A Remnant of Christians in Bethlehem

[Guest]

Why should'nt the scriptures be spiritualized? The Apostles did it and Jesus did it more then anyone, "My words are spirit and life."

I'm not saying that the scripture shouldn't be spiritualized. Brody said that he was criticized for spiritualizing. I was pointing out that those who level such a criticism often do their own fair share of it.

Perry

[Guest]

Brothers,
Here is an interesting article for your consideration with regard to Israel:

http://www.therefinersfire.org/replacement_theology.htm

Peace in Him
Bob

Hi Bob,

I browsed the link you gave, and it was nothing new. I used to argue that same way. I don't see how anyone who reads Gal 4 can remain a Dispensationalist in regards to Isreal.

[Guest]

Brody

Forgive me for being a "little slow at the switch". But was does Paul's letter to the Galatians have to do with what I posted about Israel's national future conversion to Jesus? Galatians is about Jewish-christians
imposing Mosaic law upon Gentile believers in order to be saved.
Care to elaborate? BTW, I am not defending dispensationalism, amil, postmil or any other "il" or "ism". I could care less about all the dogmatic
divisions.

Peace in Him,
Bob

[_Rick_C]

Hey Bob,

I haven't caught up with you on another thread but....

I scanned over the link you gave (and think I have seen it before). Anyway, have you heard Steve (Gregg's) lectures on Eschatology? You know Steve, right? (this site's owner).

Steve presents all views then tells his in his free lectures. Link: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/

I think you would like these:
"Introduction to Revelation", "Revelation 20" (excellent!), and "Romans 9"
(on the Verse by Verse Teaching page)....and....
"When Shall These Things Be?" and "What are We to Make of Israel?"
(Topical Lectures page).

You may not change your views but (and this is what I like about Steve's lectures) he gives all of the views, presents a case for his (if he has a final one) and leaves the rest up to you.

God bless,
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

I am in the process of listening to Steve's lectures about Israel. I would like to say to you though, I am not coming from a pre trib, pre mil eschatalogical view against which Steve makes most of his argument.
The judgement upon Israel in 70 a.d. IMO, wasn't the end of the story for them anymore than the total "futurist" interpretation the final word pre tribbers favor.
It seems to me that there is a real need for a balanced biblical view apart from the extreme views both sides tend to take. I am seeking that middle ground. The fact that Israel is back in the land to me is very significant.
There are Jewish believers in Jesus there. That is important as it relates to the promises of God to "faithful Israel", or the Remnant. There is an unbelieving majority in the Land as well. But God has often blessed the nation because of the faithful few.
It is my opinion that just because the judgement of God fell upon Israel that ended the Mosaic covenant as it was fufilled in Jesus, it does not necessarily follow God abrogated all the other promises made to Abraham. They all find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ to be sure. But let us at least agree, the means God will use to bring unbelieving Israel to repentance by the Gospel is His call. Amen?
For now,
Peace in Him.
Bob

[Guest]

The judgement upon Israel in 70 a.d. IMO, wasn't the end of the story for them anymore than the total "futurist" interpretation the final word pre tribbers favor.


I agree and i think in Rev it sounds like three judgments on Jerusalem so if this is true why would it all apply to 70AD or now?
Why not the historicist view applying the judgements to three different times in history?
70AD the first, maybe dome of the rock the second and the third may be now.

[Guest]

I've tried to find out what these (non-USA) Pentecostals believe but haven't found anything about it, really. I'm assuming they are all dispensationalist....

There is no uniformity of doctrine among Pentecostals.

There is one thing and one thing only which is in common among all Pentecostals, and that is the belief that a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" should follow the "conversion" experience.

There are Catholics, Protestants, Reformed, Baptists, Lutherans and Methodists who are Pentecostals.

There are Trinitarians, Binitarians, Unitarians, and Modalists, who are Pentecostals.

There are Pre-tribbers, Post-tribbers, and Mid-tribbers who are Pentecostals.

There are Premillenialists, Postmillenialists, and Amillenialists who are Pentecostals.

Pentecostalism seems to trancend all doctrinal positions.

[Guest]

Hey Steve,

Perhaps. I really don't know. But can you imagine what would happen if the Dome of the Rock were attacked by Israel? What used to bug me about the Hal Lindsey pre-trib camp is that they seem to have ignored
what happened in 70a.d. by making the Olivet Discorse entirely future.
The Amill group appears to go to the other extreme by making 70 a.d. the "end of the ball game" for Israel. What is very interesting to me is since 70 a.d., the Jews who have recieved Jesus over the last 1800 years and returned to Israel. I think the only thing that "ended" for Israel was the Mosaic Covenant. It seems there is no good reason to "spiritualize" the promises made to Abraham which included the land (in perpituity) and living in security. Who knows but God anyway?

Peace in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Lindsey pre-trib camp is that they seem to have ignored
what happened in 70a.d. by making the Olivet Discorse entirely future.
The Amill group appears to go to the other extreme by making 70 a.d. the "end of the ball game" for Israel. What is very interesting to me is since 70 a.d., the

Hi T, The group that believes everything happened in 70AD are called preterists. Amills like myself simply don't think there is a thousand yr millineum for several reasons.
But i think preterists are right about the first 8 chap in Rev and dispensationalists are kind of partly right on the end part , but it's the middle part they both messed up IMHO.

[_Rick_C]

Paidion, sorry so slow to reply....

There is no uniformity of doctrine among Pentecostals.

There is one thing and one thing only which is in common among all Pentecostals, and that is the belief that a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" should follow the "conversion" experience.

There are Catholics, Protestants, Reformed, Baptists, Lutherans and Methodists who are Pentecostals.

People in mainline (or more traditional) denominations who believe in speaking in tongues are "charismatics." They stay within their denominations and still believe in their other (non-Pentecostal) doctrines: They don't leave and become Pentecostals.

Afaik, all Pentecostal denominations are (uniformly) premillennial & dispensational. The Vineyard denomination came into existence during the "charismatic movement" and might be considered Pentecostal in an indirect sense. They probably identify themselves more with being from the charismatic movement than classical Pentecostalism. Also, Vineyard is Calvinistic and I know of no Pentecostal denomination that is: All Pentecostals are (uniformly) Arminian, afaik.....

There are Trinitarians, Binitarians, Unitarians, and Modalists, who are Pentecostals.

I've not heard of a binitarian Pentecostal denomination. Can you tell me one?

There are Pre-tribbers, Post-tribbers, and Mid-tribbers who are Pentecostals.

There are Premillenialists, Postmillenialists, and Amillenialists who are Pentecostals.

Pre-Mid-Post-tribbers are almost always dispensational, though some postmillennialists and amillennialists also believe there will be a future "great tribulation."

I don't know of any Pentecostal denominations that aren't premillennial (and have looked for a long time).

I've also never heard of a postmillennial or amillennial Pentecostal denomination. If you know of an Amill one, please let me know which one it is...I want to check them out (I had to leave an A/G Bible college and the A/G over this issue, becoming and amillennialist while at the college).....

Pentecostalism seems to trancend all doctrinal positions.

Pentecostals are, for the most part, "orthodox" (with exceptions like the "oneness" Apostolic denominations). They are all premillennial and dispensationalist...as far as I know.

At one time I would have "jumped" at the chance to go to an Amill Pentecostal denomination. These days I do not know if I still believe tongues is the "initial physical evidence" as (my former) A/G denomination does.

I'm thinking you must have an amillennial Pentecostal denomination up in Canada(?). I know of none down here or any place else.

Thanks,
Rick