Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum

pawz

Jun 14, 07 - 2:03 PM

Rightly dividing the Word?

Hello folks. I have been a Universalist now for six, maybe seven years - but, being a bit long in the tooth, I am a slow learner and it takes me a while to 'fix' things in my head.

Well, there was a dear chap called Donnie Warren ( some of you may remember him, he died fairly recently) who kind of took me under his wing, and very patiently explained those things he thought I needed to know, and dealt with the questions I raised. He got me to read an e-book, by Preston Eby I think, and I did that. Some of it went in, and I hope that is good - but I don't see anyone else stressing the points that this book, and Donnie put so much store by.

The teaching I remember most clearly are that a good portion of the Greek scriptures were not written to us Gentile Christians at all. The only books that are specifically for Gentiles, so says Donnie, are the, um... thirteen? letters, from Romans to Philemon. All the others are to the Jews or the scattered of Israel.

Now I kinda warm to that understanding - it makes sense to me that the Jews will be 'Kings and Priests' that they are identified as the royal priesthood, and will reign on the earth, servingv at Ezekiel's temple as priests once more when the sacrificial system is re-introduced. These are not Gentile 'offices', this is not a Gentile scenario. So why don't I see other people making these distinctions in their posts when they consider what the scriptures are saying to us? Is it tacit - everyone knows so it isn't explicitly mentioned - or is it that it is one viewpoint among many, or is it a minority viewpoint that most people do not consider?

It would be good if it was the common understanding, it makes sense to me, though I have not really tested it out in any great measure.

There are weightier matters to consider than just that which I have written here if that teaching is valid, and (as Donnie said it would), to view the scriptures as having two distinct plans, one for Gentiles and one for Jews, so that we can then identify which bits belong to whom when reading the scriptures certainly gives a new perspective to such things as who the Bride of the Lamb is and who the Body of Christ is. Can I trust this teaching or must I look closer do you think?

Mike Burke

Jun 14th, 2007 - 10:21 PM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

[Quote] Can I trust this teaching or must I look closer do you think? [unquote]

Could you be more specific?

The teaching that "the Jews will be 'Kings and Priests'...and will reign on the earth, serving at Ezekiel's temple as priests once more when the sacrificial system is re-introduced" is called dispensationalism.

The teaching that there's some distinction between the body and the bride, and that only Paul's thirteen "letters, from Romans to Philemon" are for us today is called hyper-dispensationalism.

If you take that position, what do you do with the Lord's supper?

Why did Paul say:

For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks, he brake, and said, `Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.' In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;' for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death of the Lord ye do shew forth -- till he may come (1 Cor. 11:23-26, Young's Literal Translation)?

Why did he baptize Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14)?

Why did he baptize the household of Stephanas (verse 16)?

It's true that he was glad he hadn't personally baptized more, because he didn't want his detractors saying that he baptized in his own name, but why baptize any if his Gospel was so different from the twelve's (and if water baptism was no part of it)?

It was certainly part of Christ's message--and if you remember, Jesus personally baptized no one:

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2.)

That means that Paul personally baptized more people than Jesus.

Isn't that a little strange if water baptism was only for the circumcision?

And what about the New Covenant?

Was Paul's ministry a part of it (or was it part of something else, called the mystery)?

Why did he write (speaking of himself and Timothy):

...our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:5-6)?

As to the Bride of the Lamb and the Body of Christ, was Paul not writing to the body of Christ when he said:

I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2 Cor. 11:2)?

Does the word "husband" not imply "wife"?

When could a wife be presented "as a chaste virgin" to her husband, if not on the wedding day?

Is she not a bride on the wedding day?

Is Paul not using essentially the same metaphor that John used?

Why do some say that he never used it?

I'm a dispensationalist (like John Nelson Darby), but I'd take a closer look at hyper-dispensationalism if I were you--and if Donnie had lived longer, maybe he would have taken a closer look at it too.

BTW: I knew Donnie, and considered him a friend.

Here's something he once wrote to me:

From: "Donnie Warren"
To: "Michael Burke"

Subject: Rick is pushing it
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:34:33 -0600

Hi Michael,
I don't know why but Rick seems to be trying to push you over the edge. Don't let him!! Thank you brother for keeping it under control. He is being picky and all can see it. He is only hurting himself! You are showing the gentleman you are in your pleasant answers. Thanks Michael.
Donnie

pawz

Jun 15th, 2007 - 3:52 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

"The teaching that "the Jews will be 'Kings and Priests'...and will reign on the earth, serving at Ezekiel's temple as priests once more when the sacrificial system is re-introduced" is called dispensationalism."

