Casob wrote:
If you feel comfortable, MurrayA of searching the Scriptures for an excuse to deny and teach others that God does not mean that he will keep his covenants forever and that he is not faithful, then by all means do not let me hinder you from that goal.

And yes, I would argue that such a meaning applies at least in regard to the land, since that aspect was only ever conditional in the first place.

And I am still waiting for his explanation of how there are 14 provisions (no less!) in the Abrahamic covenant.

Exegesis of the word 'olam in Heb, and (to a lesser extent) aioonios in Gk. can take the meaning of "a very long time", but I have not time to explain.

Just a quick couple of examples:
Hannah devotes the young Samuel to temple service "to appear before the LORD 'forever'" (1 Sam.1:22)
For his zeal in the Baal-Peor incident Phinehas is given "a covenant of everlasting priesthood" (berith kehunnat 'olam, Num.25:13).
How everlasting is everlasting or how long is forever in these references?? Samuel grew up, but later died (1 Sam.25:1). The Phinehas priesthood may have lasted until the Exile, but I doubt it.
And these are just two at random.

Dispensationalism makes a big deal about eschatology; it sees end-times prophecy under all sorts of rugs; it manufactures a complex and incomprehensible scheme of gobble-de-gook from a simple Biblical contrast of "this age" vs. "the age to come" (as here in Acts 3:21-24), with the transitional event being the second coming of Christ.
The "now" vs. "not yet" of Biblical salvation and blessing is likewise ignored, or at best distorted and misunderstood.

Yet for all the noise, hype, and build-up it not only distorts horribly the basic Biblical scheme, it is fundamentally ignorant of even the basics.

Yet another example of empty vessels making the most noise, or put slightly differently, where the most noise comes from, that is precisely where it the most empty.

Coming from you, JD, I am inclined to take that as a compliment!

Acts 3:21
"...until the restitution of all things"
This is simply a brief foray to the future in a discussion about "these (present) days" (v.24)

If Peter had meant to refer the prophetic utterances of the OT prophets to the (future) times of restoration, as you allege, he would have referred to those still furure (and far off) times as "THOSE days" (tas hemeras ekeinas), i.e. other than the days now present. However, he refers to "THESE days" (tas hemeras tautas), i.e. the times both he and his hearers are now in.

I get the impression that Dispies don't want to be reminded about Hal Lindsey.

The truth is that in the 1970s he made a big impact, selling millions of copies of "The Late Great Planet Earth", with all its Dispy sensationalism and crude prophetic propaganda. The fact is that millions of Christians went after him, yet all he was doing was popularising standard Dispensationalism, the very set of doctrines that you, Casob/JD, peddle on this board.

I read his books, including "There's a New World Coming", and I remember well all the hype: the Christian world seemed to be agog with him. Then he started predicting dates, like the one I mentioned below, and yet his multitudes of followers ran with that. But then the inevitable 1989 hangover came, and alas, we were still here! Yet another failed prediction!

If some JW or Christadelphian had made that prediction, when the inevitable failure came, I am quite sure the Christian world would have derided, "Aha! Typical of cultists!"

And then you give us this chestnut:
"The correct response would be to humble yourselves and admit that you know nothing and repent and ask the Lord to deliver you ..."
What? Humble ourselves before..Casob/JD?? Or before God? From the tone of your remarks the difference here is rather obscure. Do you put yourself in the place of God?

Or this:
"I am being blunt here I know but I am your friend and am telling you the truth. Please, there is still time for a better response!"
What's this? Casob/JD the fount of all wisdom?

God forbid that I ever talk in this vein!! You have often accused me (falsely) of "elitism", but never have I dared to talk down to anyone like this.

Where then does Islam fit in? That too has historically been treated as "the Antichrist of the East"

In my view we must look at both phenomena: the Papacy, and Islam. Possibly the corrupt Eastern churches should be thrown in too, because Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine patriarchs, was called "the second Rome", and Moscow after 1472 was trumpeted by the Russian tsars as "the third Rome".

If the Harlot woman of Rev.17 represents corrupt Christendom, as I believe it does, then we cannot look exclusively at the Roman papacy, but the totality of corrupt Christianity. And the interesting thing is that all of it has one name written across it: ROME!

And more and more the climate scientists, the oceanographers, the atmospheric physics people etc are jumping ship on the whole thing, leaving the politicians and scaremongering charlatans like Al Gore and David Suzuki to whip up the masses.

What you mean is that I don't follow your Dispy scheme, so therefore (in your view) I must be some sort of unbelieving imbecile.

I am tired of arguing with someone who just doesn't understand my position, and who simply cannot think outside his own box, not even for a microsecond.

You proceed on the assumption that "all" means "every last one", in this case for judgment. Well, grant it for the sake of argument: that there were some escapees was already envisaged in Christ's prediction: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20) - then let those in Judaea flee to the mountains." Many who remembered His words did just that. Eusebius records how they fled first to Transjordan Pella, and escaped with their lives. Those who stayed were incarcerated, immolated, crucified, or captured and sold as slaves, such that virtually none survived.

Those who did escape were already in the Diaspora, but life became exceedingly tough even for them.

Of course!! Have you not heard of the events of A.D. 70? Thousands of Jews perished; many more were carried to other parts of the Empire and sold as slaves; and the city and Temple were utterly destroyed.

"These days" clearly refers to the present days of Peter and the other Apostles, while the 40-year period was one of "last opportunity" for the disobedient Jews to repent and embrace Christ as the Messiah, and accept His salvation. They refused, as Paul laments in Rom.9:1-5. 70 A.D. was the final, and climactic covenant curse which ended their theocratic commonwealth for good and all.

Thus in the RC fold when transubstantiation came in in the C9th. there were two controversies: one over the "Real Presence", the other over predestination, and the same protagonists lined up on their respective sides. Those who stood against transubstantiation also stood for unconditional election; those who stood for the Real Presence also stood for synergism.

In C17th England Laud stood for Arminian synergism, and also stood for ritualism: genuflections, railed altars, copes and vestments, processionals, i.e. a form of Catholicism without the pope. The two went together, and became accepted orthodoxy in the Church of England, until the Evangelical Revival, essentially Calvinistic, challenged the prevailing "Laudianism".

After the Revival of the C18th 'high church' came to mean Arminian and highly ritualistic, while 'low church' denoted Calvinistic, evangelical, strong on the 39-Articles, and a minimum of ritual and form.

Marcus Loane, "Makers of Puritan History", Baker reprint, 1980

John Adair, "Founding Fathers: The Puritans in England and America" J.M. Dent, 1982

Antonia Fraser, "Cromwell: Our Chief of Men", Methuen, 1985. Still a standard work on this Puritan genius.

Austin Woolrych, "Britain in Revolution", Oxford, 2002. A massive tome, but easy reading for all that, and sympathetic to Puritanism in a way other writers are not, who instead display an Anglo-Catholic bias. Overall, it is excellent. (Warning: it's not cheap! Try a public library)

Also, from the series of Puritan and Westminster Conference papers, there is a useful set of essays called "Anglican and Puritan Thinking", Conf. Papers 1977.

But perhaps the modern state of Israel has nothing to do with end times prophecy? All the "Israel-watching", which so obsesses the Dispensationalists, may well be a rabbit trail.

Casob wrote:
MurrayA,
You might be interested to know that our church just took on another missionary to Australia and I think he will be serving in your general area. Maybe in the providence of God you will meet him somtimes. We are investing in you because we want to help your people.