The Error Of Dispensationalism

[truemessianic]

I finished this teaching last night, and wanted to post it here for all to read. I told Bro. Blume I was working on this teaching, and this is it.

The Error of Dispensationalism
By: Bill Price

“We are living in the Church Age, and as such, we should be prepared for the coming time in which the Church will be taken out of this world, and Israel will be restored.” This is one of the most famous cry from a dispensational pulpit. These men have taken the scriptures completely out of text, and frankly made Jesus to be a liar. How do they perform such and act? By simply stating that God changes from age to age, and then changes the beliefs of the age. This is indeed a dangerous heresy to battle, and its name is dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is the belief that God has established ages, and He has changed throughout these ages. Now, a dispensationalist will by any means disagree with this statement, but as you will see, it is indeed true to the core. Dispensationalism has divided time up into seven separate ages, and has made God to change His perspective during each age. The ages are:
1. Creation to fall Innocence
2. Fall to flood Conscience
3. Flood to Abraham Human Government
4. Abraham to Moses Promise
5. Moses to Christ Law
6. Church Age Grace
7. Millennium Kingdom
Now, each age has a different meaning to it, and in each age, God has a different perspective. For example, in innocence, God was a caregiver, while in promise He is both a judge and a rewarder. Now, God is all of these, but has not limited Himself to changing as ages change, as a dispensationalist would state. In Malachi 3:6, we read, “For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” God, in His own words, does not change. However, there is much more about dispensationalism that is indeed in error.
Dispensationalism believes that God has two bodies and two brides. Nowhere and I do mean nowhere, do we find God being a polygamist. God has but one bride. Revelation 21:2 says, “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” There is only one bride, and that is the Church. We are the bride, singular. God does not have two wives, He has one. That bride is the Church. Israel rejected God, and chose to go and play the harlot with the Kings of this world instead.
Here is another thing dispensationalists believe that is totally against Bible. They believe that God’s promises to physical Israel were unconditional. Let’s look at Deuteronomy 28:1-2, “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe [and] to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.” Looks to me as if God was saying the promises were indeed conditional, based upon the fact that He would only bless them if they would hearken and diligently do the will of the Lord. So, were God’s promises on Israel unconditional? The scriptures speak for themselves. All of the promises to physical Israel were invalidated through complete disobedience and total unbelief in Jesus Christ being Messiah and God.
Dispensationalism believe that true Israel and the Church are separate entities. They believe we are not one and the same. However Romans 2:28-29 says, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God." Seems to me, according to the Bible, that the Church is indeed the real Israel of God. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul goes as far as using that terminology in Galatians 6:16. So, we know the Church is indeed the Israel of God, and true Israel and the true Church are indeed one and the same.
Dispensationalism believes that Christ’s institution of the Church was simply an in-between time before He restores Law and physical Israel. Oh my, this one is indeed rich, because the Bible says in 2 Peter 1:11, "For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." His Kingdom, the Church, is not an in-between, but is indeed the everlasting Kingdom. It is not a stopover in God’s plan, but is the fulfillment of God’s plan.
Dispensationalists believe that Christ’s coming the first time was not to save our souls through His death, but was to establish a millennial kingdom in physical Israel. I think on this one, we need to hear from Jesus Himself. Luke 19:10 says, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." The reason came was not to establish some earthly kingdom, but to institute the Kingdom of God on the earth in the lives of those He came to seek and to save. Dispensationalists almost make the reason Christ’s death had to be as a side reason, and not the main one.
Dispensationalists believe that God just postponed His plans with physical Israel until the Second Advent. Now, I have to say this. No where in the New Testament does the Bible say that Jesus will come to make physical Israel His bride, and become a man with two wives. No where does the Bible say one day Jesus will reject us for natural Israel. Jesus wants all to be born again, for that is the only way into the Kingdom. Paul said Romans 10:1-4, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." The only way for Israel to be part of Christ’s Kingdom is Acts 2:38. God will not have two wives, and God will not allow physical Israel to be part of His Kingdom until they become true Israel, spiritual Israel.
Dispensationalists believe that Christ only established a Gentile Church, and not a real church of all who would come to the Cross for salvation. Look at this verse in Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." The Church is both of physical Jews and physical gentiles, both have become true Jews. It is not of one race, but all races, all becoming true Jews.
Dispensationalists believe in physical Israel being God’s people, and not the Church. We, the Church, are called His body, His Church, and His people. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says, "But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." Enough said though the Word. We are the people of God, and not the physical Israel.
Dispensationalism believes Israel is to remain on earth forever. The old worship system, the Law, was destroyed on the Cross in 33A.D., and was put to a literal death in 70A.D. with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Ezekiel 37:26-28 says, "Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore." But, when we look into the New Testament, we read in 1 Corinthians 3:16, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Israel in the physical is not the everlasting Kingdom, the Church is. The only way for an Israeli to be part of the everlasting Kingdom is to obey Acts 2:38. There is no other way.
Dispensationalism believes in a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church. Two points here. First, there is no coming “Great Tribulation” for those prophecies concerned God’s coming judgment on unbelieving Israel. Second, and more importantly, no where does the Bible describe a rapture prior to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70A.D. That is when the “Great Tribulation” ended. This one belief in and of itself is indeed in extreme error.
Dispensationalism believes that a new period or dispensation begins when God introduces a change in the principles or ordinances valid up to that time. For example a number of ordinances are introduced at the time of Noah. At the coming of Christ many of the Mosaic Laws or ordinances are annulled. The purpose of God in each dispensation is his own glory. God’s rules do not change. his Word is established forever more. The Mosaic Laws were given under Law. law has been abolished. However, the essence of the Law, the truth of what it meant, is still in place. God did not change the rules, He fulfilled them. Matthew 5:17 says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
There are so many more errors in the dispensational theology. It is clear this is not true Apostolic doctrine, and as such, should be done away with.