Now why is that called ‘dispensationalism’? I thought that term was applied to folks like Darby,Schofield and Bullinger who saw that the Plans of the Lord were divided into ages – a view with which I think Scripture agrees, in principle, if not in strict demarcation. The period in which I understand the Jews to be reigning is the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Rev 20.

"The teaching that there's some distinction between the body and the bride, and that only Paul's thirteen "letters, from Romans to Philemon" are for us today is called hyper-dispensationalism."

Oh, right - didn't know that, not big on labels.

My understanding, so far, is that Israel ( not Messianic Jews, but the folk who are still under the Old Covenant) , still has to be brought into a right relationship with the Lord. The prophecy in Isa..um.. 45:17 the prophecy in Jeremiah, oh, have to look it up..31:31 have yet to be fulfilled in regard to what is left of Israel – and they are still His peculiar people. God has not cast them off. There are still promises to be fulfilled in regard to their land being peacefully settled and about them being chief among the nations, so in those respects, I can see that the Lord is dealing separately with Israel. The Bride of the Lamb is portrayed as New Jerusalem in Rev 21, so there too I can see the connection with what Donnie has explained about the Body of Christ being us, and the Bride of the Lamb being the Jews. There is where I have left it – something pending, waiting for further enlightenment. With that I am content.

These questions that you have asked are not making their point obvious to me, so I cannot yet sensibly respond. Bear of little brain here you see, you need to come down a bit so I understand what you are getting at perhaps. Smaller building blocks.

Mike Burke

Jun 15th, 2007 - 6:52 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

[Quote] Now why is that called ‘dispensationalism’? I thought that term was applied to folks like Darby, Schofield and Bullinger [unquote]

Darby and Schofield saw that the plans of the Lord were divided into ages – a view which I also believe is scriptural.

But Bullinger went far beyond that (and even beyond you and other hyper-dispensationalists, as he believed that only Paul's prison epistles were for us today--not Romans, not Galatians, not 1 or 2 Corinthians.)

[Quote] The period in which I understand the Jews to be reigning is the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Rev 20. [unquote]

I too believe that's when the Jews will be a kingdom of priests and kings--under the Saints.

Paul wasn't just writing to Jews when he said:

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters (1 Cor. 6:2.)

[Quote] "The teaching that there's some distinction between the body and the bride, and that only Paul's thirteen "letters, from Romans to Philemon" are for us today is called hyper-dispensationalism."

Oh, right - didn't know that, not big on labels. [unquote]

Hyper-dispensationalism is a descriptive term for a dispensationalism that goes beyond the views of Darby and Schofield (and IMO, beyond what's clearly taught in scripture.)

Sometimes descriptive labels are useful:

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26.)

There are some today who reject that label, and claim to rightly divide the Word of God, but it was a descriptive term that God approved of.

Peter later used it himself:

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1 Peter 4:16.)

[Quote] My understanding, so far, is that Israel...still has to be brought into a right relationship with the Lord. The prophecy in Isa..um.. 45:17 the prophecy in Jeremiah, oh, have to look it up..31:31 have yet to be fulfilled in regard to what is left of Israel – and they are still His peculiar people. God has not cast them off. There are still promises to be fulfilled in regard to their land being peacefully settled and about them being chief among the nations, so in those respects, I can see that the Lord is dealing separately with Israel. [unquote]

I can see that too.

So could Darby and Schofield (which is why they're called "Dispensationalists.")

[Quote] Bride of the Lamb is portrayed as New Jerusalem in Rev 21 [unquote]

And Paul referred to the largely Gentile Corinthian Church as a woman he had espoused to one husband, and whom he hoped to present to Christ as a chaste virgin (1 Cor. 11:2.)

The figure he used there (and "bride," "body," "husband," and "lamb" are all figures) is clearly that of the father of the bride.

If we're to use scripture (and not the teachings of men) as our guide here, the figures of bride and body are interchangeable, and include Gentile and Jewish believers.

