tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post114769952620429283..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Truth is old, but the reverse may not holdPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87231513161020396422007-11-13T06:55:00.000-08:002007-11-13T06:55:00.000-08:00The use of “Canaan Land” as a metaphor of “heaven...The use of “Canaan Land” as a metaphor of “heaven” is only used once in the Bible. It is found in a passage that spans Hebrews 3 and 4. <BR/><BR/>Hebrews 3:17-18 says “ But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?”<BR/><BR/>Then, after arguing that a “rest” is promised to Christians, but has not been realized, the author states in Hebrews 4:9 “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”<BR/><BR/>If the Holy Spirit uses Canaan as a metaphor for heaven, I suppose we can also. However, with all metaphors, we must use caution to extending the analogous elements to the extreme. This is especially true since the use of the metaphor was to illustrate the fact that some “did not enter in” not to emphasize the conditions once they entered.Dr Danny Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11459417483604456764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147819697236592612006-05-16T15:48:00.000-07:002006-05-16T15:48:00.000-07:00I've always assumed (yea, I know(C: ) that crossin...I've always assumed (yea, I know(C: ) that crossing the Jordon, as a metaphor for death, was based on 2 kings 2 where Elijah and Elisha cross the Jordon just before Elijah rides the chariot of fire to heaven. He crosses the Jordon and passes from this life into the next.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Herrmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12439411702298453513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147807181203735492006-05-16T12:19:00.000-07:002006-05-16T12:19:00.000-07:00Your only problem can be in the context of thinkin...Your only problem can be in the context of thinking that Canaan is 'actually' supposed to be heaven. It's a type. The 'rest' is also Jesus, just as the sabbath is. When you disconnect the Old Testament from the New you miss alot. As for giants and fortified cities: Thomas Watson wrote a good book on the necessity that heaven must be taken by storm. With God's help...<BR/><BR/>Five Solas<BR/>Doctrines of Grace<BR/>Amillenial<BR/>Classical Covenant Theology<BR/>and just say no to sacramentalism and clericalism...c.t.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02287685119108815245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147799766556775952006-05-16T10:16:00.000-07:002006-05-16T10:16:00.000-07:00It would seem that this would be a good time to pl...It would seem that this would be a good time to plug my blog:<BR/><BR/> OldTruth.com<BR/><BR/>Sorry, given the topic of the post, I couldn't resist :-)Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147794676196516342006-05-16T08:51:00.000-07:002006-05-16T08:51:00.000-07:00...and the next sentence?...and the next sentence?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147790257998489352006-05-16T07:37:00.000-07:002006-05-16T07:37:00.000-07:00"Reject Dispensationalism if you believe it does n...<I>"Reject Dispensationalism if you believe it does not accord with the Bible."</I><BR/><BR/>"Your terms are acceptable" ((c) Men in Black)John Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074559601919298190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147744696718437362006-05-15T18:58:00.000-07:002006-05-15T18:58:00.000-07:00To underscore bohemian baptist's earlier post - e....To underscore bohemian baptist's earlier post - e.g. Spurgeon's "Crossing the Jordan" Sermon #2039, it should be noted that many of these men (including Bunyan), faithfully preached the Old Covenant examples as shadowy previews of God's present blessings, and future glory that will be revealed in Heaven - all of which <I>illustrate</I> the reality of God's faithfulness to His people. Much of the preaching and literature from the past made these ideas very common; but it should be clear that a person's view of the continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New covenants will affect these issues a great deal. Ultimately, we who are in Christ <I>have entered into His rest</I> (Hebrews 3-4); but we also look forward to the final consumation of our salvation in future glory (Phil. 3:20-21), <I>remembering</I> that the Lord is faithful to fulfill <I> all His promises.</I> <BR/><BR/>Not to avoid the broader point of the post (which is crucial): that which is old is not automatically good, unless it comports with Holy Writ - that goes for any idea of any age. Here is an especially good principle for our hymnody as well, whether old or new: All that is new is not necessarily bad; nor are all things old necessarily good - e.g. "God of Grace and God of Glory."