The Doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism (Refining it Down)

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
You refuse to answer the OT questions I presented. Since you are not going to present an answer, your work in progress is absurd.

The multiple gospels presentation is old-school Dispensationalism... an error beget by Scofield (as far as I can tell) and exaggerated by your discussions.
You notice to know this "secret" knowledge you can't just read your Bible. It depends on a detailed video from him to be enlightened. Cult leaders do like to be needed.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
You refuse to answer the OT questions I presented. Since you are not going to present an answer
. . . What questions?


I'm going to expose your lies with just your past 2 posts alone:
I'm a Dispensationalist, but this is NOTHING close to Classic Dispensationalism.
So he claims to understand Classic Dispensationalism, and is defending it against our refined version of Complete Dispensationalism.

The multiple gospels presentation is old-school Dispensationalism... an error beget by Scofield (as far as I can tell)
Scofield is a Classic Dispensationalist, probably one of the primary examples of the Classics, and yet you're now saying he was in error and that he presented multiple gospels, while claiming to understand Classic Dispensationalism.

Scofield did not teach multiple Gospels anywhere close to the context you're accusing him of. The Pastors today who teach from the Scofield Bible teach one Gospel in the Bible similarly to Covenant Theologians except they believe Matt. 24 and the Kingdom is talking about physical salvation (just wait until we get to Hebrews).

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
. . . What questions?


I'm going to expose your lies with just your past 2 posts alone:

So he claims to understand Classic Dispensationalism, and is defending it against our refined version of Complete Dispensationalism.


Scofield is a Classic Dispensationalist, probably one of the primary examples of the Classics, and yet you're now saying he was in error and that he presented multiple gospels, while claiming to understand Classic Dispensationalism.

Scofield did not teach multiple Gospels anywhere close to the context you're accusing him of. The Pastors today who teach from the Scofield Bible teach one Gospel in the Bible similarly to Covenant Theologians except they believe Matt. 24 and the Kingdom is talking about physical salvation (just wait until we get to Hebrews).

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
You're lying. Proof positive you have no idea what you're talking about.

Link to Scofield's notes.


Quote from Scolfield himself.

II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished"
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
You notice to know this "secret" knowledge you can't just read your Bible. It depends on a detailed video from him to be enlightened. Cult leaders do like to be needed.
Exactly.

They believe they're providing essential service to God and they don't realize that God doesn't need them.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
You notice to know this "secret" knowledge you can't just read your Bible.
We don't claim to have any secret knowledge. All we are doing is presenting the scriptures. There is no extra-Biblical Catechism or something in our videos.

The problem is, people don't read and believe the scriptures.
Just like the Disciples didn't believe Jesus when he said he had to die, be buried, and come back 3 days later.
Just like none of them and none of the princes of this world knew what was about to happen because the Bible says "this saying was hid from them" which later we see that even though it was preached and written ahead of time it was not fully understood until Paul who then clarified that "which has been hidden from ages and from generations".
Even though John the Baptist himself echoed the prophets, and even said Christ was the lamb which would take away the sins of the world, it later says Christ's own disciples "understood none of these things (not some, none), and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which we spoken."

Even after Christ died on the cross to pay for their sins, was buried, and rose again exactly 3 days later, the empty tomb took the disciples by surprise because it says, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

So even though John the Baptist himself just said here is the lamb that will take away the sins of the world, they understood none of these things, it was hid from them, and even AFTER the resurrection, it says they still knew not the scripture that he must rise again.

What does the Bible say was hid from them. The death, burial, and resurrection, even after it was preached to them.
Who first preached it to where it was no longer hid from them? Paul.

So obviously the OT saints were not all believing in the Gospel of the Grace of God if it was hid from them.
If they were already putting their faith on the cross, they couldn't do animal sacrifices, because Hebrews says if you believe in Christ's payment, those animal sacrifices are basically rejecting this payment. So did all the OT saints reject Christ's payment who they apparently already were trusting in since Father Abraham in order to sacrifice animals instead? No, that's backwards. Dispensationalism, unlike Covenant Theology, is about progressive revelation to the people and what they understood and believed from the scriptures and when. It is Covenant Theology that backwards imbues our current understanding across all ages to all saints.

It is certainly interesting that John the Baptist preached ahead of time the lamb that will take away the sins of the world. He might have understood it, but apparently no one he preached to did and even if they read it and comprehended it, they clearly didn't believe it. Once again, it was hid from them. Who un-hid this information for everyone? Paul. So did all the OT saints go to burn in hell because they didn't believe it? No, they were believing what God told them to at the time: they had faith in God and still did the animal sacrifices. 1 Peter 1 even says they enquired and search diligently and knew "the salvation" they were prophesying about was for us in our time period, not for them. Their understanding was not complete.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished"
Nice try being slick, quote the entire thing Scofield said in context and post the source.

Then we'll discuss it in honesty and in context.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
We don't claim to have any secret knowledge. All we are doing is presenting the scriptures. There is no extra-Biblical Catechism or something in our videos.

The problem is, people don't read and believe the scriptures.
Just like the Disciples didn't believe Jesus when he said he had to die, be buried, and come back 3 days later.
Just like none of them and none of the princes of this world knew what was about to happen because the Bible says "this saying was hid from them" which later we see that even though it was preached and written ahead of time it was not fully understood until Paul who then clarified that "which has been hidden from ages and from generations".
Even though John the Baptist himself echoed the prophets, and even said Christ was the lamb which would take the sins of the world away, it later says his own disciples "understood none of these things (not some, none), and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which we spoken."

Even after Christ died on the to pay for their sins, was buried, and rose again exactly 3 days later, the empty tomb took the disciples by surprise because it says, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

So even though John the Baptist himself just said here is the lamb that will take away the sins of the world, they understood none of these things, it was hid from them, and even AFTER the resurrection, it says they still knew not the scripture that he must rise again.

What does the Bible say was hid from them. The death, burial, and resurrection, even after it was preached to them.
Who first preached it to where it was no longer hid from them? Paul.

So obviously the OT saints were not all believing in the Gospel of the Grace of God if it was hid from them.
If they already were putting their faith on the cross, they couldn't do animal sacrifices, because Hebrews says if you believe in Christ's payment, those animal sacrifices are basically rejecting this payment. So did all the OT saints reject Christ's payment who they apparently already were trusting in since Father Abraham to sacrifice animals instead? No, that's backwards. Dispensationalism, unlike Covenant Theology, is about progressive revelation to the people and what they understood and believed from the scriptures and when. It is Covenant Theology that backwards imbues our current understanding across all ages to all saints.

It is certainly interesting that John the Baptist preached ahead of time that the lamb that will take away the sins of the world. He might have understood it, but apparently no one he preached to did and even if they read it and comprehended it, they clearly didn't believe it. Once again, it was hid from them. Who un-hid this information for everyone? Paul. So did all the OT saints go to burn in hell because they didn't believe it? No, they were believing what God told them to at the time: they had faith in God and still did the animal sacrifices. 1 Peter 1 even says they enquired and search diligently and knew "the salvation" they were prophesying about was for us in our time period, not for them. Their understanding was not complete.
Have you ever heard Buster Seaton's sermon on "Empty on the road to Emmaus"

 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Nice try being slick, quote the entire thing Scofield said in context and post the source.

Then we'll discuss it in honesty and in context.
I've studied dispensationalism for decades. I know what Scofield taught. I posted the entire link and quote a short statement from the page that proves what you're saying is a lie.

You didn't know any different because you don't know Scolfield. I know him better than you do.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
We don't claim to have any secret knowledge. All we are doing is presenting the scriptures. There is no extra-Biblical Catechism or something in our videos.

