Infoabsorption

5 minutes ago, TLC said:

I disagree with it.

But the commentary you posted used Eusebius as an example of an early church father who shared the views of modern dispensationalists.

6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:

While there are lots of passages throughout the scriptures that point to a "soon", "at hand", "little while" aspect to the "end times", and I realize those taking them literally from the perspective of a timeline of all history can see it as either failed prophecies or the different "preterist" views.  I don't think they "must" be understood that way alone.

Much like many prophecies throughout, they had a literal "current" understanding  and a future understanding. Call them physical vs spiritual, or whatever depending on the prophecy. But even Haggai 2 talks about the end coming in a short time. Yet that was at least 500 years before the 70AD destruction of the 2nd temple. Half a millennium doesn't sound like a "little while" to me, but in God's perspective, 1 day is as a thousand, yes?  I tend to see most of these are they are coming shortly in the perspective of my life's timeline.. Which if we live to 100, that makes it much sooner than 500 years!  Very soon. At hand. And well, the end is coming!

The time references will forever be debated by futurists and preterists. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I didn't become a partial preterist on the time statements alone. Certain parallels between old and new testament verses clarified some questions I had when I was a dispensationalist.

In Daniel 12, Daniel is given a specific revelation about his people Israel. In the vision one "person" asked the man in linen " “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled? " The reply was " It will be for a time, times and half a time.^[b] When the power of the holy people(Israel) has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” Then Daniel asks:  “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?” The reply was:  “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.

So we can deduce from the text that at the time of the "end" the power of Daniel's people Israel will be "broken" and Daniel is told that the prophecy will not occur in his lifetime because of the figurative phrase "words are rolled up and sealed". It says Daniel will rest(physically die) then be resurrected at the end of the 1335 days to receive his spiritual inheritance. The countdown of the 1335 days is triggered when the daily sacrifice is abolished and abomination of desolation is set up. It is not clear if both events happen at the same time or the countdown is between the 2 events. If you look at recorded history of Israel known as Judea at that time, the daily sacrifice offered in the temple in Jerusalem was stopped on 3 separate occasions during the Zealot rebellion from 66-70 AD. The 1st sacrifice on behalf of the Roman emperor was stopped in August of 66AD by the Zealots, then it was briefly stopped during the temple siege by the Zealots in 68AD, then it was stopped completely by the Roman army in 70AD. I don't know which of the abolished temple sacrifices we should start the countdown from but I suspect that the "end of days" Daniel was told would happen happened between 70 & 74 AD. And the power of Israel was broken in 70AD. I don't believe that this is a future Israel. The historical record is just too close to the biblical account.

A  parallel to Daniel 12:9 is Revelation 22:10:  Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. This is not just a time statement but John is told not to seal the words of the prophecy because the events were to occur at least in his lifetime. I don't believe a case can be made that it's just a window of time that could be thousands of years in length or the same phrase that was used in Daniel would not have been used in Revelation.
 

1 hour ago, TrustAndObey said:

The word law is such a diverse topic, used in so many different contexts, that no doubt it at times is just one aspect of a covenant. 

But I think that it is just too big a topic to add to this discussion that I don't believe would help.. But maybe you're thinking it does?  Maybe help guide us a bit into your thinking?

The discussion was about Hebrews 8 and the 2 covenants...the new covenant in Christ being far superior. Then in the next chapter it says: " Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary". The point I was trying to make is that certain aspects of the law are certainly still in effect such as the ten commandments, but God isn't requiring  anybody (Jew or Gentile) to sacrifice animals on an altar anymore. That is the aspect of the Law( old covenant) I think Hebrews is talking about..the earthly temple in Jerusalem and the system that supported it. Why does Hebrews mention the temple and the high priests and the temple procedures and then contrasts that with Christ being the high priest and going through a greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands? Maybe it's just me but I think the big message of Hebrews is "an earthly temple built with hands is not needed anymore and is about to disappear"...  in other words 70AD. 

Hey TLC, what do you think about that commentary by Eusebius regarding the abomination of desolation?

11 minutes ago, TLC said:

Okay, so you acknowledge and accept what some of the early church fathers appear to have believed, but then use it to set up a straw man argument against dispensationalism?  Had you said "as some dispensationalists do in this day & time," I'd have no issue with it.  However, you didn't.  Fact is, some (and I suspect, most) absolutely do not "thrust all of the eschatological prophecies" into the future (i.e., none have yet been fulfilled.)  For example, which of the dispensationalists that you've read think or say that Luke 21:24 has yet to be fulfilled? 

