Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[makesends]

What would you say is a way to interpret 1 Peter 2:9-10 that is consistent with a dispensational view of Israel in relation to Christ's church?

You're asking the wrong person. I don't find dispensationalism defensible. But I expect they would use 1 Peter 2:9-10 as further description of the difference between Israel and the rest of us.

I studied Disp as a young teen, and gave it up, only keeping the idea of 'imminent return' as something to look forward to, and something to keep in mind (not that I was successful at it) to mitigate the urgings of "the old man", so as to not be found wanting. I also held onto the notion of a thousand year earthly reign of Christ. Other than that, I abandoned any formal tenets/principles/teachings particular to Dispensationalism.

The first thing I never could justify in my mind, was the notion of two gospels (and corollary concepts); that's probably the main reason I abandoned Disp. I remember when I was 45 or 46 years old, doing electrical work at the home of a messianic Jew, and we got talking about grace and related things. I mentioned a thought that had often occurred to me as a kid, that Jews were dealt with by God in particular fashion as an example to the rest of us, they being apparently even more rebellious than us (which I later considered the result of the flesh rebelling against the law that gentiles were not given). I said something like, "...it is almost like God particularly chose the Jews, whom he forgave over and over, though they were probably even more rebellious than the gentiles..." He interrupted me there, loudly, "NO! There is NO DIFFERENCE! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!" I couldn't help but wonder if he saw a discrepancy there, between that and his dispensationalism.

 

[CrowCross]

It is the whole council of God that should be looked at and that is the expression. In your" looking", you do so with a preconceived dispensational view. I fully acknowledge that the passages of Dan 12 can readily be seen as you present them in a simple reading of the text. Given that most of us living today were taught from that view. That was not the case in centuries prior to the nineteenth. I do not know in exactly what manner the book of Daniel was taught, as I have not investigated that. I do know, that scripture as a whole was treated as covenantally framed, and not dispensationally framed.

That being the case, is this dispensational view that creates a seven year tribulation and a pre-trib rapture of the saints---and extended into a literal thousand year reign of Christ and God dealing "backwards" with geo/political Israel as his people; is this a form of "new revelation"?

Or, since the entire Bible (the full council of God) the historical unfolding of the Covenant of Redemption, would it be more reasonable, as the ancients did, particularly in the Reformation as the Reformers brought the doctrines of Christianity back in agreement with Scripture, to keep the entire story beneath a covenant frame? Just asking. Hope it gets an answer.

Of course it is about the resurrection.

Does the Bible speak of two periods of resurrection or one? One before this seven year "tribulation" and another after it or another just prior to it that is considered the "rapture"?

Isn't skipping ahead skipping out of the full council of God and applying one thing to another by assumption when it may be being misapplied? (Job's "friends" did that all the time!) What you have done is interpreted the mystery by the mystery. You have let Daniel become the mystery that interprets Paul's statements. It is basic biblical hermeneutics that much of the OT is mysterious (it could not be fully understood because it's fullness had not yet been revealed) and that the NT with its frequent quoting of the OT is what is revealing those mysteries.

In fact, you have indeed misapplied 1 Cor 15:51. Paul is not speaking in that passage about Daniel at all. He is dealing with the resurrection of the dead in Christ, at Christ's return. All of them, over all of history. And what will happen to believers who are still alive when he returns.

See above.

You have presupposed the time of trouble into those scriptures. It isn't there. You have also presupposed a seven year tribulation and that period as being Jacobs troubles. Nothing in the Bible actually does either of those things. The seven year tribulation period in dispensationalism is determined by the expression "time, times, and a half time". It is presumed then to refer to seven years, the fourth year becoming a break of sorts half way through, where things make a shift from "not tribulation but peace" and then to actual tribulation. Near as I can tell. In any case it is very inconsistent with itself as dispensationalism also contenders that the judgments and triublation pass chronologically through the book.