[Kerux]

I have a few comments for you William, but rather then be torn apart by the "more knowledged" people I'll tell you in the chat room next time I see you :)

I will quote one thing you said and congradulate you
"That is when the “Great Tribulation” ended. This one belief in and of itself is indeed in extreme error." That is so true, the beleif that 70 a.d has anyhting to due with th e"great tribulation" is an error in itself. (Yes I took you out of context there, but the words there are true, as written.

I might sound Like an arrogant jerk, with the way I have replied, but I am just stating my opinion, as boldy as you all do yours.

In Christ,
†rey

[Kerux]

Oh yeah, William, you might want to make the paragraphs seperated a littl emore, it makes it easier for us folk with dyslexia to read if its not cluddered ;)

[truemessianic]

?daer to reisaE
.aixelsyd evah ton od uoY
(Sorry, couldn't help it!)

[Kerux]

It doesnt always mean reading things backwards :)

[mfblume]

Kerux,

Tell me what worse crime can there be in our future that would warrant tribulation such as never was nor will be, other than the then-present Bride of Christ (Jerusalem - see Ezekiel 16) crucifying the Lord of Glor, her groom, and calling for Caesar to be her king instead?

Answer that and THEN we can agree that Jerusalem's devastation in 70 AD was not the great tribulation.

Also, answer why the total reason for JUDAEANS alone to flee to the mountains was the great tribulation, if the great tribulation is world wide.

It gets hot in the kitchen, so be ready for the heat if you dare step inside occasionally! :)

By the way, I really like your web design. Make it yourself?

[Sandy]

Bro. bill,

That was an excellent piece of work you wrote there. I am not a dispensationalist, but like most, was taught to be in the beginning. And while reading what you wrote, realized the absuridity of believing such stuff. But also realized that there may be beliefs that I am still clinging to that need to be tossed out yet, if you know what I mean.

So thanks for sharing it with us here.

I don't know if you are correct about what you believe concerning 70AD. But I do know that those that believe in the dispensationalism theories are not correct at all. The Lord revealed to me some years ago that Israel inhabitants are the spiritual Jew anymore, and not the physical one. He also told me that everyone that was His bride or elect would have to come the same way. And that is by everyone marrying the bridegroom, then beginning to reside in His house, as well as having that marriage consumated. Which is the purpose for what is written in Acts 2:38 to begin with. And it isn't going to be via building some temple in Jerusalem or sacrificing any animals. To believe that stuff is to believe the Lord has a different way for some than others. But these beliefs cause many to believe just that.

Therefore you get a great big :tup: from me.

[Kerux]

Originally posted by mfblume

It gets hot in the kitchen, so be ready for the heat if you dare step inside occasionally! :)

By the way, I really like your web design. Make it yourself?
Yes, I bet it is hot there...i've seen the way people react here over the last couple of years, Yeah it will be quite hot.

Website: it was a template, but when you add in anythign over one paragraph it would messup, I kept the images from the template then rewrote the code in notepad (WYSIWYGs are for newbies LoL), so half and half, the design was someone else's idea, but I improved it to a wroking order.

[apforthelord]

Pastor Mike, now, i have been reading you posts for a while and you know that. And i have to say that what you have to say is compeling. But i think that Kerux may be a little out of your range of study so if you could, please explain your self and what you think about what you live before ROCKING THE CRADLE.

THanks, Your Friend

Bro Rusty:cool:

[apforthelord]

Oh yhea i will read and study this Bro mike and truemessianic
and i will get back to u all but untill then pray for me!!


Thanks for the challenge!!

[Oldpreach]

Guess im a heretic ! Well , i feel when the post goes on and one about what dispens believe , it says things that they really dont believe , such as :

"Dispensationalists believe that Christ only established a Gentile Church, "

Say what? Never heard of that one.

And:

"Dispensationalism believes Israel is to remain on earth forever."

Again , where did you get that idea from?

And flaberghastingly , if i spelled that right :

"Dispensationalism believes that Christ’s institution of the Church was simply an in-between time before He restores Law and physical Israel."

Really , you must tell us of the Apostolics that believe this....by name plez , for i for the life of me have never ever heard anyone in the truth say such things.

And , last , but by NO MEANS least :

"Dispensationalists believe that Christ’s coming the first time was not to save our souls through His death, but was to establish a millennial kingdom in physical Israel."

Ok , can you plez Plez tell me where you got that from ?

Are there really Apostolics that believe any of the above ? I know many that teach Dispens , but never have i heard any of that included.

[apforthelord]

Nice boost oldpreach//

[Kerux]

Oldpreach, sometimes I think they add to things just to make it sound more ridiculous.

[apostle]

Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon THIS GENERATION.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mar 13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, [even] at the doors.
Mar 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

WOW! what generation is this?
Also what about?

Dan 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told [is] true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it [shall be] for MANY DAYS.

Dan 10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision [is] for [MANY] DAYS.

In Daniel the words many days are used.

Luk 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh AT HAND.
Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

1Pe 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with [them] to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of [you]:
1Pe 4:5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
1Pe 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] AT HAND.

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is AT HAND.