The problem is, people don't read and believe the scriptures.
Just like the Disciples didn't believe Jesus when he said he had to die, be buried, and come back 3 days later.
Just like none of them and none of the princes of this world knew what was about to happen because the Bible says "this saying was hid from them" which later we see that even though it was preached and written ahead of time it was not fully understood until Paul who then clarified that "which has been hidden from ages and from generations".
Even though John the Baptist himself echoed the prophets, and even said Christ was the lamb which would take away the sins of the world, it later says Christ's own disciples "understood none of these things (not some, none), and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which we spoken."

Even after Christ died on the cross to pay for their sins, was buried, and rose again exactly 3 days later, the empty tomb took the disciples by surprise because it says, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

So even though John the Baptist himself just said here is the lamb that will take away the sins of the world, they understood none of these things, it was hid from them, and even AFTER the resurrection, it says they still knew not the scripture that he must rise again.

What does the Bible say was hid from them. The death, burial, and resurrection, even after it was preached to them.
Who first preached it to where it was no longer hid from them? Paul.

So obviously the OT saints were not all believing in the Gospel of the Grace of God if it was hid from them.
If they were already putting their faith on the cross, they couldn't do animal sacrifices, because Hebrews says if you believe in Christ's payment, those animal sacrifices are basically rejecting this payment. So did all the OT saints reject Christ's payment who they apparently already were trusting in since Father Abraham in order to sacrifice animals instead? No, that's backwards. Dispensationalism, unlike Covenant Theology, is about progressive revelation to the people and what they understood and believed from the scriptures and when. It is Covenant Theology that backwards imbues our current understanding across all ages to all saints.

It is certainly interesting that John the Baptist preached ahead of time the lamb that will take away the sins of the world. He might have understood it, but apparently no one he preached to did and even if they read it and comprehended it, they clearly didn't believe it. Once again, it was hid from them. Who un-hid this information for everyone? Paul. So did all the OT saints go to burn in hell because they didn't believe it? No, they were believing what God told them to at the time: they had faith in God and still did the animal sacrifices. 1 Peter 1 even says they enquired and search diligently and knew "the salvation" they were prophesying about was for us in our time period, not for them. Their understanding was not complete.
If your argument is truly just a difference in degree of knowledge on what those in different time periods had regarding the Messiah you won't get a significant argument from me (for once). OT saints were saved based on belief in God and his promise of a coming Messiah (even if they did not fully realize all that entailed). Church age and beyond get saved based on belief in/on the Messiah who came and was crucified and rose again. Either way belief upon the Messiah is the mode of salvation. At one time you stated your work built upon that of Ruckman's. His dispensationalism had all sorts of different ways of getting saved.
 

voicecrying

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
230
Reaction score
38
Points
28
Age
52
"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."
So the scripture said it, right? So it isn't that it wasn't already written, it was that their eyes had not been opened. All my life I heard that Jesus was the son of God, that he died on the cross and rose 3 days later. It wasn't until I was 25 when my eyes were opened to what that really meant. It wasn't a different gospel. It was my eyes being opened and me being given faith to believe.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
I know what Scofield taught.
Then back it up, I'm down to address this matter.

But quoting half a sentence, we don't have the full context. Also we need the source, as there have been "New" Scofield Reference Bibles etc. that have corrupted and altered his original teachings.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
So the scripture said it, right?
Of course, no one is disputing that. UGC has never disputed that.

*** Allow me to make this point: ***
If the OT saints were already putting their faith on the cross, they couldn't do animal sacrifices, because Hebrews says if you believe in Christ's payment for your sins, those animal sacrifices are basically rejecting this payment. So did all the OT saints reject Christ's payment which they were apparently already trusting in to cover it all and get them into heaven ever since Father Abraham in order to sacrifice animals instead? No, that's BACKWARDS. Dispensationalism, unlike Covenant Theology, is about progressive revelation to the people and what they understood and believed from the scriptures and WHEN. It is Covenant Theology that backwards imbues our current understanding across all ages to all saints.

