Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[EarlyActs]

I agree with all your post.

Just a note to @CrowCross, The story of redemption is not National Israel/ethnic Jews---pause---and the church---pause---ethnic Israel---the church in national Israel. It is the church as Israel---God's called out ones. Called out of the kingdom of darkness and brought One into the kingdom of God.

One peoples, one nation without borders (a holy nation), one kingdom, priests everyone, set apart for his redemptive purposes.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness and into his marvelous light.

Eph 2:11-16 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, there by killing the hostility.

It was done at the cross, and the above connects the old with the new, making it not a different dispensation as d'ism/a'mil does. Doing that makes an obvious distinction, a division into two peoples of God that Crow denies doing. Interpreting as the Bible does with a covenant relationship, joins the two into one.

And though Dispenastionalism does say that both are saved the same way, through faith in Christ, it has the Jews in some sort of earthly purgatory first, while the whole redemption moves backwards into the old for a thousand years. Something else Crow has refused though asked twice by quoting MacArthurs's text note quote to him, to deal with that (the return to animal sacrifices); he has refused to even acknowledge that the question was asked or the request made.

And then there is this: Eph 3:6 The mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Another interesting failure of understanding on the part of ethnic Israel, is the failure to do what they were supposed to do (which of course served God's purpose, but did not remove their responsibility, the one he gave them.) As unique to all other nations in that their God was a living and acting God, the other nations would see that and hear. At a crossroads of commerce as it was, this revelation of him would spread. Instead they only wanted to be a political power. But what they did not do, God himself did through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Appointing just twelve men, to begin the taking of the good news to the ends of the earth. And so it was and is.

re the last line about the twelve
The reason the 70 were found and trained was that all 70 nations divided by Bab-El's curse were to be reached. See Dr. Heisman's work on this. Very few people work out the connection between Bab-El and Pentecost as he has done.

At the same time, notice (esp in Matthew) that the treatment of the 70 is the same as the treatment of all believers in Mt 24A (before the end of the world), even some of the same expressions are repeated. This is another indicator that the original view of the apostles was that the world would end, wrath on the Jew first, then the Gentile (Rom 2), but then that a delay was allowed, as we now know.

 

[JesusFan]

Notice what I highlighted in red. Skimming a post to find out the one thing you wish to focus on in order to criticize, unfocuses the OP and takes it off in unnecessary directions.

Can/will you deal with the body of the OP instead of only the introduction?

The distinctive Darby version of it was 1830 I believe, but many of the ECF seemed to hold to a form of Historical premil eschatology

 

[Josheb]

The distinctive Darby version of it was 1830 I believe, but many of the ECF seemed to hold to a form of Historical premil eschatology

That is true but that does not mean their eschatological points of view were correct. Premillennialism is the oldest perspective, but Dispensational Premillennialism is the newest and the differences between the two are so substantive it caused those subscribing to an EFC-informed viewpoint to separate themselves from Darbyism. That is why it's called "Historic." Sadly, Dispensational Premillennialists are now being taught Dispensationalism existed prior to Darby when that is not the case.

 

[JesusFan]

That is true but that does not mean their eschatological points of view were correct. Premillennialism is the oldest perspective, but Dispensational Premillennialism is the newest and the differences between the two are so substantive it caused those subscribing to an EFC-informed viewpoint to separate themselves from Darbyism. That is why it's called "Historic." Sadly, Dispensational Premillennialists are now being taught Dispensationalism existed prior to Darby when that is not the case.

Many prominent Reformed Baptists and soem Reformed did identify themselves with Historical premil eschatology

 

[Josheb]

Many prominent Reformed Baptists and soem Reformed did identify themselves with Historical premil eschatology

Yep. Not sure how that is relevant to the op, but it is certainly true. Many prominent Reformed Baptists (such as Gill, Spurgeon, Piper, and Mohler) were/are Historicists.

 

[EarlyActs]

Many prominent Reformed Baptists and soem Reformed did identify themselves with Historical premil eschatology

Just to be clear, that 'historical premil eschatology' does mean that a period would be achieved in ordinary history, right?

 

[JesusFan]

Just to be clear, that 'historical premil eschatology' does mean that a period would be achieved in ordinary history, right?

Basically its premil eschatology, with the rapture and the second coming as the very same event

 

[EarlyActs]

Basically its premil eschatology, with the rapture and the second coming as the very same event

And is the mill at the end of ordinary history, with a total change after that?

 

[JesusFan]

And is the mill at the end of ordinary history, with a total change after that?

Oridary history ends of second coming event, then eternal state after the millennium

 

[EarlyActs]

Oridary history ends of second coming event, then eternal state after the millennium

OK, then a person would want to ask: why does Peter, with the most complete statement about these things in one pass, say nothing about a millenium, and nothing about another Judaic period?