These people think it: https://samuelwhitefield.com/974/when-do-the-times-of-the-gentiles-end

Actually TLC, I stand corrected. Of course not all dispensationalists believe that Luke 21: 20-24 has yet to be fulfilled. I remember one on this board who posted in doctrinal believes this was the Roman siege of 70AD. I think he sees the rest of the verses after verse 24 as future. However,  there are many dispensationalists who still believe that Luke 21 in its entirety is yet to be fulfilled.

17 hours ago, TLC said:

For anybody with enough courage to educate (and think for) themselves, yet still preferring to start by reading what other "probably a little better educated than certain folk here" have to say on the matter:

https://www.christianbook.com/chafers-systematic-theology-4-volumes/lewis-chafer/9780825423406/pd/2345

https://biblereasons.com/dispensationalism-and-the-early-church-fathers/

 

 

I read the commentary on "Dispensationalism & the Early Church Fathers". The section about Papias of Hierapolis really stood out because it mentions Eusebius commenting on Papias. I've read sections of Eusebius before. Even though I don't have formal education in history I'm a voracious reader. I'm basically a history geek. I don't deny that some of the early church fathers believed there would be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth and many of them did view the events in Revelation as future, but they didn't thrust all of the eschatalogical prophecies such as the prophecies recorded in Daniel, Matthew 24, Luke 21 etc. into the future as dispensationalists do in this day & time. Eusebius wrote this in his book Ecclesiastical History - Book 3 Chapter 5 http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0265-0339,_Eusebius_Caesariensis,_Church_History,_EN.pdf:

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by
a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to
leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.
And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from
Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of
Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at
length overtook those who had committed such outrages against
Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of
impious men. But the number of calamities which every where fell
upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the
inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of
men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by
famine, and by other forms of death innumerable, all these things, as
well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the
cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that
fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the
general course of the whole war, as well as its particular
occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation,
proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so
celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and
final destruction by fire, all these things any one that wishes may
find accurately described in the history written by Josephus."

Eusebius saw the "abomination of desolation" mention in Daniel as being fulfilled at the time just before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD.

Btw, Happy 4th! Be safe tonight.

Hebrews 1 verse 1 & 2 state:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, ² Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Here is a very interesting time statement. I guess we are supposed to believe that "these last days" are the entirety of the church age. Could this actually be referring to the last days of the old covenant earthly temple system that was soon to vanish away?

Here is another one 1 John 2:18:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

So this last "hour" has been in progress for 1900 + years?

And another one 1 Peter 4:7:

The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

Here is an example of the Greek "engys" properly translated as "near". This is from the NIV.  Dispensationalists prefer the King James translation of "engys" to be "at hand". 
 

3 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Covenant is just "agreement" right?  I mean sorry for the non-enlightened modern English but the only place I run into "covenant" in today's society is some of the following:

1. Some stupid legal agreement I have to sign with my neighbors so they can leave nasty notes if my trees aren't trimmed to their likng

2. Indiana Jones movies

3. Video games similar to Indiana Jones movies

Yes I agree 100%. It was the agreement God made with Israel. Hebrews chapter 8 describes the high priest offering gifts and sacrifices in the sanctuary(temple) and then in Hebrews 8:7 " For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." Then the last verse of Hebrews 8:13 states: " what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready(Gr."engys" near,soon) to vanish away." Then in the very next chapter and verse 9:1 it states " Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." Hebrews 9 goes on to describe the altar and the ritual duty of the high priest offering the animal sacrifice. In Hebrews 9:11: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,^[e] then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) ¹² he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Hebrews 9: 26:  Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 

Maybe it's just me but it sure seems like Hebrews is talking about the soon end(at the time Hebrews was written) of the earthly temple system that occurred in 70AD. Hebrews 8:13 in this context then makes perfect sense: what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready(Gr. "engys" near,soon) to vanish away.

Here's another perspective to consider. Could the covenant and the law be 2 separate things? The law being just one aspect of the covenant?

5 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:

They both have been in effect.

Then how do you explain Hebrews 8:13?

There may be a few on this board interested in this. I discovered some more evidence of past fulfillment of The Book of Revelation that I haven't read about before. In Revelation 11 the chapter on the "2 Witnesses", the beast from the abyss attacks the 2 Witnesses and their bodies lie in the " public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified(Rev 11:8). Obviously this is Jerusalem. Dispensationalists see this as a future Jerusalem, Preterists see this as Jerusalem during the Zealot siege early in 68AD.

