here, "HEALING", is not a Physical Healing, but a healing of a sin SICK soul. 1 Peter 2:21 "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" 1 Peter 2:22 "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:" 1 Peter 2:23 "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:" 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Peter 2:25 "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

yes, 101G boldly made the statement, and will continue to make it. for the term backsliding is nothing but apostasy. and being MARRIED to God, she, Israel, in apostasy, Committed adultery. now please tell 101G that adultery is ... NOT ... SIN. well your response.

now as for what you said, also,

that's a Physical Healing. do U know the difference?

101G.
Except that you are denying the context. You don't get to decide that something that is clearly dealing with physical healing is not, simply because there is a passage that uses completely different terms that doesn't. That isn't how it works. It isn't even related. We don't save people, that is heal them spiritually. That is God's turf. Some plant the see, some water, but it is God who gives the increase. It is by Jesus stripes that we are healed, not by His disciples.

"101G cannot agree with that, Matthew 10:7 "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:8 "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."

Jesus is speaking to the disciples to do something.

healing the sick is those sick/dead in sin. Hosea 14:4 "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.""

This is obviously God saying He will do it personally.

I know the difference between physical healing, which is what Jesus told the disciples to do, and the healing that Jesus brings in salvation. They are not the same thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom