Point

[Hitch]

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
​

Remember it is the same bunch who taught the rapture would happen any moment and all that goes with it a also taught that the Lord's Prayer has no place in the church.

 

[handy]

Interesting....I've never heard of this...that some would say the Lord's Prayer has no place within the Church. Care to elaborate?

 

[Hitch]

Interesting....I've never heard of this...that some would say the Lord's Prayer has no place within the Church. Care to elaborate?

One of the best known and at the same time most characteristic illustrations of the dispensational method and the dangers that beset it is the Lord's Prayer. There are thousands of Christians today who do not use this prayer: there are many ministers who have eliminated it from the accustomed order of worship in their churches. Why is this ? The reason is briefly stated in the comment which is found in the margin of the Scofield Bible on the Fifth Petition, "and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors":
"This is legal ground. Cf. Eph. iv. 32, which is grace. Under law forgiveness is conditioned upon a like spirit in us ; under grace we are forgiven for Christ's sake, and exhorted to forgive because we have been forgiven. See Matt. xviii. 32 xxvi. 28, note." (4)
"This is legal ground" is the indictment brought by Dispensationalism against this petition. Law, of course, belongs to the Dispensation of Law. We are today in the Church age, the Dispensation of Grace. Therefore this petition and by inference the whole prayer is legal and not for the Christian. Dr. Haldeman puts it bluntly when he says ". . . . it does not belong to the Church, it is not for the Christian at all ". He calls it "a prayer that has no more place in the Christian church than the thunders of Sinai, or the offerings of Leviticus "(5)

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?114

The Lord's prayer was admirably suited to the disciples in the position in which they found themselves as favoured with the personal presence of the promised Christ. He Himself emphasised the privileges of their position in Matt. 13: 16-17: "Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men 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," Others had looked and yearned for His coming; the disciples had Him before their eyes from day to day.
This being so, their experience went beyond anything known by Psalmists and Prophets, and this must needs be reflected in their prayers. But Christ not having yet died and risen again, and redemption being yet unaccomplished, the disciples were not in the marvellous position of blessing in which Christians now stand. Hence, while they could speak to God in a way that saints of earlier ages could not, they were quite unable to speak to Him as we can who are in the full grace and blessing of a perfect Christianity.
The prayer was thus suited to the intermediate or transitional condition of things then prevailing, and it will probably be found truly suitable again when Israel's believing remnant steps into our place of testimony after the Christian era is closed.

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/fereday/index.html

(scroll down to Thoughts on the Lord's Prayer)

This is codified blasphemy.

Emphasis added


continued;

 

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by handy Interesting....I've never heard of this...that some would say the Lord's Prayer has no place within the Church. Care to elaborate?

...two or three witnesses....

2. Dispensationalism rejects both the unity of God’s revelation and the fact that God’s purpose is “held forth with more fullness†(Confession of Faith, Ch. VII, Sec. 6) in the New Testament than it is in the Old. Dispensationalism holds that large portions even of the New Testament are for the Jewish Nation, not for the Church. In speaking of the Scriptures for the Church, Dr. Chafer says, “The Scrip*tures addressed specifically to this company are the Gospel by John—especially the upper room discourse,—the Acts and the Epistles.†(Dispensationalism, pp. 406-07.) Dispensationalism declares that the Sermon on the Mount is for the Jews of the Kingdom period, and is “law not grace.†Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 989, 1230; Dispensationalism, p. 443.) The Lord’s Prayer and the Great Commission are as*signed by some to the Jews of the “tribulation†period, and not to the Church. (Grace, pp. 174, 176, 179, 181.)

Emphasis added

​

http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/pcus1944.html

:eeeekkk

​

 

[jasoncran]

how long ago was that? most of the churches in the us are dispy and say that prayer(at least here).

 

[Hitch]

how long ago was that? most of the churches in the us are dispy and say that prayer(at least here).

As has the Pentecostal branch for 100 years. ( we never was much fer book learnin)

Allis writes near WWII ,about the same time the PCA document was released. Fereday writes @ 1904. The SRB was published in '09, updated @ 1967.

 

[handy]

Wow...

My mom had a Scofield Study Bible and when they became members of the OPC she really got an earful about Scofield. I remember perusing the notes and then just letting it lay on the shelf except when I wanted to use it's extended concordance. I always have had a bit of an issue with the whole "dispensation" as taught by Scofield et. al. I know mom gave the bible away to someone long, long ago to an AofG friend of hers.

Anyway, I never really saw that about the Lord's Prayer...That, to me, is about one of the most shocking things I've ever heard. I did read through the "Thought's on the Lord's Prayer" by Fereday and yeah...bad stuff.

Not only bad, but at times, absurd. I was really taken away by this:

A moment's reflection should convince anyone that it is perfectly shocking to teach a mixed company to say "Our Father." It is teaching them to utter the biggest of all falsehoods, to their own hurt and delusion. as well as to the divine dishonour.

Ok...so there was Jesus teaching on the Mount. Crowds around and Jesus taught to pray in this manner, "Our Father..." Crowds there. Jesus just did what Fereday just said not to do. Fereday tries to get around this rather obvious problem by saying:

Though the Lord's prayer was uttered in the hearing of the crowd, the Lord was manifestly instructing His disciples only (Matt. 6: 1).

However, with this he gets a little "pick and choosy" (coining a phrase there) because a mere seven sentences later he states:

"Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven." Thus were the disciples (and we also) taught...

OK, so which is it? Was the prayer only for the disciples and the rest of the crowd were to listen to the Lord's teaching...just not take any of it to heart for themselves...or, is it for all of us, down through the ages...

Or, are we to only pay attention to some of the petitions, but leave the rest back in "Law"....

Gah....I much prefer looking at the Scriptures as God's flowing revelation, never chopped or contradictory, just precept upon precept.

 

[jasoncran]

as any good christian should. the bible is written by the jews to the jews for the most part.

once you look at it that way then you get what they are telling us.

 

[Lehigh3]

True, Christ's kingdom came as promised- but this is & always was a spiritual kingdom. He said his kingdom was not of this world. Christ rejected the offer to be "KING" of an earthly kingdom (John 6:15)
"Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" Of course we always need to pray for this. It's dynamic, & not a one time event.

The rest of the prayer is just that. A prayer.

PS. It's technically really not the "Lord's prayer." It's our prayer. The actual Lord's prayer is in John 17.

 

[handy]

PS. It's technically really not the "Lord's prayer." It's our prayer. The actual Lord's prayer is in John 17.

 

[Hitch]

Its often been like working with mormons. Many DFs really are not aware of their origins. Sadly too many still want the creamy filling even after learning the dinner was spoiled.

 

[Osgiliath]

I wouldn't mind a few answers myself. The Bible states that the last enemy that will be destroyed is death: that every enemy of God will be subdued by the King of kings until even death itself is conquered (1 Cor. 15:54-57; Rev. 21:4).

"So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:25, 26, 54-57)

Does physical death continue forever in your view? If everything in Scripture has already been fulfilled, what authority aside from the Scripture can you appeal to posit a future terminus of death and suffering?

If this only refers to spiritual death and things will perpetually continue as they are, then you must (by logical deduction) conclude that the last person was converted in A.D. 70 and the world ever since has been left to the unbelievers, or your internal hermeneutics are completely incongruent and contradictory, even if victory and resurrection is solely spiritual. There is no other possible conclusion.

Do you deny and dismiss the significance of Christ's death and resurrection to ultimately defeat death, and the consequences of Adam's fall? Was Adam's death solely a spiritual death (i.e. - physical death was not a consequence of sin)?

If spiritual death has no relationship to physical death (as we still experience), why did Jesus also die a physical death? Was Christ's physical death incidental; to serve as a dramatic role? You say we receive our inheritance after physical death, yet Paul clearly says the last enemy to be destroyed is death.

And what about the second death?

"Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death." (Revelation 20:14)

Can you specifically define the first death and the second death? What exactly is the second death according to your paradigm? Do you think all death – both spiritual and physical – is the result of sin? Do you think both the first death and the second death are the result of sin?

Are there still enemies of Christ in this world? Can people still sin and Christians still die? Death should be done away with in the removal of every power that opposes the will of God; should it not?

Some specific answers to these questions without the usual overdose of hermeneutical gymnastics would be a welcome relief.

 

[Lehigh3]

Osgiliath,
Death is used in scripture both spiritually & physically & or both.
What did Jesus say about the resurrection?
34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[b]38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” (Luke 20:34-38)

That was the end of the Jewish age. Christ had appeared on earth when "the fullness of times had come" for Israel. Also, 1Cor.10:11 for one explains the overlap of the "ages" that happened in Paul's generation. These ages in their proper time frame in history are easily seen like the "means & extremes" we learned in math.
11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

What did Jesus say about "eternal life" & the age to come?