<BR/><BR/>Selah<BR/><BR/>Pastor Mike<BR/>Longing earnestly for Beulah land (Oh, here we go again)... ;)thearmouryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16573006949482415927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147744364920208322006-05-15T18:52:00.000-07:002006-05-15T18:52:00.000-07:00I've always wondered about the crossing Jordan pic...I've always wondered about the crossing Jordan picture as well. Many songs use that as the metaphor for death and entry into heaven. I was always taught by my pastor father (a dispensationalist by the way) that crossing Jordan is illustrative of a stage in the Christian life of learning to walk by faith. The wandering in the wilderness has given way to a focus on a commitment to faithful obedience. This then results in facing the "giants in the land" and learning to claim victory. A good book with respect to this is "Victorious Christian Living 0 Studies in Joshua" by Alan RedpathRogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04851739091475167571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147740599883612132006-05-15T17:49:00.000-07:002006-05-15T17:49:00.000-07:00Libbie --If we keep careful records of all the thi...<B>Libbie</B> --<BR/><BR/>If we keep careful records of all the things that Dan says Dispensationalism is not, we'll get to his beliefs... eventually. I'll be around then... I think.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08756471907257012879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147737399332397662006-05-15T16:56:00.000-07:002006-05-15T16:56:00.000-07:00Artfling--I can surely understand your aversion to...Artfling--I can surely understand your aversion to date-setters like Hal Lindsay and others of his ilk, but please don't judge all of us dispensationalists by them. Some of us know better than to try to pin (or velcro) the rapture to a particular day.Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18042761082770423304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147735846834096532006-05-15T16:30:00.000-07:002006-05-15T16:30:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.thearmouryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16573006949482415927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147734744427195122006-05-15T16:12:00.000-07:002006-05-15T16:12:00.000-07:00I took a swipe at Dispies too. A pretty specific ...I took a swipe at Dispies too. A pretty specific Dispy, in fact.<BR/>:-)Jeremy Weaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02552780649310262425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147732386778875182006-05-15T15:33:00.000-07:002006-05-15T15:33:00.000-07:00There are several reasons to reject dispensational...There are several reasons to reject dispensationalism (besides the fact that it has too many syllables). I have never read a nondispie ever refute it based soley on history. The fact is that the many Hal Lindsey like predictions by various authors made dispensationalism an embarrassment to Christianity. When I finally heard the post-mil version I was ripe to hear something that wasn't so silly. And boy did it make sense. Plus I didn't seem to need those velcro charts for moving the dates around. My favorite refutations of dispensationalism begin with the time texts. So what does soon literally mean? Read the first several verses of Rev. The 5th chapter of James. The 10th chapter of Hebrews. 2000 years ago they were ready for something big that was to take place soon.artflinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17480841042878773228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147729833836175822006-05-15T14:50:00.000-07:002006-05-15T14:50:00.000-07:00I also wanted to make sure I said this:this age, a...I also wanted to make sure I said this:<BR/><BR/><B>this age, and the age to come.</B><BR/><BR/>That's all. After that, you can draw as many diagrams about theology as you want. I'm not going to fight with you because Phil says that's nasty.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147729661692510132006-05-15T14:47:00.000-07:002006-05-15T14:47:00.000-07:00I took a swipe at Dispys, but it wasn't at my blog...I took a swipe at Dispys, but it wasn't at my blog. I think. I did a lot of posting today.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147728636335921222006-05-15T14:30:00.000-07:002006-05-15T14:30:00.000-07:00You're just saying that to make me visit your blog...You're just saying that to make me visit your blog.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147728155796446902006-05-15T14:22:00.000-07:002006-05-15T14:22:00.000-07:00You're just mad because I took a swipe at Dispys t...You're just mad because I took a swipe at Dispys today.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147722898106106832006-05-15T12:54:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:54:00.000-07:00"Historical arguments are not the final test for t..."Historical arguments are not the final test for the truthfulness of any doctrine. Scripture is our sole authority for both doctrine and practice. Yet the history of a doctrine can be highly relevant. We have much more reason to be confident of a doctrine such as the Trinity, which has been taught since the first centuries of the church age, than a doctrine first taught 150 years ago." Keith Mathison<BR/>I thought this was a good thought, and agrees with DJP's thoughts.