Now Jesus said AT HAND and so did Peter, and John.

So the AT HAND is speaking of the Jerusalem, and so is the words MANY DAYS spoken by Daniel.

So what is the differance of the words MANY DAYS and AT HAND?
OR SHORTLY COME TO PASS?

In Jesus name

[truemessianic]

I got my information on dispensationalism from one of the best sources on the subject, a dispensationalist himself. I cannot post the URL here for the site I received the information from, because it is a trinitarian site. But, if you would like, you can e-mail me, and I will give you the URL for you to see my research is indeed true.

[Oldpreach]

Oh , Brother William , I wasnt saying that your research isnt true , i was just saying that i dont know of any Apostolics that believe in dispensations holding to the qoutes that i noted from your post. Im somewhat sure that most Apostolics hold to some form of dispensationalism , tho it may be limited or quite different from what you posted. Ok , perhaps i can find the time to e-mail you and look into this further. Do you know of any Apostolics that hold to any of the things that i pulled from your post?

[truemessianic]

What is a shame is the fact that I do know some who do hold to those aspects of which I spoke. As a matter of fact, there will be a symposium on this subject this week in St. Louis.
This post describes the most widely held dispensational views, as well as classic ones.

[BroDane]

Believe Jesus!

[apforthelord]

Bro Dale:


Is that some kind of professinal photo?? I like the angle! whos work?

[mfblume]

Oldpreach, Truemessianic is correct!

Maybe the reason you are perplexed over this is because you believe a watered-down version of dispensationalism. But raw dispensationalism does indeed propose what True said.

True disp. teaches that the kingdom was intedned to come to Israel when Christ came, and has since been postponed because Israel rejected Him. And it will come again to them in the millennium. Raw disp also teaches that God will honour animal sacrifice again. SOME Apostolics believe that, but I found that most believe a watered-down version, where Israel may offer blood again, but God will not honour it. Maybe it should be called "Partial Dispensationalism".

Check it out.

Kerux,

I understand that you may be be involved in these issues as much and therefore cannot contend against what I propose, for example. However, if you're going to make pot-shots about it, such as that which you just made again, then please be able to deal with the issue. If you cannot deal with it, then why makes these accusations? Watching you make potshots and then noting that you are not be able to discuss the details makes you appear like someone who simply refuses to believe partial preterism without even understanding any side whatsoever, and not a "Berean" at all. It appears like you are just ganging up with what is popular against what is not puopular, and you do not even know why you believe what you believe at all. (Just some friendly advice, bro!)

Apforthelord,

Thanks for choosing to at least consider it openly. I find so many who simply are not honest with themselves, and only seek to find what is error, without actually and honestly considering that the issue may be true. You know the style... thinking of something to shoot down, while the other is trying to get you to actually listen and consider his point.

Also, concerning Kerux, I think that if he honestly peruses my proposition about the great tribulation, and the comparative words of Luke 21 and Matthew 24, he has enough of a head on his shoulders to think for himself about this. Perhaps he is simply not aware of what he thinks he SHOULD believe, as per tradition, rather than coming at it from the standpoint that he needs to think for himself about. And I do not say that to belittlement him or anybody.

I was attacking this doctrine I now propose, myself, at one time. Like Dale, I was not as opened as I should have been, but later seriously checked it out, and saw its truth.

But if we can encourage the younger brethren to really think for themselves, and prove all traditions out, instead of simply defending them for the sake of simply having been taught them and nothing else, then we'd have a generation who are truly Berean!

Kerux, you can think for yourself, if you dare. I honestly think you are simply fearful that you do not know dispensationalism enough to fight partial preterism. And that is a TOTALLY dishonest and unfair standpoint from which to deal with this.

THINK ABOUT IT. Too many check their brains in at the coatroom when they come into church. Come, let us REASON togather.

[mfblume]

Wow, Dale. Your words are ultra-kind. :)

Did we personally discuss these issues? And if so, how did I know you then?

Thanks be to God for leading into all truth.

[apforthelord]

i Agree with what you say Pastor Mike that is why i try to pray and read my Bible to find the truth. And honestly i do Support
DESPEN like you know becaus ethat is what is in the doctrine of my church. But as i grow older i try to find out Everyones Opinions (with scripture back up only of course)
I wish to find doctrine for myself because Really NOONE WILL BE ABLE TO RIDE INTO HEAVEN ON THE NEXT MAN'S MINISRY you must find salvation and the word for your self. Like the Bible says seek your own souls' salvation

Luke said in Luke 2:30 For MINE eyes have seen THY salvation.
I want to become a man of God from my Ministry. I guess what i am tring to say is i want to be a preacher developed from my searching and my prayers and my deication to God from the fasting and the Faith that God will grow me strong.

The UPCI wants no part of lousy preachers but someone who is in love with God that can find his own way of saving souls, using the word that God gave us through, Revalation and walking in the Spirit.....

Thank God for my Pastor!!!

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume, you asked this question:

"Tell me what worse crime can there be in our future that would warrant tribulation such as never was nor will be, other than the then-present Bride of Christ (Jerusalem - see Ezekiel 16) crucifying the Lord of Glor, her groom, and calling for Caesar to be her king instead?"

My answer:

He that has sinned against the greater light. Therefore, a greater tribulation.

Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully AFTER THAT we have received the knowledge of the truth, THERE REMAINETH NO MORE SACFRICE FOR SINS,

Hbr 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Hbr 10:29 OF HOW MUCH SORER PUNISHMENT, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, WHEREWITH HE WAS SANCTIFIED, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Hbr 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Hbr 10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Certainly, what those unbelieving Jews did was out of a mean spirit of hate, but it cannot be compared to the spite done to the spirit of grace by a person or a collection of persons that was ONCE SANCTIFIED and subsequently trodden underfoot the blood of Jesus.

THERE CAN BE NO TRIBULATION TO COMPARE to the ensuring vengeance which follow in due course that will be visited upon a a church, an organization, or an individual that inflict spite on grace.

All manner of sin will be forgiven, even the crucifixion of Jesus. In fact, Jesus looking down from the cross with eyes of love, looked upon the howling, blood thirst mob and tenderly prayed for them, pleading for their forgiveness. He knew that they did not know what they were doing.

No such love, mercy or graciousness shown to a people that turn their back on God, doing spite to grace. No such firery indignation has ever been seen or known as that which takes place in the spiritual sense. One could only hope that it would be in the natural rather than the spiritual realm. It would be far more tolerable. AD 70 in Jerusalem would be a picnic by comparison.

[Adoniyah]

Maybe I should start a thread on "The Errors of the 70AD Doctrine."

Much of the misunderstanding comes from such words as "shortly" and also "at hand." This misunderstanding come about because eager men press in the flesh to come to such knowledge of Revelation but only come to a natural perception of Matthew 24, Daniel 9 and the book of Revelation. Hence, the advent of the 70 AD doctrine which is a carnal understanding of very spriritual scriptures.

I certainly believe in comparative biblical studies but when it is placed in a carnal setting it can very often be detrimental. If we compare "Judas hanged himself" with "go thou and do likewise" we would certainly be in trouble. :)

I thought Witness and I would have a scripture by scripture dialog on the the book of Revelation but we could not get past Rev. 1:1 because she refused to understand the meaning of "shortly" since it is used only TWICE in the scriptures. We therefore never got to the use of the term, "at hand."

When one wilfully closes their eyes to the light, there is little that can be done for them except to watch them stumble on in their carnal foolishness.

When we fully understand the ertnal plan of God for his Church, it is not difficult to the scriptures which are very spiritual, in a spiritual context. Nero as the antichrist becomes absurd. The great physical affliction upon the Jewish state becomes almost insignificant and irrelevant. Neither do we see that the crucifixion of Jesus the geater sin. Rather, we see the opening of the greatest opportunity that the Jewish nation could have ever desired. It was not the natural rejection and crucifixion of Jesus that placed them in peril. It was the spiritual rejection of what followed afterward that places people in peril but not nearly as much as those that have once been enlightened by the gospel of grace.

If but only we could perceive spiritually, we would not have to grope in darkness.

[Thelordisone]

Adoniyah Amen Bro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Judgement shall start in the Church!!"

God Bless!!

[mfblume]

Adoniyah, you said,

" I certainly believe in comparative biblical studies but when it is placed in a carnal setting it can very often be detrimental. If we compare 'Judas hanged himself' with 'go thou and do likewise' we would certainly be in trouble."

I think comparing Luke 21 and Matthew 24, and Luke 23 and Revelation 6 is far more reaosnable than comparing a reference to Judas hanging himself and another reference for a person to do likewise. :)

Anyway, the relationship of Jerusalem to the Lord in Ezekiel 16 cannot be left insignificant, especially in light of Jesus' resounding words of cursing to her again and again from Matthew 21 through 23.

However, the first closing of one's eyes to light occurred with Jerusalem's rejection of Christ. And the unique thing about Jerusalem is that she was His bride, and that cannot be compared to one who was never His bride closing their eyes to Him.

A worse scenario can be a born again believer turning away from Him, indeed! However, this is a corporate issue, and speaks of one corporate bride being removed for another. And the present corporate bride is not going to reject Him. Praise God!

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume:

Ever hear of the great falling away?

Regardless if anyone will believe it or not...the early church Apostasized. The remnant excepted. The remnant is not the main corporate body. The remnant is that portion remaining.

YOu said:

"Anyway, the relationship of Jerusalem to the Lord in Ezekiel 16 cannot be left insignificant, especially in light of Jesus' resounding words of cursing to her again and again from Matthew 21 through 23."

Jesus "cursed" who? Jerusalem? You might remind me of that one.

[mfblume]

Brother A,

When I noted the church not apostatizing, I meant there will always be a true church. And unlike Jerusalem, who did have a remnant in times past, but would not after Christ was crucified, the church will always be represented by the true remnant. In other words He will not curse the church to the extent that a remnant simply will not exist. When he cursed Jerusalem, which I will show in a moment, the remnant simply woudl become part of the church, and not considered a return of Jerusalem to God.

Anyway, here is where Christ most plainly cursed Jerusalem.

Mat 21:43-44 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mat 22:7 But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

I propose the cursing of the fig tree was a parable in action of the curse upon Jerusalem, as well.

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume, you said:

"In other words He will not curse the church to the extent that a remnant simply will not exist."

My response:

Amen.

However, a remnant means just that...a remnant.

The church has always existed as far back as Abraham who became the father of us all because of faith. The church has existed until now.

It continually grows from one state of revelation to another line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept.

The corporate body came out of Egypt by the hand of deliverance from the Almighty, yet there was only a remnant that went into Canna. The corporate body went into captivity but only a remnant came out. The coroporate body saw the first advent, while they were destroyed for unbelief there was yet a remnant on the day of Pentecost.

