Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ammillenianist Tim Conway on Dispensationalism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ammillenianist Tim Conway on Dispensationalism



    I like Pastor Tim for the most part. But he is down right rude and unscholarly in his application of scripture. It's a shame because I agree with most reformed theology, but that camp is unchristian when discussing eschatology. What say you about this video?
    Last edited by Anddra; February 26th, 2010, 03:17 PM.

  • #2
    I can't watch anyone from the 'Reformed' camp...If they can be so wrong on one issue, I don't trust them with to many others...(i thought maybe this guy was the "other " Tim Conway...too bad, I like him....lol,lol..

    Comment


    • #3
      I have a problem with Tim Conway. It was his "Should I be Scared of Hebrews 6 & 10" Q n A session. I've struggle so much with my faith and after listening to that I have become even more worried and paranoid about my eternal state with God. I was scared to death listening to it.

      Comment


      • #4
        He does not understand eternity, he thinks it has a starting point and goes on forever. News flash, eternity is not some place with a lot of time, eternity is a place that has no time and is the dwelling place of God. If eternity has time then God who dwells there is not timeless.

        Professed Amillenialist, he has to spiritualize so much of scripture to validate his point its insane. I wouldn't worry to much about his thoughts on heb 6 & 10.

        Comment


        • #5
          I guess I wasn't aware there was a different Tim Conway. I found this video on I'll be honest which I'm 98% sure is associated with Tim's church. Paul Washer videos are there, so I frequent that site. Giest, I completely know where you're coming from! That video didn't sit well with me. It's unfortunate that the reformed camp demonizes us for our eschatology, because I agree with them on the doctrines of grace.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WalkTheLine View Post
            Professed Amillenialist, he has to spiritualize so much of scripture to validate his point its insane. I wouldn't worry to much about his thoughts on heb 6 & 10.
            If you ask about Israel, it gets even worse.

            Just because reform was needed from the RCC, doesn't mean they got the results correct. They didn't. In fact, reformed doctrine needs reformed again.

            Sounds like the poster meant Tim Conway, the comedian. I'd probably like his vid better as well.
            Don't panic! Just be Rapture Ready.

            Joel 3:2

            I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will put them on trial for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.

            Comment


            • #7
              My view has moved to Progressive Dispensationalism, and I am rock solid there. No matter how much I read from Amillennialists, however, I just don't understand how they can hold to a non-futurist view.

              Comment


              • #8
                I did not like his patronizing, self righteous attitude.

                Comment


                • #9
                  .....most from the reformed camp have that attitude........we(dispy)....they call us.....are , at the best, the slightly retarded little brothers of theirs.....at the worst??we are lost........imho...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MidnightWatcher View Post
                    My view has moved to Progressive Dispensationalism, and I am rock solid there. No matter how much I read from Amillennialists, however, I just don't understand how they can hold to a non-futurist view.
                    Agreed (and I'm also Progressive Dispensational). They are just reckless in their handling of God's word, twist it to mean whatever they want to suit their purposes. Like one who just this week was preaching about the 144,000 in Rev. 7 and 14, and concluded that since Revelation is all symbolic and we can't take it seriously (literally), the 144,000 from the first part of chapter 7 are the same as the great multitude in the next part of Rev. 7. But he also violates God's word concerning the beginning (and other texts) -- someone who actually prefers to believe the Hugh Ross version of origins.

                    I like the following list -- "25 stupid reasons for dissing dispensationalism" -- addresses all the "reasons" the reformed group reject it.
                    http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2006/11/t...r-dissing.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I stopped at the point where he asked that I name Gentile believers in the OT. He said I could count them on one hand - let's see:
                      Uhh - anyone prior to Abraham (Adam,Eve,Noah,Job)
                      Melchisedec
                      Ruth
                      Rahab
                      David's "Mighty Men" (Uriah the HITTITE was one)
                      The list goes on...................


                      God's message was to be delivered through the Jews in the OT to all nations, not to them alone. Why was there a Gentile court in the Temple if otherwise?

                      I thought his arguments, as a whole, were not well thought out because, as he admitted, he doesn't know that much about dispensationalism.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What is progressive dispensationalism?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Looking^ View Post
                          What is progressive dispensationalism?
                          This link gives a good overview of it.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...pensationalism

                          It began in the 1980s, and is held generally by Calvinist-Dispensationals. Blaising and Bock, and Saucy, have published books describing it. John MacArthur, though he would probably not use the label, would fall into the general category of PD. There are variations within PD, but the major differences from classic dispensationalism include:

                          1. "for traditional dispensationalists, the only relationship between the dispensations is chronologically successive." PDs see the present age of grace as a vital link in God's plan of redemption, not just a parenthesis.
                          2. One New Covenant "with an ongoing partial fulfillment and a future complete fulfillment for Israel." (Some Classic dispensationalim authors saw two separate new covenants, one for Israel, one for the Church, or other variations.) "Progressives hold that while there are aspects of the new covenant currently being fulfilled, there is yet to be a final and complete fulfillment of the new covenant in the future. This concept is sometimes referred to as an "already-but-not-yet" fulfillment."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Looking^ View Post
                            What is progressive dispensationalism?
                            Here's a link where you can purchase a book about it:

                            Progressive Dispensationalism

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I swear I thought this was gonna be the Carol Burnett Tim Conway!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X