It is not about when the scriptures said something, it is about when the people fully understood and placed their faith in what was said.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
If your argument is truly just a difference in degree of knowledge on what those in different time periods had regarding the Messiah you won't get a significant argument from me (for once). OT saints were saved based on belief in God and his promise of a coming Messiah (even if they did not fully realize all that entailed). Church age and beyond get saved based on belief in/on the Messiah who came and was crucified and rose again. Either way belief upon the Messiah is the mode of salvation. At one time you stated your work built upon that of Ruckman's. His dispensationalism had all sorts of different ways of getting saved.
The real thing is always better than what someone says about it. When Jesus showed up....the fullness of LIGHT came into this world. Jesus told His disciples

Luk 10:24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

A dispensationalist in the line of UGC will look at such a verse and declare...... SEE. They didn't know....

Yet, that is not what it says. In fact, it says the opposite. Many wise men. Many KINGS knew He was coming to bring wondrous things to this earth. They KNEW and believed the message God gave to His own to share throughout recorded history......Yet the promise just isn't as glorious as the manifestation of the promise. That is all.

Its not that they didn't know anything about it. They just often refused to believe the message. Just like we often refuse to believe it now.
 
Last edited:

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,683
Reaction score
88
Points
48
You notice to know this "secret" knowledge you can't just read your Bible.
"Secret" knowledge that was laid out in scripture that you read and still don't understand. In fact, you've ignored most of them.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,683
Reaction score
88
Points
48
So the scripture said it, right? So it isn't that it wasn't already written, it was that their eyes had not been opened. All my life I heard that Jesus was the son of God, that he died on the cross and rose 3 days later. It wasn't until I was 25 when my eyes were opened to what that really meant. It wasn't a different gospel. It was my eyes being opened and me being given faith to believe.
Amen! Well said.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Then back it up, I'm down to address this matter.

But quoting half a sentence, we don't have the full context. Also we need the source, as there have been "New" Scofield Reference Bibles etc. that have corrupted and altered his original teachings.
I posted the source. You can't even read properly. Pay attention. The New Scofield didn't change what I posted. Over and over again, you prove you're not experienced at all.
 

treasure_unseen

Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
208
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Of course, no one is disputing that. UGC has never disputed that.

*** Allow me to make this point: ***
If the OT saints were already putting their faith on the cross, they couldn't do animal sacrifices, because Hebrews says if you believe in Christ's payment for your sins, those animal sacrifices are basically rejecting this payment. So did all the OT saints reject Christ's payment which they were apparently already trusting in to cover it all and get them into heaven ever since Father Abraham in order to sacrifice animals instead? No, that's BACKWARDS. Dispensationalism, unlike Covenant Theology, is about progressive revelation to the people and what they understood and believed from the scriptures and WHEN. It is Covenant Theology that backwards imbues our current understanding across all ages to all saints.

It is not about when the scriptures said something, it is about when the people fully understood and placed their faith in what was said.
How ridiculous.

Abraham was called to offer his son Isaac on the very mountain Jesus Christ would later be offered upon. God promised to provide a lamb. From that day forth a lamb was used to typify Jesus Christ.

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Treasure_unseen still hasn't posted the full statement he quoted from Scofield.

Every Pastor who preaches and teaches from the Scofield Reference Bible (I would know, I attended a Bible College for a time under a very solid Pastor who has been doing so for around 50 years) teaches one Gospel from beginning to end for salvation. They teach the Gospel of the Kingdom differently in the sense that it is referring to their physical salvation, not the salvation of their souls.

UGC does not teach a works of the law salvation in any time period, OT or Tribulation included. But we also do not teach the same thing as Scofield.

If people can just be patient instead of assuming, it will be made clear in due time. I am human and get tired too, and our videos are not just thrown together carelessly, they do take work.
 
Top