"The path of the just shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

The perfect day is yet ahead of us. Mean while there has been an ebb and flow of spiritual tide. During the ebb the receding light only leaves a remnant. The flow brings about renewal, restoration and giant leaps forward.

The early church Apostosized, by in large. The remnant remained true. The corporate body absent the remnant became the harlot of Revelation. The corporate body fell, finding other loves causing them to look back as Lot's wife did.

This backsliding church of the first, second and third centuries Apostosized. There is no rule in the Word that says that there is no way for a church not to Apostasize. Do you know of any. All I know is that there is a church that is predestinated to become like Jesus. The early church did not become like Jesus before she fell.

The church of God is a continual progression of light since the days of Abraham until now. We are still walking in the light as Abraham did from the beginning. Where this light will lead no one can tell except that in the end, we shall be like him after all things are restored.

The Abrahamic church apostasized leaving only remnant. The Isaralite church apostasized, leaving only a remnant. The Jewish church apostasized, leaving on a remnant. The early church apostasized leaving only a remnant. After all, we have grown in the light from glory to glory until we shall eventually come into the fullness of Christ.

The church, whether she be the Abrahmic church, the Israelite church, the Jewish church or the early Apostolic church have all apostasized to become the harlot woman depicted in Ez. 16, as was also Hosea's wife. There is nothing in the Word that says that it cannot happen.

Let us not forget, in the end, even though she becomes a harlot, God promises restoration as shown forth in the concluding words of the same chapter of Ezekiel.

[mfblume]

I agree entirely with your principle of the body of the church from the beginning. But I would say the Lord also instructs us that the "actual" body did not exist until souls were born again of water and Spirit, and the "body" before that was a shadow.

The Church in general never will apostatize. Ephesians speaks of the church as though it were in Christ, as Eve was in Adam. And Ephesians does not even mention the issue of error in the church at all. Its as though God goes back to Adam's lying down, where Eve was removed from him in the form of his rib, and chops out all the history after that point until Christ dies on the cross, and splices the two scenes together, replacing Adam in the picture with Christ, and the church as the new Eve. And when its all said and done, nothing missed a cog in all God's workings, for He had restored the original plan for mankind that was lost in Adam, with Christ as the Last man Adam.

So in this sense, the church never will become a harlot. The true church is always ever only the ones who remain faithful. There are not many churches in this sense. Just one. One entity who is destined to never fail.

But this is where we particularly digressed from one another's viewpoints in times before.

The true Bride never existed until Christ brought her about through the cross and His death, burial and resurrection, to see her born on the day of Pentecost.

Jerusalem was His bride, but doomed to fail as much , in a sense, as those beneath law could never fulfill law, since she was simply a shadow anyway. But the Church is the true bride, and is not Jerusalem evolved, so to speak.

So I do not agree with the concept that the church can become a harlot. People in the church can depart from Christ and commit spiritual whoredoms, but the overall church, itself, can not. And in the overall corporate sense, only one bride was a harlot, Jerusalem. The other never will be.

[apostle]

Bro. Blume.
you are correct.

The bride of Christ will not be a harlot. And it was not born from a harlot.

Also rereading some of the things written here brings me to add this statment.

The "falling away" is in death.

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume, you said:

"So in this sense, the church never will become a harlot. The true church is always ever only the ones who remain faithful. There are not many churches in this sense. Just one. One entity who is destined to never fail."

My response:

True indeed, yet in the same sense this has always been true since the Abrahamic church in the wilderness. Yet, God called her a harlot in more places than just Ezekiel. The principle does not vary. To say that God married a shadow is a bit of a stretch seeing that God told Hosea to wed a harlot to show Israel her harlotry. Hosea's wife was not a shadow. It was an actual body just as the nation of Israel was an actual body of believers wedded to her heavenly husband.

God said in the latter part of Ezekiel 16 that he would restore his harlot wife. He did. He has. He will. It is God's principle of grace. She has fallen many times since she left the wilderness, but God continually restores and leads ever onward.

You said:

"The Church in general never will apostatize. Ephesians speaks of the church as though it were in Christ, as Eve was in Adam. And Ephesians does not even mention the issue of error in the church at all."

My response:

The book of Ephesians did not speak of error in the church as there may not have been any at the time of Paul's treatise to her. Yet, she was rebuked by the Lord himself in Rev. 2 for her backsliding seeing that she had left her first love. Who was her first love? Was it not Christ? To say that a church cannot disjoin herself from her heavenly husband is to discredit a great deal of scripture that conclusively prove that she can. I don't think that you would suggest that.

You said further:

"But this is where we particularly digressed from one another's viewpoints in times before.

The true Bride never existed until Christ brought her about through the cross and His death, burial and resurrection, to see her born on the day of Pentecost.

Jerusalem was His bride, but doomed to fail as much , in a sense, as those beneath law could never fulfill law, since she was simply a shadow anyway. But the Church is the true bride, and is not Jerusalem evolved, so to speak."

My response:

Correct me if I have misread you here, but do I not detect a taint of Dispensationalism here? Was not Jerusalem a bride? Ezekiel said that she was. Did she become a harlot? Yes, she did, as other churches before her did.

Are you suggesting that there was a bride for the Father and now with the advent of the Son that there is yet another bride for the Son. The Father's bride became a harlot while the Son's bride will remain faithful?

You cannot assume principle where it is not stated nor is it applied. The principle is that unfaithfulness is always rewarded with the treatment that Jesus threatened the Laodiciean church. He will spew them out of his mouth. That same principle is active today as it was when God divorced his harlot wife for unfaithfulness.