Time, times, and half time in Revelation refers to a period of protection for the woman in the wilderness. It is used in Daniel to indicate a significant prophetic time frame. It does not have to always be a specific duration, but a period of time that is shortened because God intervenes. (Just pointing out that the dispensational interpretation is by no means set in stone.)

But that aside, Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15----the whole chapter---why those in Christ die in the flesh (sown in corruption (death)) so that it will be raised immortal and incorruptible. He was explaining the resurrection. You present 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4:16 as being the same conversation and topic, and they are not. In neither verses does it say that this is the beginning of trouble that you say is the seven year tribulation. Neither do they indicate a rapture out of those "troubles". Both show, in relation to the particular issued being addressed, all the saints, the resurrected dead and the living, rising to meet him in the air as he returns in complete victory, returning with him.

Well, you said a lot but pretty much missed the point. The point is that the rapture and the resurrection are described as happening in conjunction with each other.
Daniel spoke of the the resurrection prior to the time of trouble...What you fail to do is associate the rapture with the resurrection Daniel spoke of Daniel spoke of a pre-trouble resurrection and rapture.

The 7 year tribulation requires one to understand biblical language...times, times, times and a half...decrees to rebuild the temple...the understanding of 1290 days, 1335 days....Christ being crucified....cut off....stopped 7 years short and a whole bunch more. To be honest I don't understand it completely and I also know you don't.

The 1,000 year reign is mentioned 6 times in Revelation...it is presented as literal like much of the book of Revelation.
It's hard to keep the beliefs of all the posters straight, but I believe I've explained to you that what is mentioned in Revelation has not occurred yet. We can go through Rev 8 if you like. We are not in the 1000 year reign as Jesus hasn't returned on His white horse yet and set up His rule.

I have to chuckle at you....you pretty much state that unless I see things your way....I haven't received the full council of God.

 

[CrowCross]

What my alignment is, is not the topic of the OP. And how could I answer that question anyway, since your definition and my definition of the two things is likely radically different?

Yes, our definitions are "radically different" as you put it concerning the meaning of certain terminology....yet you feel you have the right to ridicule me.
EVERYTHING I have said has been backed up with scripture. In one of my previous post I backed it up once more showing that Daniel wrote about a pre-trouble resurrection...which we later in "Gods council" find out it includes the rapture.

So, I can reason with you better I asked..."Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?"

 

[Arial]

And now the important part.... 17 After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.....THIS IS THE RAPTURE. The rapture happens at the resurrection mentioned by Daniel in chapter 12. This shows the RAPTURE as well as the resurrection are both pre-trib.

And therein lies the problem with the pre-trib, pre-mil dispensational theory. It is not, after all, the plain reading of the scripture, or the full council of God, but this, this passage, is what is important and seals the truthfulness of the claim.

As interpreted by you earlier in this post, the resurrection of Dan 12, has shown to have been faulty by making the claim that the "many" can only mean "not all". Thus you have two resurrections, which is antithetical to all the Bible says. You claim this verse shows that the rapture and resurrection are both pre-trib, without proving a seven year tribulation. That passage does speak of a rapture, but it places it with all the saints, dead and alive, not being removed from something, but meeting the Lord as he returns. It does not say a word about them escaping a seven year period, or escaping from anything, or of them leaving for awhile to return at the resurrection. It does not say a word about, them and Jesus going back up to heaven, to await a third return of Jesus without them (it actually says they will be with him forever) to deal with Israel for a thousand years. It says the resurrected dead and the changed dead who are alive when he returns, meet him. And this "be with him forever" is shown and interpreted by Rev 21. New heaven, new earth, God with us.

Everything about it is based on a pre-tirb, pre-mil dispensational reading into scripture what is not there.

That makes it fiction. The support of it that you give, does not bother to find facts. It simply calls what it believes fact.

Daniel tells us at that time...not in the middle of that time nor at the end of that time but when the time of trouble begins the people will be delivered. That is at the time Michael stands up...when the time of trouble begins. Pre-trib.