It may be easier to understand "who" had the power of death that Christ defeated.

The "means" of the age of grace was in effect beginning with Christ's ministry. The "kingdom of God and of His Christ" fully came (the extreme part) at the last & 7th trumpet (the fulfillment of the feasts) And the fulfillment of the final feast- The Tabernacle of God is with man. (Rev.21)

The term eternal life is a central theme found in the Gospel of John. The very purpose of John’s gospel was that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (Jn 20:31; cf. 1 Jn 5:13), “life” being synonymous with “eternal life”. Jesus says that, “this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Interesting to note, knowing God does not precede or follow eternal life. Instead, knowing God is eternal life. “Those who know God in the present have an incorruptible fellowship with God that cannot be severed or impugned by death” (Thompson, p. 380). Furthermore, Jesus says that “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” Marshall believes that "the most comprehensive term in John for what Jesus gives to people is life or eternal life, which is to be understood as sharing in the life of God [John 1:4] (Marshall, p. 520).Thus, understanding the term eternal life is of great importance to the Christian life.~

~http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_life

 

[Hitch]

I wouldn't mind a few answers myself. The Bible states that the last enemy that will be destroyed is death: that every enemy of God will be subdued by the King of kings until even death itself is conquered (1 Cor. 15:54-57; Rev. 21:4).

"So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:25, 26, 54-57)

Does physical death continue forever in your view? If everything in Scripture has already been fulfilled, what authority aside from the Scripture can you appeal to posit a future terminus of death and suffering?

If this only refers to spiritual death and things will perpetually continue as they are, then you must (by logical deduction) conclude that the last person was converted in A.D. 70 and the world ever since has been left to the unbelievers, or your internal hermeneutics are completely incongruent and contradictory, even if victory and resurrection is solely spiritual. There is no other possible conclusion.

Do you deny and dismiss the significance of Christ's death and resurrection to ultimately defeat death, and the consequences of Adam's fall? Was Adam's death solely a spiritual death (i.e. - physical death was not a consequence of sin)?

If spiritual death has no relationship to physical death (as we still experience), why did Jesus also die a physical death? Was Christ's physical death incidental; to serve as a dramatic role? You say we receive our inheritance after physical death, yet Paul clearly says the last enemy to be destroyed is death.

And what about the second death?

"Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death." (Revelation 20:14)

Can you specifically define the first death and the second death? What exactly is the second death according to your paradigm? Do you think all death – both spiritual and physical – is the result of sin? Do you think both the first death and the second death are the result of sin?

Are there still enemies of Christ in this world? Can people still sin and Christians still die? Death should be done away with in the removal of every power that opposes the will of God; should it not?

Some specific answers to these questions without the usual overdose of hermeneutical gymnastics would be a welcome relief.

These are all important questions that have nothing at all to do with the topic.

Please keep to topic, start a thread and Im sure you'll get plenty of responses

H

 

[reba]

Osgiliath,

The OP has requested staying on topic.
We have a number of preterist topics available or you could start a new thread. Thank you reba

http://www.christianforums.net/f63/

 

[Osgiliath]

Well, no offense Reba, but if you cannot see the intent of the OP to infuse preterist theology into the discussion, obviously there is nothing I can say. I’ve been a part of this forum for quite some time, and this has been going on long enough. I’ve known Vic for a long time, and he knows me. This is NOT a preterist thread, and yet the OP set this up with an obvious bias toward the preterist belief system.

Being that the OP has presented a paradigm that favors the preterist philosophy, I have asked questions that deserve an answer (specific answers), being that I do not subscribe to the preterist theology. My understanding was the preterist belief system was to be contained within their own sub-forum. Obviously, that is not the case. I think my questions deserve specific answers. And these aren’t the first of the questions I have; I’m just getting warmed up. If ChristianForums.net has decided to favor the preterist theology (as it would seem as of late), that is fine; and I am happy to go elsewhere. If not; if I ask a question that involves assertions of truth within God’s Word; I expect thorough answers without the PC police favoring a certain belief system.

 

[Hitch]

Well, no offense Reba, but if you cannot see the intent of the OP to infuse preterist theology into the discussion, obviously there is nothing I can say. I’ve been a part of this forum for quite some time, and this has been going on long enough. I’ve known Vic for a long time, and he knows me. This is NOT a preterist thread, and yet the OP set this up with an obvious bias toward the preterist belief system.