There is a church predestined. When that church comes into the fulness of God, it will never fall. That church has not yet come forth in the earth yet, save the remnant. The remnant is NOT the corporate body unless you are calling the remnant the corporate body. In that case it would have been only the seven thousand that never bowed their knee to Baal counted as the wife of God, all else in Israel being counted a harlot.

However, that is not the way God saw it. He saw the WHOLE nation as his wife, both the 7000 and the worshippers of Baal. Inspite of the 7000 faithful ones God looked upon Israel, his wife as a harlot.

The principle does not vary even today. Everything in Christ is not predestined to stay there. Look at the threatenings that Christ gave to the seven representative churches of Asia. The early Apostolic did not remain faithful as a corporate body. They became a harlot, save the remnant. No reasonable Berean can deny this fact.

Here you said:

"So I do not agree with the concept that the church can become a harlot. People in the church can depart from Christ and commit spiritual whoredoms, but the overall church, itself, can not. And in the overall corporate sense, only one bride was a harlot, Jerusalem. The other never will be."

Here you have ignored the obvious. Jerusalem also had the righteous in it at the first advent. They went on and walked in the light. They were never unfaithful. About 120 of them received the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. If your principle held true, it would have been impossible to have called Jerusalem a harlot either. There were the 120 remnant, plus another 5,000 shortly afterwards.

Remember, there is not one bride for the Father and another for the Son. The church has been the church since the call of Abraham. She has always walked in faith, being born of faith of the seed of Abraham. That faith has led her to where she is today.

[mfblume]

Brother, the all-important difference in our beliefs is that nobody was born-again until the church, and, therefore, there was not a true Bride until the church.

There was no bride for the Father and then the church as a bride for the Son. You know I am oneness. Jesus is the Groom, and the Jerusalem bride was merely a foreshadow of the true church.

And my reference to Ephesians is not limiting the church to that locale. When I say Church, I mean the church across the world in whatever city they dwell in. I am part of the church you are part of. We are not in different churches.

When I read about the seven churches in Asia Minor in Revelation, that is actually congregations belonging to the single overall church.

I will consider further what you are saying, however, for the time being I do not see the overall church separated into many smaller ones.

[Oldpreach]

Bro. Blume ,

Thnks for the info. I must say , that what i was perplexed at would be the seeming fact that some Apostolics might believe some of the trash that i highlighted from the 1st post in this thread. I will consider looking into what you are talking about. I wouldnt want to believe a watered down version of something that is not truth. I will say this , this is just not my area of serious study. Also ,end time Theology and such is something that i have never devoted much serious study to...some , but not much. My areas of concentration have been more in the Oneness , original manuscripts , Differing Bible versions , Salvational doctrine , faith , prayer , outreach , umm...could go on a bit i guess. What im getting at eventually is that i (not to be offensive) think that while Dispensationalism when in the form mentioned in the original post is very dangerous , and would perhaps hinder someones salvation there by making it important to study , generally , i feel that its great to talk about if its your bag , but otherwise in the form that i currently belive it , is somewhat unimportant to devote much time to. Again , this is probably because its just not my cup of tea......maybe you feel its important and very interesting....i do not feel it is much of either.

[mfblume]

That is perfectly understandable, Oldpreach.

Prophecy was never really my bag either until I studied the work of the cross and how more focused my studies became surrounding the cross.

I came into this thought of prophecy due to those studies. When I realized that prophecy was not an issue dealing with the last few years of modern civilization, but focused on the generation who crucified the Lord, and the changeover from Law to grace, it took on a whole new meaning for me, as I think it would for you or anybody else, if they consider partial preterism!

I lost the sensationalistic spirit that I believe goes hand in hand with "Van Impe-ism", and "Hal Lindsey-ism", and simply sought to know the work of the cross more in my life. Then it started coming together and I noted that the most of all prophecy circled around the all-important point in history, as a lesson for all ages afterwards, upon whether people would accept Christ or reject Him. And I noticed the book of Revelation is a Revelation of Jesus Christ. Temple imagery and symbolism surrounding the work of the cross simply rushed to the forefront, and prophecy took on a whole new meaning for me.

In other words, when I was a dispensationalist, the sensationalism lost its glamour. Haha. But when I saw it was not that way at all, in my opinion, and that it circled the cross, I asbolutely fell in love with the issue.

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume, you said:

In other words, when I was a dispensationalist, the sensationalism lost its glamour. Haha. But when I saw it was not that way at all, in my opinion, and that it circled the cross, I asbolutely fell in love with the issue.

My response:

I am very happy that you have seen the errors of dispensationalism which is inherently trinity in doctrine. Also, I am very happy that you have seen the importance of the cross even if Pp helped you see it clearer.

BUT, since you have come to have your vision centered around the cross in a greater way, have you considered moving on beyond the cross? The brazen altar is great...even the good old fashioned Baptist rejoice there but refuse to go to the laver or enter into the Holy Place (Pentecost). Let us move on into Pentecost...but greater still, let us move on into TABERNACLES, the Most Holy.

Many that call themselves Pentecostal have rejoiced in what we call the Pentecostal experience. It is truly a great feast provided to us by the Lord. There are yet three feast beyond the vail in Tabernacles itself.

There is a heavenly beckon to come up to Jerusalem the third time. Many refuse to go the third time. They will go up once for Atonement. We have gone up once for Pentecost. Let us not fail to go up once for Tabernacles. Let us move beyond the cross which is only the door.