We know this resurrection/rapture event doesn't happen at the return of Christ in Rev 19 because the resurrection mentioned in Daniel 12 happens prior to the time of trouble and Rev 19 is the end of the time of trouble........18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

As @Josheb would say, "Prove it." To that I add, simply saying it is not proving it.

 

[CrowCross]

You're asking the wrong person. I don't find dispensationalism defensible. But I expect they would use 1 Peter 2:9-10 as further description of the difference between Israel and the rest of us.

I studied Disp as a young teen, and gave it up, only keeping the idea of 'imminent return' as something to look forward to, and something to keep in mind (not that I was successful at it) to mitigate the urgings of "the old man", so as to not be found wanting. I also held onto the notion of a thousand year earthly reign of Christ. Other than that, I abandoned any formal tenets/principles/teachings particular to Dispensationalism.

The first thing I never could justify in my mind, was the notion of two gospels (and corollary concepts); that's probably the main reason I abandoned Disp. I remember when I was 45 or 46 years old, doing electrical work at the home of a messianic Jew, and we got talking about grace and related things. I mentioned a thought that had often occurred to me as a kid, that Jews were dealt with by God in particular fashion as an example to the rest of us, they being apparently even more rebellious than us (which I later considered the result of the flesh rebelling against the law that gentiles were not given). I said something like, "...it is almost like God particularly chose the Jews, whom he forgave over and over, though they were probably even more rebellious than the gentiles..." He interrupted me there, loudly, "NO! There is NO DIFFERENCE! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!" I couldn't help but wonder if he saw a discrepancy there, between that and his dispensationalism.

I don't think dispensation reflect two...or more...gospels. Rather I see them as different ages of how God dealt with man.

As an example in Judges 6:25 we see God dealing with Gideon and the Jews...in that "age".

We read...

25 That night the LORD said to him, “Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it 26 and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order. Then take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down.” 27 So Gideon took ten men of his servants and did as the LORD had told him. But because he was too afraid of his family and the men of the town to do it by day, he did it by night.

Does God in our current time ask us to sacrifice bulls as burnt offerings? That answer is no. Why can't we consider that as a different dispensation?
Perhaps @Arial would also like to answer the question.

 

[CrowCross]

As interpreted by you earlier in this post, the resurrection of Dan 12, has shown to have been faulty by making the claim that the "many" can only mean "not all". Thus you have two resurrections, which is antithetical to all the Bible says. You claim this verse shows that the rapture and resurrection are both pre-trib, without proving a seven year tribulation. That passage does speak of a rapture, but it places it with all the saints, dead and alive, not being removed from something, but meeting the Lord as he returns. It does not say a word about them escaping a seven year period, or escaping from anything, or of them leaving for awhile to return at the resurrection. It does not say a word about, them and Jesus going back up to heaven, to await a third return of Jesus without them (it actually says they will be with him forever) to deal with Israel for a thousand years. It says the resurrected dead and the changed dead who are alive when he returns, meet him. And this "be with him forever" is shown and interpreted by Rev 21. New heaven, new earth, God with us.

Daniel speaks of a resurrection where not ALL people are resurrected. You need to ponder why.

 

[Josheb]

As @Josheb would say, "Prove it." To that I add, simply saying it is not proving it.

Amen!

And that is why this set of exchanges with any Dispensational Premillennialist is likely to prove method as important as content. We won't read information provided and we won't find information used well. I'd truly appreciate being proved incorrect on that matter.

@CrowCross, when you've provided proof of scripture's use of "dispensation" (or acknowledged the lack), I have other inquiries so let's please not delay any further and get on with the discussion. Show us where scripture itself parses itself as DPism teaches us. I am not ask ing and where the word "dispensation," (Gk. = oikinomia) occurs. I already know every occurrence of the word and its various conjugations. That is not what is requested. I want to know where scripture itself divides itself up into dispensations as DPism defines the term, and I am asking that question because it addresses the presuppositional foundation of whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction.

Where does scripture divide itself using the word "dispensation," and use that word as DPism defines it?