[Quote] These questions that you have asked are not making their point obvious to me [unquote]

Hope this helped.

G-d Bless.

pawz

Jun 15th, 2007 - 8:50 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

(Pawz) Darby and Schofield saw that the Plans of the Lord were divided into ages – a view which I also think agrees with scripture.

(Mike) Bullinger went far beyond that, and even beyond you, as he believed that only Paul's prison epistles were for us today (not Romans, not Galatians, not 1 or 2 Corinthians.)

(Pawz) I could not agree with Mr B on that ....The period in which I understand the Jews to be reigning is the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Rev 20.

(Mike) I too believe that's when the Jews will be a kingdom of priests and kings--under the Saints. Paul wasn't just writing to Jews when he said: Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters (1 Cor. 6:2.)

(Pawz) I shall have to reflect on this idea of fleshly Israel governing the earth under us (non-fleshly?) saints, and seek clarification. Wonder how it would work then... (smiley)

My understanding, so far, is that at present Israel...still has to be brought into a right relationship with the Lord. The prophecy in Isa..um.. 45:17 the prophecy in Jeremiah, oh, have to look it up..31:31 have yet to be fulfilled in regard to what is left of Israel – and they are still His peculiar people. God has not cast them off. There are still promises to be fulfilled in regard to their land being peacefully settled and about them being chief among the nations, so in those respects, I can see that the Lord is dealing separately with Israel.

(Mike) I can see that too. So could Darby and Schofield (which is why they're called "Dispensationalists.") Sometimes descriptive labels are useful

(Pawz) yup, guess so (nuvver smiley). Bride of the Lamb is portrayed as New Jerusalem in Rev 21

(Mike) And Paul referred to the largely Gentile Corinthian Church as a woman he had espoused to one husband, and whom he hoped to present to Christ as a chaste virgin (1 Cor. 11:2.)
The figure he used there (and "bride," "body," "husband," and "lamb" are all figures) is clearly that of the father of the bride. If we're to use scripture (and not the teachings of men) as our guide here, the figures of bride and body are interchangeable, and include Gentile and Jewish believers.

(Pawz) Wonderful Mike - DO want to be guided by the teaching of the Word and not men's ; amen to that ( sigh). Very helpful.

(Mike) Hope this helped.

(Pawz) Has indeed. Thank you Mike ( BIG smiley). I think I must be a fledgling dispensationalist though as I have been reading from the Berean website, and quite a lot of what they say seems to make sense. Hyper-d is roundly condemned by the world and its wife; not a good word anywhere. As for Dispensational-Universalism; I dare not even google such a term !

I had to take pooch out and used the time to reflect on these things. The dealings of the Lord with 'physical' Israel, the unfinished business, the fulfillment of promises, the purposes and focus of the millennial reign in respect of Israel, that seems as if it could be traceable in Scripture so that (even) I can make some sense of it - but the deeper significance of the titles, the names....Here I have a lot to learn, and until I get a better understanding of the 'who's and 'which's and 'whats' I cannot have a formed opinion on which to rest. Any books to recommend?

Mike Burke

Jun 15th, 2007 - 10:28 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

[Quote] Any books to recommend? [unquote]

I like "The Second Death, and the Restitution of All Things," by Andrew Jukes (and I believe it's available Online.)

G-d Bless.

pawz

Jun 15th, 2007 - 11:19 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

I have found it ( was one I had already thought I ought to read one day I think) and so I will start it now. Thanks Mike

pawz

Jun 15th, 2007 - 1:57 PM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

ps. I went looking for a hard copy of Restitution of All things. couldn't afford the 3-figure price the seller was asking for that title. Went on eBay, not there, but another book by Mr J was- Types in Genesis, which I won for £6.00 including p&p.

I have read up to part 2 of the e-book Restitution on the Tentmaker site tonight.. it isn't the book Donnie pointed me to. Silly I can't remember it - wasn't THAT long ago..

Mike Burke

Jun 18th, 2007 - 6:43 PM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

[Quote] ps. I went looking for a hard copy of Restitution of All things. couldn't afford the 3-figure price the seller was asking for that title. Went on eBay, not there, but another book by Mr J was- Types in Genesis, which I won for £6.00 including p&p. [unquote]

Glad to hear it.