Being that the OP has presented a paradigm that favors the preterist philosophy, I have asked questions that deserve an answer (specific answers), being that I do not subscribe to the preterist theology. My understanding was the preterist belief system was to be contained within their own sub-forum. Obviously, that is not the case. I think my questions deserve specific answers. And these aren’t the first of the questions I have; I’m just getting warmed up. If ChristianForums.net has decided to favor the preterist theology (as it would seem as of late), that is fine; and I am happy to go elsewhere. If not; if I ask a question that involves assertions of truth within God’s Word; I expect thorough answers without the PC police favoring a certain belief system.

To repeat;

These are all important questions that have nothing at all to do with the topic.

Please keep to topic, start a thread and Im sure you'll get plenty of responses , nahhh probably not.

H

 

[Stormcrow]

I do not subscribe to the preterist theology.

Not at all?

So Jesus didn't fulfill at least 300 prophecies from the OT alone?

I'm not a preterist, either. But then I don't subscribe to labels that allow people to pigeon-hole others into "doctrinal ghettos" whereby they can then be safely ignored.

 

[Acebopata]

Ok, first, I see absolutely no problem with a per-tribulation rapture and the lords prayer. After all, the saints do return with Jesus at the second coming.

Second, God has always utilized his Jewish followers throughout history. They where important in the beginning, they where important during the days of Christ, they are important today, and they always will be important.

Third this is what Jesus taught his followers to pray. This is what Jesus wanted his follwoers to pray, that the kingdom of god will be manifest in the earth. This means asking god to work through the nations to manifest the church. Which it is in many ways. The world is rabidly heading toward a one world government system, very similar to that mentioned in the book of revelation.

And finally, What does it matter at one particular period in the tribulation people think the rapture will occur? What's much more important is that people be prepared to meet the lord at any time, as no one is guaranteed their next breath.

Now as to the topic, If the person in the atrical are blaspheming the Lords Prayer, then shame on them. But just because they bash The Lords prayer dosen't mean the pre-tribulation rapture is wrong. I've seen many denominations and pastors teach the per-tribulation rapture, many having little to no connection with this group.

 

[Hitch]

Ok, first, I see absolutely no problem with a per-tribulation rapture and the lords prayer. After all, the saints do return with Jesus at the second coming.

Thats what I meant by he cream filling. You dump the foundational support for the dispensation commonly referred to as the 'church age', but you want to keep hold of the rapture. And I doubt you even realize the problems that it causes.

Second, God has always utilized his Jewish followers throughout history. They where important in the beginning, they where important during the days of Christ, they are important today, and they always will be important.

Third this is what Jesus taught his followers to pray. This is what Jesus wanted his follwoers to pray, that the kingdom of god will be manifest in the earth. This means asking god to work through the nations to manifest the church. Which it is in many ways. The world is rabidly heading toward a one world government system, very similar to that mentioned in the book of revelation.

see above

And finally, What does it matter at one particular period in the tribulation people think the rapture will occur? What's much more important is that people be prepared to meet the lord at any time, as no one is guaranteed their next breath.

Now as to the topic, If the person in the atrical are blaspheming the Lords Prayer, then shame on them. But just because they bash The Lords prayer dosen't mean the pre-tribulation rapture is wrong. I've seen many denominations and pastors teach the per-tribulation rapture, many having little to no connection with this group.

Really? I dont know of any 'pre-tribulation rapture' denominations that do not claim to be dispensationalist. What are their names ?

The lure of wanting to identify this or that current event as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy is so strong that it has severely eroded the support for the so called 'chruch age'. And without the 'church age' as a distinct and totally separate dispensation the possibility of rapture at any moment evaporates. Most adherents remain unconcerned because they are ignorant of the fundamentals of the movement. Really, why should they be concerned? The rapture will solve any problem they can get into, in the next few years so why study beyond confirming perfect knowledge of the soon coming escape?
Its like finding a treasure map. The treasure box is just about to found, you have after all the last page detailing exactly where it is located. Never mind that you would dismiss the first two pages had you been given them , there is treasure and you're certain of it. Inevitably the word will get out. The treasure ,according to pages one and two is burried in Jamaica and all the years of searching for it in Barbados were wasted. But then you knew treasure maps are notoriously slim wrt to truth anyway.