The cross is NOTHING except there be a RESURRECTION. Even the resurrection is nothing except there be an ascention. As I see it, the Partial preterist and Historicst doctrines hinder further revelation much beyond the cross, possible allowable up to Pentecost. But it is DEFINITELY a hinderance beyond Pentecost, beyond which a vail yet exists.

There is a work for the people of God that yet lies ahead of us. This doctrine is a severe stumbling block to the understanding of the Word and Work as it is related to each.

God is now calling out a people for his name sake. For what purpose? All men are not going to be included in the church. The elect, the whosoever will, the he that is athirst that comes, will be saved. But God is not finished with us after all that come have come. There is a residue of men. There are the elect and there are the residue. God has been prepairing a people, that in the resurrection his work will be accomplished as he has prophesied by his holy prophets of old.

Notice the words, "AFTER THIS." After what? After a people has been called out (church) for his name sake. Then, there is a work to follow. That work is to seek after the residue of men after the tabernacle of David has been rebuilt. (not speaking of a physical tabernacle)

Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:16 AFTER THIS I WILL RETURN, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world

All that God is doing right now is calling out a people for his NAME SAKE. (BRIDE) She, the church, and Jesus will have a job to do. The great plan of God will begin to unfold in reality as the Word and Work is carried on.

Thank God you have been to the cross, but you gotta move on. The cross is death, dying, loss, pain and suffering. We've been there... done that. But the only thing that makes the cross to shine in its glory is the RESURRECTION and even more, THE ASCENTION.

Let us look to the "AFTER THIS" which cannot be seen in looking back aspect demanded by Preterism in any form.

With love, and in humility.

[mfblume]

When I say "the cross" I refer to the death burial and resurrection and how it applies to us in our own deaths, burials and resurrections with Him! We are seated with Him.

In fact, the first three feasts parallel the last three feasts with Penteocst in the middle of it all tying our co-experience with Him in the first three feasts, making the last three real!

I will find time to share a study I made on that.

Paul preached nothing but Christ and Him crucified. And that entails EVERYTHING you refer to. So in that sense, the cross is everything!

[apostle]

Bro. Blume
The first three day in gen. parallel the 4,5,6th days.
Guess what what in the midst of the week?

Only one judgment.
We all must die with Jesus.

Their was two that dies with Jesus in Jerusalem but only one raised with Jesus.

We all will die with him.
every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.

Hab 3:2 O LORD, I have heard thy speech, [and] was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.

In Jesus name

[Thelordisone]

Amen Adoniyah!!

Very nice post!!

Good point as well Mike.

God Bless!!

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume, you said:

"Paul preached nothing but Christ and Him crucified. And that entails EVERYTHING you refer to. So in that sense, the cross is everything!"

My response:

I hope I do not sound so nit picking, but let it be noted that Paul said that he preached Christ AND him crucified. The emphasis is upon CHRIST. What is Christ but the Word of God? The cross is not everything but CHRIST is. There is an important distinction here.

It is in the preaching of the Word of God that we receive the Revelation of Christ. Proper emphsis should be on Christ but not to deflect from the cross as they cannot be separated. To place emphasis on the cross rather than Christ, once again, centers our vision backwards. The revelation of Christ or that of the Word is forever dynamic, never static. Because it is ever unfolding, the church is continually conformed to the image of Christ by that same revelation. This is true of the remnant if not the corporate body...maybe even less that the 7000.

My point is, there is an 'AFTER THIS" that is equally important if we expect to see a furtherance of the Word and Work. It is all in the preaching of Christ...the Word of God of which the cross is the entrance, but not central. Jesus is the center upon whom we place the emphasis.

Once again, I hope I do not sound too nit-picking, but I think it is important. Maybe we should discuss what you see in the Word as a futher plan of God for his church and the process by which a people are made ready for that plan or work.

Yours in Christ

[mfblume]

Without Christ being who He is, the cross would mean nothing to anybody! :)

But check out my new thread referring to the feasts of Israel and the Christian. There, I get into an awfully brief synopsis of what I think God is taking the church into.

[apostle]

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Oldpreach]

Bro. Blume ,

Very interesting...hmm. well , while its a bit fun , and very educational to whatch you and the white haired one go back and forth , i just dont simply have the time to read all of these posts right now...ill try later.

[In His Service]

Bro. Adoniyah,
Thank you for your post and points. There is much that we are in agreement on. I hope that we might endeavor to allow iron to sharpeneth iron.

Thanks again
Bro. Timothy

[truemessianic]

Originally posted by mfblume
Without Christ being who He is, the cross would mean nothing to anybody! :)

But check out my new thread referring to the feasts of Israel and the Christian. There, I get into an awfully brief synopsis of what I think God is taking the church into.
Bro. Blume,
All I can say to this post is Amen! If it were not for who Jesus was, the Cross would be insignificant. God manifested in the flesh, dying for our sins. Awesome, simply awesome!

[Adoniyah]

Brother Price, you said:

"Bro. Blume,
All I can say to this post is Amen! If it were not for who Jesus was, the Cross would be insignificant. God manifested in the flesh, dying for our sins. Awesome, simply awesome!"

My response:

Truly brother it is awesome, simply asesome. The cross would indeed have no significance if Jesus was not who he really is. We certainly have strong agreement here. We shall never discount the significance of the cross.

Shall we see the cross as the all that ends all? Shall we see the cross as both the center and the circumfrence? Shall we see the cross and the whole house?

I suggest that we see Christ as the whole house, both center and circumfrence and the all that ends all, while putting the cross in its proper perspective.