[Quote] I shall have to reflect on this idea of fleshly Israel governing the earth under us (non-fleshly?) saints, and seek clarification. Wonder how it would work then...[unquote]

I should have mentioned that I don't really see the difficulty you have in believing that fleshly Israel will govern the world under "non-fleshly" saints.

I mean, you do believe that fleshly Israel will be governing the earth under the risen Christ, don't you?

The risen Christ has a glorified spiritual body now, doesn't He?

Paul did say something about our vile bodies being made "like unto His glorious body," didn't he?

If fleshly Israel will be governing the earth with and under Christ, where is the difficulty in believing that they'll be governing the earth under His resurrected saints?

How would it work?

Maybe Isaiah alluded to how it will work:

And the Lord hath given to you bread of adversity, And water of oppression. And thy directors remove no more, And thine eyes have seen thy directors, And thine ear heareth a word behind thee, Saying, `This [is] the way, go ye in it,' When ye turn to the right, And when ye turn to the left. (Isaiah 30:20.)

[Quote] I think I must be a fledgling dispensationalist though as I have been reading from the Berean website, and quite a lot of what they say seems to make sense. [unquote]

I expect quite a lot of what they say is the same as what Darby and Schofield would say, and that much makes sense to me too.

What doesn't make sense is the making of artificial distinctions between "the Body" and "the Bride," and ignoring Paul's allusion to the analogy of a bride in 1 Cor. 11:2 (and no, he needn't have used the word "bride" to make that analogy--a chast virgin is a bride on the day she's presented to her husband.)

What doesn't make sense is the lengths some will go to to see two Churches, and two Gospels (while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.)

It's the "hyper," not the "dispensational" part that I take exception to (which is why I explained the difference between "dispensationalism," and "hyper-dispensationalism.")

Mike Burke

Jul 6th, 2007 - 9:40 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

P.S. Please excuse the above typo--I meant to say:

...he needn't have used the word "bride" to make that analogy--a chaste virgin is a bride on the day she's presented to her husband.

pawz

Jul 6th, 2007 - 9:46 AM

Re: Rightly dividing the Word?

understood ( smiley)