 

[Arial]

Yes, our definitions are "radically different" as you put it concerning the meaning of certain terminology....yet you feel you have the right to ridicule me.
EVERYTHING I have said has been backed up with scripture. In one of my previous post I backed it up once more showing that Daniel wrote about a pre-trouble resurrection...which we later in "Gods council" find out it includes the rapture.

Number 1 deflection method of avoiding the obvious. You can't prove what is unproveable. Make an allegation that the one holding your feet to the fire is demeaning you in some way. In this case it is called "ridicule."

Do you not understand that you are backing up what you say with nothing more that your interpretation of the scriptures you use? Not the scriptures themselves. You showed me the scripture that you believe backs up a pre-trouble resurrection. But the "trouble" you say it refers to is itself an interpretation that has gone unproven. And it was shown that your idea of the resurrection in Dan was flawed by claiming that "many" always means "not all". You have been shown from cold, hard, plain, scripture that the NT passages you use as verification, do not teach either the pre-trib, pre-mil view of the resurrection, the "tribulation", the second coming, or the rapture, that you have given. It is absolutely presumed upon those scriptures.

So, I can reason with you better I asked..."Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?"

How would that possible help us reason together? All it would do is divert the requirement for you to prove that your view is fact, rather than just stating it as fact, onto a different topic. One you readily agreed that we likely have different definitions of. Wouldn't that just be adding chaos to the confusion?

 

[Arial]

Daniel speaks of a resurrection where not ALL people are resurrected. You need to ponder why.

What makes you think that? I know you have stated it already, and I have already refuted it twice and got no response, no rebuttal proving me wrong. I am asking you to state it again clearly, without all the surrounding trappings. Just a simple straightforward reason. Just to get us back on track, and we can deal with one thing at a time.

 

[CrowCross]

Amen!

And that is why this set of exchanges with any Dispensational Premillennialist is likely to prove method as important as content. We won't read information provided and we won't find information used well. I'd truly appreciate being proved incorrect on that matter.

@CrowCross, when you've provided proof of scripture's use of "dispensation" (or acknowledged the lack), I have other inquiries so let's please not delay any further and get on with the discussion. Show us where scripture itself parses itself as DPism teaches us. I am not ask ing and where the word "dispensation," (Gk. = oikinomia) occurs. I already know every occurrence of the word and its various conjugations. That is not what is requested. I want to know where scripture itself divides itself up into dispensations as DPism defines the term, and I am asking that question because it addresses the presuppositional foundation of whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction.

Where does scripture divide itself using the word "dispensation," and use that word as DPism defines it?

Because the bible doesn't use a term doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate description. I thought you understood that. I guess I was wrong. In fact the bible doesn't mention...trinity.

BTW, post 25 showed a difference in the current dispensation...age...and the dispensation...age of Gideon. Then again maybe you recently sacrificed a bull on your altar.

 

[Josheb]

Daniel speaks of a resurrection where not ALL people are resurrected. You need to ponder why.

Prove it.


Before doing so, however, please provide proof the Bible divides itself using the word "dispensation" as DPism defines the term. Stop jumping around from one book to another and justify the Dispensationally Premillennial use of scripture as a whole. After you do so, please don't make claims about scripture without providing the scripture and an explanation proving the DP interpretation is correct to the exclusion of all other viewpoints.

 

[Arial]

I don't think dispensation reflect two...or more...gospels. Rather I see them as different ages of how God dealt with man.

As an example in Judges 6:25 we see God dealing with Gideon and the Jews...in that "age".

We read...

25 That night the LORD said to him, “Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it 26 and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order. Then take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down.” 27 So Gideon took ten men of his servants and did as the LORD had told him. But because he was too afraid of his family and the men of the town to do it by day, he did it by night.

Does God in our current time ask us to sacrifice bulls as burnt offerings? That answer is no. Why can't we consider that as a different dispensation?
Perhaps @Arial would also like to answer the question.

Because it isn't a different dispensation. Is yesterday a different dispensation than today?

It is a different time. A step in the progressive historical Covenant of Redemption.