Scroll down to verse 13 it mentions an earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed and seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake.

In Josephus Wars Book 4 Chapter 4 Verse 5 it states:

There broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake. These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and any one would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.

Then it proceeds to describe the Jewish Zealots taking advantage of the noise of the storm cutting the bars of the temple gates to allow Idumeans to enter and join them in slaughtering people.

In Josephus Wars Book 4 Chapter 5 Verse 1 states:

and now the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood; and that day, as it came on, they saw eight thousand five hundred dead bodies there. 

Josephus then records that the Idumaeans and the Jewish zealots succeeded in killing Ananus the high priest and his next-in-command, Jesus son of Gamalas (also known as Joshua), showing them much dishonor:

Then in Wars Book 4 Chapter 5 Verse 2:

“Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial. I should not make a mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city [when the Jews] beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem”

Not to say that Ananus and the next-in-command were the actual 2 witnesses of Rev. chapter 11 but it sheds light on the fact that the Zealots left bodies unburied to make a statement of what they thought of someone. Seems remarkably close to the biblical account to me.

.

TLC stated:

16 hours ago, TLC said:

you real sure 'bout that?  'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world.  Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group?

Here is another example of ignoring certain verses. In this case Romans 10:12: " For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

Israel was separated from the Gentile nations in the old covenant. Show me in the new testament where Israel is still separated. Not talking about physical Israel as a nation state or the Jews as a race of people. Spiritually speaking, in the new covenant which is currently in progress, there is no difference.

6 hours ago, TLC said:

What you might not be seeing (and haven't addressed) is the essence of covenant theology, which is that the church (of today) has (permanently) replaced Israel.  However, if you prefer thinking of covenants into separate periods of agreements between man and God, it sounds like a more recent modification of it called "New Covenant Theology"  (which may even allow for a physical, millennial kingdom.)  Needless to say, these things can get complicated (and confusing) rather quickly.  Try this, for starters:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-does-john-piper-believe-about-dispensationalism-covenant-theology-and-new-covenant-theology    

 

I wasn't going to post anymore tonight but with this one I have to. Here is an example of dispensationalists trying to label preterists or anybody rejecting dispensationalism as promoting replacement theology or at times even labeling us as anti-Semitic. It is pure bullsh!t. What got replaced is the old covenant system spiritually, not Israel as a nation state or the Jewish people or even people practicing Judaism. Gary Demar ran into this b.s. years ago and here is his reply:

On 6/27/2018 at 11:26 AM, TLC said:

You're quite the brave preterist, daring to accuse any one else of ignoring certain bible verses (as many as can be easily be thrown back at you)... which btw, I (personally) haven't "completely ignored" as you accuse.  Hebrews is, in many respects, very delicate "advanced class" stuff... which most want to handle like a bull in a china shop.  And when you merely look at or try to pick up (or out) little pieces of information from it, chances are that you are looking at broken glass, instead of seeing it as a fascinating (and previously hidden) overlay upon all that can or could be known by the senses (extending back through all of man's history here on earth.)

So why do you think (and say) that "the new" only overlapped the old for this wee short little 40 years or so? Or accuse me that I have completely ignored something which, quite frankly, I suspect you may have never bothered to consider or look at from the perspective I just spoke of?   

Brother, the new covenant was offered to Israel by Christ during his ministry. Except for the remnant most of Israel of that generation rejected it. Hebrews 8:8-12 was a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34. The writer/writers of Hebrews quoted these verses in Jeremiah to show Jews that this new covenant was in play FOR ISRAEL at the time Hebrews was written and the old covenant system, temple and all, was about to go out of existence. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not referring to the millennium. The same thing with Isaiah 11 which is another example of dispensationalists assuming that old testament verses are referring to the 1000 years. Isaiah 11 was fulfilled in Paul's day. Paul quoted Isaiah 11 in Romans 15:12 to show that the Gentile(Wolf) and the Lamb(Jew) were at the time Paul made those statements dwelling with each other peacefully in the new covenant:  https://adammaarschalk.com/2012/01/29/romans-15-shows-that-isaiah-11-is-fulfilled/