Author	Comment
pawz Jun 14, 07 - 2:03 PM	Rightly dividing the Word? Hello folks. I have been a Universalist now for six, maybe seven years - but, being a bit long in the tooth, I am a slow learner and it takes me a while to 'fix' things in my head. Well, there was a dear chap called Donnie Warren ( some of you may remember him, he died fairly recently) who kind of took me under his wing, and very patiently explained those things he thought I needed to know, and dealt with the questions I raised. He got me to read an e-book, by Preston Eby I think, and I did that. Some of it went in, and I hope that is good - but I don't see anyone else stressing the points that this book, and Donnie put so much store by. The teaching I remember most clearly are that a good portion of the Greek scriptures were not written to us Gentile Christians at all. The only books that are specifically for Gentiles, so says Donnie, are the, um... thirteen? letters, from Romans to Philemon. All the others are to the Jews or the scattered of Israel. Now I kinda warm to that understanding - it makes sense to me that the Jews will be 'Kings and Priests' that they are identified as the royal priesthood, and will reign on the earth, servingv at Ezekiel's temple as priests once more when the sacrificial system is re-introduced. These are not Gentile 'offices', this is not a Gentile scenario. So why don't I see other people making these distinctions in their posts when they consider what the scriptures are saying to us? Is it tacit - everyone knows so it isn't explicitly mentioned - or is it that it is one viewpoint among many, or is it a minority viewpoint that most people do not consider? It would be good if it was the common understanding, it makes sense to me, though I have not really tested it out in any great measure. There are weightier matters to consider than just that which I have written here if that teaching is valid, and (as Donnie said it would), to view the scriptures as having two distinct plans, one for Gentiles and one for Jews, so that we can then identify which bits belong to whom when reading the scriptures certainly gives a new perspective to such things as who the Bride of the Lamb is and who the Body of Christ is. Can I trust this teaching or must I look closer do you think? Email: pawz@ntlworld.com
Mike Burke Jun 14th, 2007 - 10:21 PM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? [Quote] Can I trust this teaching or must I look closer do you think? [unquote] Could you be more specific? The teaching that "the Jews will be 'Kings and Priests'...and will reign on the earth, serving at Ezekiel's temple as priests once more when the sacrificial system is re-introduced" is called dispensationalism. The teaching that there's some distinction between the body and the bride, and that only Paul's thirteen "letters, from Romans to Philemon" are for us today is called hyper-dispensationalism. If you take that position, what do you do with the Lord's supper? Why did Paul say: For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks, he brake, and said, `Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.' In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;' for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death of the Lord ye do shew forth -- till he may come (1 Cor. 11:23-26, Young's Literal Translation)? Why did he baptize Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14)? Why did he baptize the household of Stephanas (verse 16)? It's true that he was glad he hadn't personally baptized more, because he didn't want his detractors saying that he baptized in his own name, but why baptize any if his Gospel was so different from the twelve's (and if water baptism was no part of it)? It was certainly part of Christ's message--and if you remember, Jesus personally baptized no one: The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2.) That means that Paul personally baptized more people than Jesus. Isn't that a little strange if water baptism was only for the circumcision? And what about the New Covenant? Was Paul's ministry a part of it (or was it part of something else, called the mystery)? Why did he write (speaking of himself and Timothy): ...our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:5-6)? As to the Bride of the Lamb and the Body of Christ, was Paul not writing to the body of Christ when he said: I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2 Cor. 11:2)? Does the word "husband" not imply "wife"? When could a wife be presented "as a chaste virgin" to her husband, if not on the wedding day? Is she not a bride on the wedding day? Is Paul not using essentially the same metaphor that John used? Why do some say that he never used it? I'm a dispensationalist (like John Nelson Darby), but I'd take a closer look at hyper-dispensationalism if I were you--and if Donnie had lived longer, maybe he would have taken a closer look at it too. BTW: I knew Donnie, and considered him a friend. Here's something he once wrote to me: From: "Donnie Warren" To: "Michael Burke" Subject: Rick is pushing it Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:34:33 -0600 Hi Michael, I don't know why but Rick seems to be trying to push you over the edge. Don't let him!! Thank you brother for keeping it under control. He is being picky and all can see it. He is only hurting himself! You are showing the gentleman you are in your pleasant answers. Thanks Michael. Donnie Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