You can consider it a different dispensation if you want to. But when that becomes the basis of how you interpret Scripture, then you are going to get sidetracked from the continuity of all of the Bible. You are going to lose the thread of the story. And the story is not dispensations as D'ists define them. The story is redemption. And redemption is not dispensational but covenantal.

 

[CrowCross]

Number 1 deflection method of avoiding the obvious. You can't prove what is unproveable. Make an allegation that the one holding your feet to the fire is demeaning you in some way. In this case it is called "ridicule."

Do you not understand that you are backing up what you say with nothing more that your interpretation of the scriptures you use? Not the scriptures themselves. You showed me the scripture that you believe backs up a pre-trouble resurrection. But the "trouble" you say it refers to is itself an interpretation that has gone unproven. And it was shown that your idea of the resurrection in Dan was flawed by claiming that "many" always means "not all". You have been shown from cold, hard, plain, scripture that the NT passages you use as verification, do not teach either the pre-trib, pre-mil view of the resurrection, the "tribulation", the second coming, or the rapture, that you have given. It is absolutely presumed upon those scriptures.

How would that possible help us reason together? All it would do is divert the requirement for you to prove that your view is fact, rather than just stating it as fact, onto a different topic. One you readily agreed that we likely have different definitions of. Wouldn't that just be adding chaos to the confusion?

You are now resorting to nonsense....All you have done is claimed I have misspoken concerning the word 'trouble".....all the while presenting NO scripture telling me what that trouble is.

If you want the full council of God...study Jer 30. Daniel is speaking of that trouble.

7 Alas! That day is so great there is none like it; it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it.

In Matt Jesus mentions it again.....21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

All I do, day after day is present verses that support the dispensation/rapture/tribulation/1,000 year reign/position and all you can say is stuff like....it's a "deflection method of avoiding the obvious".

 

[CrowCross]

Because it isn't a different dispensation. Is yesterday a different dispensation than today?

It is a different time. A step in the progressive historical Covenant of Redemption.

You can consider it a different dispensation if you want to. But when that becomes the basis of how you interpret Scripture, then you are going to get sidetracked from the continuity of all of the Bible. You are going to lose the thread of the story. And the story is not dispensations as D'ists define them. The story is redemption. And redemption is not dispensational but covenantal.

Dispensation means multiple ages.

Let me post this again...
I don't think dispensation reflect two...or more...gospels. Rather I see them as different ages of how God dealt with man.

As an example in Judges 6:25 we see God dealing with Gideon and the Jews...in that "age".

We read...

25 That night the LORD said to him, “Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it 26 and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order. Then take the second bull and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah that you shall cut down.” 27 So Gideon took ten men of his servants and did as the LORD had told him. But because he was too afraid of his family and the men of the town to do it by day, he did it by night.

Does God in our current time ask us to sacrifice bulls as burnt offerings? That answer is no. Why can't we consider that as a different dispensation?
Perhaps @Arial would also like to answer the question. Do you still sacrifice bulls Arial?

 

[CrowCross]

Prove it.


Before doing so, however, please provide proof the Bible divides itself using the word "dispensation" as DPism defines the term. Stop jumping around from one book to another and justify the Dispensationally Premillennial use of scripture as a whole. After you do so, please don't make claims about scripture without providing the scripture and an explanation proving the DP interpretation is correct to the exclusion of all other viewpoints.

DO YOU SACRIFICE BULLS? Of course not. Why? Because it was a previous dispensation. come on yet?

 

[Josheb]

Because the bible doesn't use a term...

Is that an acknowledgment scripture does not use the term?

doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate description.

That is not a point currently in dispute. You are trying to leap ahead in the conversation to matters not yet germane. In other words, this is another example of your methods being wanting. It's also an example of you, once again, ignoring already posted content because I explicitly stated once you'd acknowledged there is no use by scripture itself to parse itself using the word we can discuss why it is DPism uses an inference-only method.

I thought you understood that. I guess I was wrong. In fact the bible doesn't mention...trinity.

ROTFLMBO!!!

