Comments on: 95 Theses

By: Darell_Dyal

Darell_Dyal — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:47:00 +0000

Thank you for persuing your mission and publishing this useful article.

Because I think you are serious about the improtance of your mission, I offer the following feedback on the 95 Theses. I hope you will be able to see that my effort here is to help advance the work of our Lord Jesus Christ; I have no desire to demean the work of my brethren in the Lord in any way.

Nonetheless, I believe the 95 Theses paper, as it stands, is virtually powerless, and as such is a diminished force for good. This is because it lacks credibility. It desperately needs to follow the standard practice of documenting sources. Detailed footnotes (citing author, book or article, page, etc.) would transform vague assertions into irrefutable arguments.

In addition, I consider that most of the 95 statements require some clarification to better develop their assertions. Remember, many (most?) readers are not trained theologians who understand the background of the debate and the vernacular in which it is encased. I suspect most are untrained readers seeking truth that they might better please their Lord. If this worthy paper could only be made more reader-friendly, I think it could be a treasure.

Also, keeping in mind that some readers have only limited time for such research, I suggest that the 95 arguments be placed in descending order of importance. Certainly the most grevious dispensational positions ought to be pesented first, and therein clearly defined, documented, and repulsed. Certainly the ’other gospel’ that is exposed by theses 90 to 95 (heresy that merits the curse of Galatians 1:8-9) must be read by all who come to your paper.

Therefore, if you are interested in reforging the paper, I am available to provide more detail about my observations, and, if you wish, I am also willing to expend considerable energy to help upgrade the work. However, if you judge that the document is appropriate as it stands, you need not attempt to reach out to me in any way. I will understand.

By: Roland Peer

Roland Peer — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:42:00 +0000

Another one: “Despite dispensationalists’ claim to reasonableness for their views,
they hold the bizarre teaching that after 1000 years of dwelling
side-by-side with resurrected saints who never get ill or die, a vast
multitude of unresurrected sinners whose number is “like the sand of the
seashore,” will dare to revolt against the glorified Christ and His
millions of glorified saints (Rev 20:7-9).” (#76)

This is not bizarre. This passages teaches us the depravity of the human heart. If the presence of God were enough to draw those to Him, then the world will be turning to Him today, for the Holy Spirit is already here, convicting the world of sin. Salvation is a heart issue, not an issue of environment, or government. We cannot engineer a system, an environment, to induce men to come to God. Once again, it’s a heart issue.

Backed by Satan, who will be loosed after 1,000 years, these multitudes will revolt one last time against Jesus Christ on His Davidic throne, before the New Heavens and New Earth are created and all Scriptural promises are fulfilled. Demons and evil openly revolt against God and have done so, and they will do the same during the Millenial Kingdom. Ask the Holy Spirit to convict you whether this is not what God’s Word is saying.

By: Roland Peer

Roland Peer — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:37:00 +0000

Unbelievably bad argument here, just one of the 95: “Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory,
they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth
to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years,
only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against
His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).” (#77).

Christ is not humiliated by rejection. He is holy and sovereign. When He sets up His millennial kingdom, there will be those naturally born of the flesh, with free will, to reject Him – just like Israel rejected Him the first time. A study of what the Word says about the Millenium cuts the heart like a hot knife.

By: Andrew Barber

Andrew Barber — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:35:00 +0000

I totally agree with these theses. However, I wonder if anyone there at Nicenecouncil.com has seen Dr. Reluctant’s response to them?

http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/category/contra-the-95-theses/

By: Andrew Barber

Andrew Barber — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:32:00 +0000

I totally agree with this list. Have you seen Dr. Reluctant’s response to it?

http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/category/contra-the-95-theses/

By: GentleDove

GentleDove — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:49:00 +0000

Hello, Anthony, if you’re non-dispensational and credo-baptist, perhaps you would consider a Reformed Baptist church (they are TULIP/Calvinistic)?

http://www.farese.com/rbcd/

By: NiceneCouncilcom

NiceneCouncilcom — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:44:00 +0000

What are you talking about? In every single point at least one passage of Scripture was referenced and many times it was multiple references. Also, Calvinism? I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

By: Seemingly745

Seemingly745 — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:24:00 +0000

Horrible list. All based on man’s words, and what people claimed that others said centuries ago. Just because it was claimed that so-and-so said this or that, doesn’t make it so, and it is so easy to exclude the opposing statements of others in favor of your own bias. A court of law would call that hearsay and throw out every use of it.

So your statements are all based on man’s words, and none of it on the Word of God and the study of the Word of God.

I will thank you for one thing only. That one thing is, you have proven to me that calvinism has no place at the table of true Bible believers.

By: Cheagan

Cheagan — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:03:00 +0000

An amazing collection of points to consider and utilize as references when speaking to dispensational “believers”. I use hash marks b/c of Paul’s warning in Gal. 1:8. I truly question the faith of someone who places the major emphasis on his/her reaction to the Gospel. It is not MY reaction to the Gospel that saves me, but the Gospel itself.

By: Maks Nelkin

Maks Nelkin — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:32:00 +0000

And that how good his theology is… he can’t even stand behind his own words… too sad.