pawz Jun 15th, 2007 - 3:52 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? "The teaching that "the Jews will be 'Kings and Priests'...and will reign on the earth, serving at Ezekiel's temple as priests once more when the sacrificial system is re-introduced" is called dispensationalism." Now why is that called ‘dispensationalism’? I thought that term was applied to folks like Darby,Schofield and Bullinger who saw that the Plans of the Lord were divided into ages – a view with which I think Scripture agrees, in principle, if not in strict demarcation. The period in which I understand the Jews to be reigning is the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Rev 20. "The teaching that there's some distinction between the body and the bride, and that only Paul's thirteen "letters, from Romans to Philemon" are for us today is called hyper-dispensationalism." Oh, right - didn't know that, not big on labels. My understanding, so far, is that Israel ( not Messianic Jews, but the folk who are still under the Old Covenant) , still has to be brought into a right relationship with the Lord. The prophecy in Isa..um.. 45:17 the prophecy in Jeremiah, oh, have to look it up..31:31 have yet to be fulfilled in regard to what is left of Israel – and they are still His peculiar people. God has not cast them off. There are still promises to be fulfilled in regard to their land being peacefully settled and about them being chief among the nations, so in those respects, I can see that the Lord is dealing separately with Israel. The Bride of the Lamb is portrayed as New Jerusalem in Rev 21, so there too I can see the connection with what Donnie has explained about the Body of Christ being us, and the Bride of the Lamb being the Jews. There is where I have left it – something pending, waiting for further enlightenment. With that I am content. These questions that you have asked are not making their point obvious to me, so I cannot yet sensibly respond. Bear of little brain here you see, you need to come down a bit so I understand what you are getting at perhaps. Smaller building blocks. Email: pawz@ntlworld.com
Mike Burke Jun 15th, 2007 - 6:52 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? [Quote] Now why is that called ‘dispensationalism’? I thought that term was applied to folks like Darby, Schofield and Bullinger [unquote] Darby and Schofield saw that the plans of the Lord were divided into ages – a view which I also believe is scriptural. But Bullinger went far beyond that (and even beyond you and other hyper-dispensationalists, as he believed that only Paul's prison epistles were for us today--not Romans, not Galatians, not 1 or 2 Corinthians.) [Quote] The period in which I understand the Jews to be reigning is the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Rev 20. [unquote] I too believe that's when the Jews will be a kingdom of priests and kings--under the Saints. Paul wasn't just writing to Jews when he said: Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters (1 Cor. 6:2.) [Quote] "The teaching that there's some distinction between the body and the bride, and that only Paul's thirteen "letters, from Romans to Philemon" are for us today is called hyper-dispensationalism." Oh, right - didn't know that, not big on labels. [unquote] Hyper-dispensationalism is a descriptive term for a dispensationalism that goes beyond the views of Darby and Schofield (and IMO, beyond what's clearly taught in scripture.) Sometimes descriptive labels are useful: The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26.) There are some today who reject that label, and claim to rightly divide the Word of God, but it was a descriptive term that God approved of. Peter later used it himself: However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1 Peter 4:16.) [Quote] My understanding, so far, is that Israel...still has to be brought into a right relationship with the Lord. The prophecy in Isa..um.. 45:17 the prophecy in Jeremiah, oh, have to look it up..31:31 have yet to be fulfilled in regard to what is left of Israel – and they are still His peculiar people. God has not cast them off. There are still promises to be fulfilled in regard to their land being peacefully settled and about them being chief among the nations, so in those respects, I can see that the Lord is dealing separately with Israel. [unquote] I can see that too. So could Darby and Schofield (which is why they're called "Dispensationalists.") [Quote] Bride of the Lamb is portrayed as New Jerusalem in Rev 21 [unquote] And Paul referred to the largely Gentile Corinthian Church as a woman he had espoused to one husband, and whom he hoped to present to Christ as a chaste virgin (1 Cor. 11:2.) The figure he used there (and "bride," "body," "husband," and "lamb" are all figures) is clearly that of the father of the bride. If we're to use scripture (and not the teachings of men) as our guide here, the figures of bride and body are interchangeable, and include Gentile and Jewish believers. [Quote] These questions that you have asked are not making their point obvious to me [unquote] Hope this helped. G-d Bless. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
pawz Jun 15th, 2007 - 8:50 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? (Pawz) Darby and Schofield saw that the Plans of the Lord were divided into ages – a view which I also think agrees with scripture. (Mike) Bullinger went far beyond that, and even beyond you, as he believed that only Paul's prison epistles were for us today (not Romans, not Galatians, not 1 or 2 Corinthians.) (Pawz) I could not agree with Mr B on that ....The period in which I understand the Jews to be reigning is the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Rev 20. (Mike) I too believe that's when the Jews will be a kingdom of priests and kings--under the Saints. Paul wasn't just writing to Jews when he said: Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters (1 Cor. 6:2.) (Pawz) I shall have to reflect on this idea of fleshly Israel governing the earth under us (non-fleshly?) saints, and seek clarification. Wonder how it would work then... (smiley) My understanding, so far, is that at present Israel...still has to be brought into a right relationship with the Lord. The prophecy in Isa..um.. 45:17 the prophecy in Jeremiah, oh, have to look it up..31:31 have yet to be fulfilled in regard to what is left of Israel – and they are still His peculiar people. God has not cast them off. There are still promises to be fulfilled in regard to their land being peacefully settled and about them being chief among the