<BR/><BR/>I believe the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus will return. How many times will He return ...?donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147721337742975192006-05-15T12:28:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:28:00.000-07:00"feat" - sigh."feat" - sigh.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06734845463331170748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147721247050551682006-05-15T12:27:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:27:00.000-07:00The Jordan River: "Now all these things happened t...<B>The Jordan River</B>: "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."<BR/><BR/>It strikes me that the promised land pictures the "rest" that we, as Christians, are supposed to enter into. The Israelites were Jews before the crossed the Jordan - and they were Jews after they crossed - the only difference was that they were entering into a land that God had promised them. To do this the ark of the promise preceded the Israelites into the Jordan - the Israelites crossed on dry ground - a feet they could not have orchestrated on their own - and when they were in the land promised to them the ark of the promise followed them up the banks. Thereafter God drove out the inhabitants of the land so that the Jewish people could live in it - not all at once mind you, but little by little. The land was appropriated by faith and not might.<BR/><BR/>This pictures sanctification - we cross the Jordan when we accept God's promises of sanctification - and only then do we enter into that promised rest - not that it comes in a day - but as we are faithful and appropriate through faith the promised rest - God goes before us and gives us the land where our feet tread.<BR/><BR/><B>On eschatology</B>: Jesus is coming back - and we ought to be ready. <BR/><BR/>My approach on eschatology is to continue to reject what doesn't agree with my understanding of scripture - hoping that eventually whatever remains will form a cohesive eschatological view! lol!Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06734845463331170748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147720789959393182006-05-15T12:19:00.000-07:002006-05-15T12:19:00.000-07:00I'm just going to toss this one out here and run. ...I'm just going to toss this one out here and run. But . . . <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> . . . didn't the author of <I>Hebrews</I> use the analogy first and Bunyan and others only borrowed it from him? (Hebrews 3)?<BR/><BR/>And doesn't it sort of seem to fit when we consider that the Red Sea crossing was Old Covenant redemption (the anti-type, of course, being in the death of Christ)?<BR/><BR/><B><I>IF</B></I> the Red Sea crossing corresponds to our deliverance as the redeemed of Christ from Egypt, and . . . <BR/><BR/><B><I>IF</B></I> the wilderness journey corresponds to the perseverance of the saints in this life (and it does in Hebrews 3 and 1 Corinthians 10) . . . <BR/><BR/><B><I>THEN</B></I> wouldn't arrival in our promised home be a fitting end to the analogy?<BR/><BR/>Admittedly, the analogy is not perfect, for reasons already stated, but doesn't it have at least a basis in the Word?Momohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292177473341691525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147716609597168062006-05-15T11:10:00.000-07:002006-05-15T11:10:00.000-07:00Its ok Robert. I make a fool out my self just abou...Its ok <B>Robert</B>. I make a fool out my self just about every time I post. I am bad at spelling my self so if you want to feel better look at my blog or at my comments on this blog. I am quite sure i am quite famous for my bad grammar and spelling.<BR/><BR/>But <B>Dan "The Man" Phillips</B> I have to agree with your observations on dispensaltionalism. And I must agree with <B>libbie</B> here. When you going to actually adress dispensationalism in detail? I am rather eager to hear it.Screaming Piratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04166108711656605278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147712876455957772006-05-15T10:07:00.000-07:002006-05-15T10:07:00.000-07:00Steve:Sow i nead too git A speil-checkker! (Darn i...Steve:<BR/><BR/>Sow i nead too git A speil-checkker! (Darn it Jim! I'm a scientist, not a writer!!!) ;)Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14416549612706591718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147710780443227472006-05-15T09:33:00.000-07:002006-05-15T09:33:00.000-07:00Good post, Dan. I think a literal exegesis of Scri...Good post, Dan. I think a literal exegesis of Scripture makes the dispensational point of view pretty obvious. Thanks for posting this.Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18042761082770423304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1147709025988000262006-05-15T09:03:00.000-07:002006-05-15T09:03:00.000-07:00To Libbie --To <B>Libbie</B> --<BR/><BR/>< innocent humming >DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.com