Did I not explicitly already cite the matter of the Trinity as a false equivalence.

BTW, post 25 showed a difference in the current dispensation...age...and the dispensation...age of Gideon. Then again maybe you recently sacrificed a bull on your altar.

Not using the word "dispensation as Dispensational Premillennialism defines it. Post 25 does NOT do that and neither does scripture. The details of my inquiry were very intentionally and very altruistically specified. I'm wording my inquiries in a manner that should help answer the questions. I am not contributing to further obfuscation (as occurs in ALL of your posts).

Because the bible doesn't use a term...

Is that an acknowledgment the Bible does not use the term as DPism teaches or not?


Assuming that is an acknowledgment then 1) thank you for the answer to the question asked and 2)

If the Bible does not actually do what DPism teaches, then why do you subscribe to an inferential-only theology?

Forget about all the other claims made within DPism. Address the question of why anyone should subscribe to an inference-only theology when a much better alternative exists? Even if Covenant Theology is also incorrect, why not use the word "covenant" to parse scripture, since that is demonstrably the word scripture itself uses to divide itself? Every single poster here can provide proof of scripture using the word "covenant" and defining the word as scripture itself means for the word to be used when reading scripture. Not a single one of us needs anything other than scripture to see the word being used as a divider of God's revelation to us, yet this is something Dispensational Premillennialism openly eschews, something for which it is openly opposed. Hopefully, we'll get to all of this once you've explained why subscribing to an inference is better than subscribing to what is explicitly stated. It took several posts to get an answer to the question I first asked in Post 19. Let's hope I don't have to wait ten posts before receiving an answer to the question asked.

If the Bible does not actually do what DPism teaches and use the word "dispensation" to divide itself, then why should anyone subscribe to an inferential-only theology when better, more scripturally explicit, alternatives exist?

 

[Josheb]

DO YOU SACRIFICE BULLS? Of course not. Why? Because it was a previous dispensation. come on yet?

Ignored due to its irrelevance and utterly fallacious nature other than to note the post is an example of the fictional nature inherent in Dispensational Premillennialism. You cannot claim something you have yet to prove. You haven't proven ANY dispensation exists in scripture, so it is irrational to claim something is dispensational in the absence of any proven dispensation. It is profoundly irrational to even attempt that nonsense once you've gone on record acknowledging scripture itself does not parse itself based on the word, let alone the word extra-biblically defined.

All you have done is display indoctrination.

We're asking you to provide proof of the foundational elements justifying, legitimating the indoctrination of what, so far, is proving to be a wholly unscriptural, inference-only, doctrine.


The reason I don't sacrifice bulls is because Jesus is the only sacrifice anyone ever needed, even in the supposed dispensation that Dispensationalists cannot prove using scripture alone is a dispensation. The very mention of bull sacrifices disputes the discontinuity Dispensational Premillennialism claims exists in scripture. By making that appeal Post 35 undermined its own position because the New Testament tells us the blood of animals never took away sin. Animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ and this is one of the many ways continuity is explicitly established by scripture itself. DPism openly favors discontinuity over continuity.

You're also dodging my inquiries in favor of rhetorical nonsense.

Dispensational Premillennialism ignores what is explicitly stated and infers something not stated. Why believe any theology that does this?

 

[Arial]

Dispensation means multiple ages.

Was the Ice Age a different dispensation in biblical history of the Covenant of Redemption? Why not? Is does not matter what the definition of ages is, in redemption. What matters is interpreting scripture as though each different "age" were the defining criteria of redemption. It actually separates "ages" from redemption as God reveals it unfolding to us in his word. Everything prior to Christ's birth in Bethlehem is about him, pointing to him, and leading steadily, unbrokenly to him. Then the Old Covenant with national Israel becomes obsolete because all the promises to Israel, are fulfilled in Christ. His resurrection is the verification of a mission accomplished. the power of sin and death conquered (something never accomplished by anyone in any prior "age")for those in him through faith. The proof of our own resurrection to come. Eternal life for the believer actually purchased by Jesus on the cross (something that was never accomplished by anything (but faith) in any "age".