nations, so in those respects, I can see that the Lord is dealing separately with Israel. (Mike) I can see that too. So could Darby and Schofield (which is why they're called "Dispensationalists.") Sometimes descriptive labels are useful (Pawz) yup, guess so (nuvver smiley). Bride of the Lamb is portrayed as New Jerusalem in Rev 21 (Mike) And Paul referred to the largely Gentile Corinthian Church as a woman he had espoused to one husband, and whom he hoped to present to Christ as a chaste virgin (1 Cor. 11:2.) The figure he used there (and "bride," "body," "husband," and "lamb" are all figures) is clearly that of the father of the bride. If we're to use scripture (and not the teachings of men) as our guide here, the figures of bride and body are interchangeable, and include Gentile and Jewish believers. (Pawz) Wonderful Mike - DO want to be guided by the teaching of the Word and not men's ; amen to that ( sigh). Very helpful. (Mike) Hope this helped. (Pawz) Has indeed. Thank you Mike ( BIG smiley). I think I must be a fledgling dispensationalist though as I have been reading from the Berean website, and quite a lot of what they say seems to make sense. Hyper-d is roundly condemned by the world and its wife; not a good word anywhere. As for Dispensational-Universalism; I dare not even google such a term ! I had to take pooch out and used the time to reflect on these things. The dealings of the Lord with 'physical' Israel, the unfinished business, the fulfillment of promises, the purposes and focus of the millennial reign in respect of Israel, that seems as if it could be traceable in Scripture so that (even) I can make some sense of it - but the deeper significance of the titles, the names....Here I have a lot to learn, and until I get a better understanding of the 'who's and 'which's and 'whats' I cannot have a formed opinion on which to rest. Any books to recommend? Email: pawz@ntlworld.com
Mike Burke Jun 15th, 2007 - 10:28 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? [Quote] Any books to recommend? [unquote] I like "The Second Death, and the Restitution of All Things," by Andrew Jukes (and I believe it's available Online.) G-d Bless. Email: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://admin@biblicaluniversalist.com
pawz Jun 15th, 2007 - 11:19 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? I have found it ( was one I had already thought I ought to read one day I think) and so I will start it now. Thanks Mike Email: pawz@ntlworld.com
pawz Jun 15th, 2007 - 1:57 PM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? ps. I went looking for a hard copy of Restitution of All things. couldn't afford the 3-figure price the seller was asking for that title. Went on eBay, not there, but another book by Mr J was- Types in Genesis, which I won for £6.00 including p&p. I have read up to part 2 of the e-book Restitution on the Tentmaker site tonight.. it isn't the book Donnie pointed me to. Silly I can't remember it - wasn't THAT long ago.. Email: pawz@ntlworld.com
Mike Burke Jun 18th, 2007 - 6:43 PM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? [Quote] ps. I went looking for a hard copy of Restitution of All things. couldn't afford the 3-figure price the seller was asking for that title. Went on eBay, not there, but another book by Mr J was- Types in Genesis, which I won for £6.00 including p&p. [unquote] Glad to hear it. [Quote] I shall have to reflect on this idea of fleshly Israel governing the earth under us (non-fleshly?) saints, and seek clarification. Wonder how it would work then...[unquote] I should have mentioned that I don't really see the difficulty you have in believing that fleshly Israel will govern the world under "non-fleshly" saints. I mean, you do believe that fleshly Israel will be governing the earth under the risen Christ, don't you? The risen Christ has a glorified spiritual body now, doesn't He? Paul did say something about our vile bodies being made "like unto His glorious body," didn't he? If fleshly Israel will be governing the earth with and under Christ, where is the difficulty in believing that they'll be governing the earth under His resurrected saints? How would it work? Maybe Isaiah alluded to how it will work: And the Lord hath given to you bread of adversity, And water of oppression. And thy directors remove no more, And thine eyes have seen thy directors, And thine ear heareth a word behind thee, Saying, `This [is] the way, go ye in it,' When ye turn to the right, And when ye turn to the left. (Isaiah 30:20.) [Quote] I think I must be a fledgling dispensationalist though as I have been reading from the Berean website, and quite a lot of what they say seems to make sense. [unquote] I expect quite a lot of what they say is the same as what Darby and Schofield would say, and that much makes sense to me too. What doesn't make sense is the making of artificial distinctions between "the Body" and "the Bride," and ignoring Paul's allusion to the analogy of a bride in 1 Cor. 11:2 (and no, he needn't have used the word "bride" to make that analogy--a chast virgin is a bride on the day she's presented to her husband.) What doesn't make sense is the lengths some will go to to see two Churches, and two Gospels (while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.) It's the "hyper," not the "dispensational" part that I take exception to (which is why I explained the difference between "dispensationalism," and "hyper-dispensationalism.") Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
Mike Burke Jul 6th, 2007 - 9:40 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? P.S. Please excuse the above typo--I meant to say: ...he needn't have used the word "bride" to make that analogy--a chaste virgin is a bride on the day she's presented to her husband. Email: admin@biblicaluniversalist.com Website: http://hrrp://www.biblicaluniversalist.com
pawz Jul 6th, 2007 - 9:46 AM	Re: Rightly dividing the Word? understood ( smiley) Email: pawz@ntlworld.com

	Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
Return to Website