I see the cross as the door of entrance not the whole house, not the center and circumfrence nor the all that ends all. I see the cross which relates to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as the foundation but not the whole house. Jesus is the whole house.

I certainly like to brag about the foundation that my house is built on. Without my foundation, I would have no house. It is a great foundation. In fact, there is not one crack in it that I can tell. I can tell people of my foundation. I would tell them to lay the same foundation that I have laid. But there is more to my house than the foundation.

I can brag about my door. Truly the kingdom of God has a great door. We must all come the way of the cross. There is no entrance apart from it. Jesus said, "Any man climb up any other way, he is a theif and a robber." We must go the way Jesus went, the way of the cross.

While we brag about the great and only door, let us not forget the magnificence of the GREAT house that God has built, including the door.

While we brag about the foundation, let us not forget to go on unto perfection, leaving the foundation building upon it, but not forsaking it.

Let us put the cross in its proper perspective. If the Preterist doctrine causes one to see the cross as both center and circumfrence, rather than the door; if that doctrine causes one to see the cross as the all that ends all rather than Christ; if one sees the cross as the whole house rather than the foundation, the perspective is wrong.

Paul preached CHRIST and him crucified. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that perish, but to us that are saved it is the POWER of God. Power for what? Salvation, of course. Thank God, you and I are saved. It is by the power of the cross that we are saved. But, let us go on unto perfection and view the whole house in all its radiant splendor, not discounting the splendor of the door.


__________________

[mfblume]

I see the work of the cross as involved in our perfection, and not just our starting point thet we can depart from in everyday experience.

Maybe that is what foundation means, anyway.

I simply see the perfection we must attain as being ever conscious of the work of the cross, and ever experiencing the work of the cross to ever gender faith to step forth and fulfill His perfect will. Its not the cross, but the WORK of the cross.

It still works! It will forever work!

Christ presently sits, since His resurrection from death, expecting the work of the cross to continue through ages until death itself dies! All things are still, to this day, in the progressive work of being brought down by the work of the cross. In order for Him to be seated and to expect things to occur since His death and resurrection, the work of the cross continues while He sits!

Its like shooting a cannon, and sitting back as the cannon ball hurls forth, not through space, but through time, smashing all obstacles. It still works, and yet Christ sat down after He fired it!

Jesus, Himself, is certainly the house. Amen!

Perfection is partly being able to deal with EVERY SINGLE issue in life we face by standing on what the cross did for us. The "house" is, as far as we are concerned, so to speak, the life we now live. But its nothing without the foundation, indeed! But in more ways than we may think. We cannot separate the house from the foundation. The house falls flat if they are separated. That means there is an ever present position of remaining on the foundation. And that occurs every single time we pray in "Jesus' name."

What makes the invocation of the name of Jesus so effectual, is our reliance on the work of the cross that it is meant to express. God hears nothing from us unless we go to Him in Christ's name, or based upon the work of the cross. Its like the invitation to the king's throneroom, sealed with the royal seal, as we approach God in Jesus' name.

That is why Paul said we have access through Christ.. that is, through His death.

Every moment of every hour that the house exists is due to its continued position on the foundation. As soon as the foundation is gone, the house falls flat. As soon as we lose our cnstant reliance on the cross as the only reason we can even talk to God, the communication is cut off.

The perfection we must reach is indeed a lifestyle of power due to union with Christ. However, it is ever an outcrop of the foundation. Its like the sap in the branch that flows from the vine. Its constantly surging in us. And the work of the cross is forever maintained and held by our lives even in ever denying ourselves, for we still take up the cross.

The connection of the branch (the saint) to the vine (Christ) is the union we experienced through the work of the death of the cross. So long as we stay in union through conscious exertion of faith as to what makes us what we are, we are not broken off. But as soon as we depart from reliance to Him by awareness we are nothing without His work on the cross, we drop away from the vine and produce nothing.

The fruit of the vine is the perfection of life that Hebrews 6 points us towards, and occurs due to spiritual maturity. But the union point where the vine attaches itself to the branch, and the brance to the vine, is the constant locking through the point of Christ's history where we were joined to Him, and that is the cross.

Christ's suffering and death on the cross was where we first came into union with Him.

In other words, we can never do anything without actual and conscious reliance, to this day, on the cross.

[Adoniyah]

Brother Blume:

Great post, brother.

It is indeed the power of the Cross that gives entrance to and sustains all else.

I did not mean to intimate that by the use of my analogy of the foundation that we should depart from it. Not at all. As you have properly said, the house is only sustained by its continued position on that foundation. To leave the foundation is not to leave it in the sense as to abandon it but rather to built up from it, thus going on to perfection.

[mfblume]

Amen bro. The more I typed that, the more I realized what FOUNDATION means.

[jbenjesus]

You guys are great together!!!

Superbly done Jesus!

I like this team you have on the GNC!!!

[truemessianic]

Great post, from the both of you. I love it! Jesus be praised!!!

[In His Service]

The cross gains us entrance and allows us to see the sacrifice that our Savior went through to buy our parden.

The Work of the Holy Ghost is what will perfect us after we came to the understanding of what happed at the cross and who was on the cross.

Bro. Timothy

[mfblume]

I believe that the work of the Holy GHost goes hand in hand with the work of the cross, and the two cannot be separated. The cross is for much more than getting us into this thing. We carry it all of our lives, as the Holy Ghost is given access so long as we rely upon that shed blood.

I can claim the blood today! ...long after I have been saved from sin. :)