I could care less about advanced class bullsh!t. This stuff really isn't that hard to figure out. Just takes some common sense. Btw, dispensationalists do ignore certain verses. One common one is James 5:8. Also dispensationalists ignore certain Greek words. I think in any advanced Bible class it is taught that the English version of the Bible came from Greek texts. So according to dispensationalists this Greek word "engys" really means "imminence" which they continue to say means could happen at any time even thousands of years into the future. That is real clever because in Revelation 22:10 Christ told John:  Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. "Near" according to the Greek interlinear(http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/22-10.htm) means "near" in place or time. I don't see any gray area there and dispensationalists are even distorting what the English word "imminence" means:  " the state or fact of being about to happen" which the Greek word "Mello"(http://biblehub.com/greek/3195.htm) also means which was ignored by the King James translators as well and that was even before dispensationalism! An example of "Mello" being left out in the king James is Revelation 17:8: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/17-8.htm .The Greek interlinear reads like this:  The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition. The King James reads this way:  The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition.  Look at it for yourself. And there are a lot more examples of the Greek "mello" being ignored in the Epistles by the King James translators. Enough for tonight. Be well. 

Wow! Thanks Mark S.! I'm not used to having someone actually help me show evidence of past fulfillment.LOL Seems preterism is going through a new phase recently with Jonathan Welton's little grass-roots thing. The symbolism within certain sections of Revelation scream Roman Imperial Cult also know as "emperor worship" which began with Julias Caesar which many preterists see as the 1st horn of the sea beast. There is a lot on the internet about this but I've been searching for unbiased info where one doesn't have to sign up for an account to view the material so that I could just post a link and everybody could read it. Here is a good one to read if you have the time: http://www.academia.edu/250713/Imperial_Cult_and_Christianity_How_and_to_What_Extent_Were_the_Imperial_Cult_and_Emperor_Worship_thought_to_Preserve_Stability_in_the_Roman_World Scroll down to " IV. WHAT HAPPENED  WHEN  HONOURS TO THE  IMPERIAL   FAMILY WERE  REFUSED " to save some time.

There are some new points of view regarding the beasts of Revelation. There are actually 3 of them and they are not all the same beast. Some preterists including myself see the scarlet beast as Judean, not Roman. See my post titled "Alternative View of the Beasts of Revelation" for a detailed commentary.

1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:

This is where I believe that dispensationalists have really missed the big message of Hebrews 8. TLC, I see what you are hinting at. I was once a dispensationalist as well. You believe that Hebrews 8 verses 8-12 is referring to the millennium or 1000 years...being a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth in our future. The problem with this approach is the fact that the dispensationalists have completely ignored the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13 : By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. The word soon comes from the Greek "engys" which means "near" in space or time. http://biblehub.com/greek/1451.htm  I've brought this up before in the doctrinal forum since this Greek word engys is contained within some verses in the Book of Revelation but dispensationalists keep twisting these time statements to mean anything but near or soon. AD 30-AD 70 was a transition period. It was as if the 2 covenants were in effect during the same time but the old was soon (when Hebrews was written) to disappear at the dissolution of the temple at 70AD. 

Here is another thing to consider. Why didn't the writer/writers of Hebrews write chapter 8 verse 13 like this: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear but in the distant future the old covenant will return from a state of abeyance for a 7 year period ." LOL

On 6/19/2018 at 11:50 AM, TLC said:

I realized that.  My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel."  Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."  

Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."   

This is where I believe that dispensationalists have really missed the big message of Hebrews 8. TLC, I see what you are hinting at. I was once a dispensationalist as well. You believe that Hebrews 8 verses 8-12 is referring to the millennium or 1000 years...being a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth in our future. The problem with this approach is the fact that the dispensationalists have completely ignored the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13 : By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. The word soon comes from the Greek "engys" which means "near" in space or time. http://biblehub.com/greek/1451.htm  I've brought this up before in the doctrinal forum since this Greek word engys is contained within some verses in the Book of Revelation but dispensationalists keep twisting these time statements to mean anything but near or soon. AD 30-AD 70 was a transition period. It was as if the 2 covenants were in effect during the same time but the old was soon (when Hebrews was written) to disappear at the dissolution of the temple at 70AD. 

On 2/6/2017 at 7:23 AM, skyrider said:

Waysider.........the Fellow-Laborers program was quite the little indoctrination experience wasn't it?  Someday, maybe you should start a thread and give us a point-by-point accounting of it all.  It has many of the hallmarks of an isolated cult compound.

NOW.........looking back at my corps experience and thought processes, I see why my mind was jolted the first month of that corps in-residence program in Emporia.  It wasn't the classes or the work program........it was the isolation, immersion, indoctrination, demeaning of individual worth, haughty arrogance of spiritual leadership, groupthink loyalty, stripping of self, use/abuse of followers, anal detail to mowing the grass, etc.