The next promise to be fulfilled is for all believers, Jew and Gentile alike. His return and a new heaven and a new earth. Dispensationalism has it all out of whack. That is why the only support that can be given for it is no support at all. It is simply scriptures stated as fact, but not substanciated as fact. That is why when some one says, "prove it", all that happens is the same unproven assertion stated as though the statement itself is the proof. And why they really think it is.

Let me post this again...
I don't think dispensation reflect two...or more...gospels. Rather I see them as different ages of how God dealt with man.

The fact that you "don't think it does" does not mean that it doesn't. Not to change the subject or give opportunity for it to change, but just an an illustration of what I mean: tell an A'ist that if they think it was their faith, or their choice that initiates the new birth, or that they have free will choice to accept or reject salvation, that they are adding works to grace and therein annulling grace, and watch them deny that is what they are doing. And they really think they aren't.

But if it is not two different gospels or two different peoples, why then do they have all the redeemed prior to rapture and as a part of the rapture, in heaven for a thousand years while God deals with national Israel and the Jews in a backward, regressive way? See below.

The Scripture: Ez 43: 19
"You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach me to minister to me," says the Lord God.

MacArthur's study note: "Exact offerings in language just as literal as the descriptions given in Moses' day are also just as literal here.They are of a memorial nature; they are not efficacious anymore than OT sacrifices were, As OT sacrifices pointed forward to Christ's death, so these are tangible expressions, not competing with, but pointing back to the value of Christ's sacrifice, once for all (Heb 9:28; 10:10). God at that time endorsed OT offerings as tokens of forgiving and cleansing worshipers on the basis and credit of the Great Lamb they pointed to, who alone could take away sins (John 1:29). The tangible expressions of worship which the Israelites for so long will at least be offered acceptably, then with full understanding about the Lamb of God to whom they point."

 

[Arial]

DO YOU SACRIFICE BULLS? Of course not. Why? Because it was a previous dispensation. come on yet?

In addition to the irrelevant and the irrational question, we add large letters, color codes, and light bulbs. as if that somehow will make it relevant and rational.

The reason the Isrealites sacrificed bulls was because they were under the Law that Jesus would come to fulfill so that temporary covering for sin was not necessary. It had nothing to do with what dispensation it was in. Can't you see that interpreting it as a dispensation, a way in which God was dealing with man in that "age", completely separates it from the covenant Jesus fulfilled, and the new he mediates? It is as though the word of God becomes a story about "ages" instead of one continuous story of God redeeming---and that through covenant. It is as though each "dispensation" is its own book. It own separate story.

 

[Arial]

You are now resorting to nonsense....All you have done is claimed I have misspoken concerning the word 'trouble".....all the while presenting NO scripture telling me what that trouble is.

Well, the thread isn't about going through the books of Dan and Rev to interpret them for you. It is about your obligation to prove that Dispensationalism is fact since you are the one that claims it is. I am not going to be sidetracked into telling you what the "trouble" is. I have not said what it is, but you did say what it is. I have been asking you to prove to me that the "troubles" are what you say they are. With Scripture. Not your interpretation superimposed onto scripture.

If you want the full council of God...study Jer 30. Daniel is speaking of that trouble.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

7 Alas! That day is so great there is none like it; it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it.

In Matt Jesus mentions it again.....21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

All I do, day after day is present verses that support the dispensation/rapture/tribulation/1,000 year reign/position and all you can say is stuff like....it's a "deflection method of avoiding the obvious".

Still superimposing. Do you understand what "proof" is? The verses you present day after day are the ones you USE to support that view. Oddly, it is only dispensationalist who think they do.

But I, along with all the other critical thinkers on this subject and site, thank you for at least recoginizing that we have a very valid point in calling something a "deflection method of avoiding the obvious", and decided, "Hey yeah, that sounds good. I will take a page from the Democrat mo and use it against them as though it were actually true of them and not me."