Everything about the Emporia campus screamed "cult conformity".........and my gut instinct was to leave.  At the time, our monthly spending budget was $20.......and we turned over our budget books to be monitored at the end of each month.  Even though we were allowed to go "off-campus" Saturday afternoon........what was there to do with that $5 "extra in your budget" except buy a couple of beers or cigarettes?  The constraints of that monthly budget constricted choice and freedom.......it served as more leverage to the cult.

This was all very foreign to me........I had several thousand dollars in my bank account and a car in the parking lot.

.

 During one of the ROA's back in the early 80s some friends and myself were riding  on one of those tractor pulled trams from the parking lot to the big top area. We were all in our early teens, but I vaguely remember seeing someone from our local fellowship who was a little older...maybe late teens or early 20s...but he had his head shaved and had army fatigues on. We asked him where he had been but he wouldn't give us a straight answer. His personality had changed as well...I remembered him as being somewhat of a practical joker but he was much more reserved and did not want to talk about his recent experience with us. Since I was a rank-and-file follower during my whole involvement with TWI, I'm not familiar with all of TWI's current and past programs. I was just wondering if the Fellow-Laborers program had any military style training?

12 hours ago, TLC said:

 

Scoff and huff and puff all you want, but for the record, dispensationlism (in more general terms) is quite alive and well outside the walls of this puny little forum, though it doesn't necessarily appear in the exact same form as might be ensconced in the works of any (or all) of Bullinger, Welch, Schofiel, et al.  (Nor does this link encompass or surmise the complete essence or totality of it - http://www.charlottetownbiblechapel.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/David-Dunlap-handout.pdf )

TLC, Dispensationalism is still the most popular view of eschatology but it is in decline for various reasons...the time statements within the Book of Revelation being one of them.  Dispensationalists are even admitting to this decline as confirmed at 1:49 in this video of a futurist/preterist debate although I disagree with their reasons why.

32 minutes ago, outandabout said:

I heard a couple of times that when some people heard that teaching, they were afraid they had committed the unforgiveable sin and had become seed.  So they discontinued it.

It amazes me that TWI and not only TWI but other groups as well will take 1 verse and develop an elaborate doctrine around it. In this case John 8:44.

5 hours ago, Taxidev said:

 

Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of dispensationalism.  And I most certainly never considered the impact of focusing on the epistles over all else.  And I had already learned that ALL scripture is for our learning, yet I had missed this important point.

 

Taxi, "Dispensationalism" is the theology of a certain viewpoint of eschatology. VPW &TWI were/are dispensationalists but they espoused E.W. Bullinger's version of it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

I don't know about TWI today, but back in the 70's and 80's it was common to hear the phrase "we are in the dispensation(age) of grace" within the teachings of TWI clergy. That phrase was taken from Ephesians chapter 3 verse 2. If you read through the whole chapter of Ephesians 3, it says that the dispensation of grace is the promise that the Gentiles are " fellowheirs, and of the same body". Dispensationalists have taken this and added things such as: the dispensation of grace will end with the rapture and the "law administration" will return for 7 years until the return of Christ when He sets up his millennial kingdom. Ephesians 3 says nothing of the sort. My personal take is that the Gentiles were included in the promise at the time of Paul but that will never go away or have a 7 year break. I believe the promise for the Gentiles to be included in the body of Christ will continue into eternity.

For more information on how Dispensationalism has become so popular in this day and time, I suggest viewing this video by a former dispensationalist: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24574-dispensational-theology/

2 hours ago, Watered Garden said:

 We were later reinstated, except for a few hapless souls. 

 

Watered Garden...just wondering what era this incident occurred?

Also I think the ones who got themselves kicked out early did themselves a favor without realizing it.

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

 

You know that "moving the Word" phrase when I reflect on it more has to be one of the stupidest cult ideas ever.  I think it deserves another thread.  

"Moving the Word" simply means selling the cult's products and services.

Don'tWorryBeHappy said : "They both returned to Greenville, where Marcia finished her degree and Steve got run off for being gay."

"As Col. Louis said to Rick at the end of Casablanca, that was the beginning of a “beautiful friendship” which continues to this very day! Think about the kind of relationship Rosie and Donna have shared and add a third wheel, and you’ll get the picture."

DWBH, I'm a little confused. They kicked out a guy for being gay but a lesbian ends up running the show?