 

[Paul]

I don't know. I do not hold to a rapture or gathering prior to the resurrection of the Saints. That is those left alive on that last day are caught up as to be clothed with immortality for flesh and blood cannot inherit the eternal Kingdom God promised to those who love and obey Him.
I do hold to a future wrath of God. Even the great tribulation which is the reign of the beast to me. 42 months as opposed to 7 years. I do hold that the 1st resurrection is the resurrection of the righteous spoken of by Jesus as in us all from the ends of the heavens and those not raised on that day must be those who suffer. I note the 1000 years, and it is literal to me. Satan is bound those thousand years and released after the thousand years briefly.

I do hold that those who God calls His children are children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

I do hold that God will restore the Kingdom to Israel and the Kingdoms of the whole world will become the Kingdom of God and His Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

OK, then a person would want to ask: why does Peter, with the most complete statement about these things in one pass, say nothing about a millenium, and nothing about another Judaic period?

John did mention it though, as does paul

 

[EarlyActs]

John did mention it though, as does paul

but did he mention your conception or what modern people mean? And where is Paul's reference?

A person has to realize that expressions like 'a thousand years' can go at least a couple ways. Now, if Daniel was talking about his weeks of years, and mentioned 1000 specifically, then we would be right to find that. But the way he uses numbers in groups of 7 is not that.

In the literature of the Bible, the expression 'a thousand (fill in the blank)' is never as literal. Plus there is the metonymy of Peter in 2P3: 'a thousand years is merely a day' and 'a day is a thousand years.' Which goes both directions! Did Israel's rebels have 10,000 to go up against Rome's 20,000? No, the numbers were worse (for Israel).

 

[JesusFan]

but did he mention your conception or what modern people mean? And where is Paul's reference?

A person has to realize that expressions like 'a thousand years' can go at least a couple ways. Now, if Daniel was talking about his weeks of years, and mentioned 1000 specifically, then we would be right to find that. But the way he uses numbers in groups of 7 is not that.

In the literature of the Bible, the expression 'a thousand (fill in the blank)' is never as literal. Plus there is the metonymy of Peter in 2P3: 'a thousand years is merely a day' and 'a day is a thousand years.' Which goes both directions! Did Israel's rebels have 10,000 to go up against Rome's 20,000? No, the numbers were worse (for Israel).

I do see the 144000as an actual number in revelation, for the tribes of Israel

 

[EarlyActs]

I do see the 144000as an actual number in revelation, for the tribes of Israel

But again , in apocalyptic literature (Jewish lit from that period that ‘uncovers’ or explains events) 12 12,000s is too perfect to be realistic. And which Israel does he mean?

 

[EarlyActs]

The most important eschatological passages are Ps 2 and 110.

 

[makesends]

The most important eschatological passages are Ps 2 and 110.

Why? Says who? Is that an assertion to prove your position? Back it up.

 

[EarlyActs]

Why? Says who? Is that an assertion to prove your position? Back it up.

In Acts 2-4, the passage and content that matter most are Ps 2 and 110. Ps 118 is close behind, as is 16. The Son who is King is enthroned in the resurrection as the David vision said. All human, all rulers are to obey him lest they be smashed.

 

[EarlyActs]

In Acts 2-4, the passage and content that matter most are Ps 2 and 110. Ps 118 is close behind, as is 16. The Son who is King is enthroned in the resurrection as the David vision said. All human, all rulers are to obey him lest they be smashed.

The climax of Acts 2 is that the resurrection was the enthronement of Christ, the vision David had seen in v30, 31.

But to see how much this figured in the apostles view of things , see Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, Heb 1.

The NT expectation is that the world would end right after the destruction of the country. Many many passages. But the end was delayed after the DofJ by Gods grace.

 

[TMSO]

Okay. Next question:

Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?

Ephesians. The two cannot be made one if there aren't two to begin with. Paul talks about it quite a big as well, especially in Romans 9-11. When I read about the kind of discussion going on here, everyone seems to forget about the Abrahamic Covenant. That covenant still exists today, because there are no requirements to it, other then Jews being circumcised. If they aren't circumcised, it doesn't break the covenant, except for the person who was not circumcised, who, depending on how the translation is handled, is either executed, or exiled and God deals with them. (They die still, but not execution.) The covenant remains.

The New Testament maintains the separation by speaking of the circumcised (Jews) and the uncircumcised (Gentiles). Paul talks about it like it is just simply common sense. He was called as an apostle to the uncircumcised, and Peter to the cirumcised. Paul doesn't mince words when he says this. Two peoples, and they remain such through Paul's handling. Timothy was told by Paul not to be circumcised. Why? Timothy is a Greek. Paul told Titus to be circumcised. Why? Titus had Jewish ancestry on his grandmother's side. He was free to choose which hereitage he wanted (Gentile/Jew), but Paul pushed for him to be circumcised and take his Jewish heretiage. Understand this has nothing to do with the Law, but with the Abrahamic covenant.

So, is there any reason to believe that God broke/violated the Abrahamic covenant? Would God do that to Abraham, after all Abraham had done to earn God's favor? His faith was so strong that God credited it as righteousness. What faith? Going by the context, it was Abraham's faith that God would do exactly what He says He will do, no matter the circumstance. He trusted God without any doubt. God made a covenant saying that Abraham would become a great nation through Isaac. To Abraham, that is a done deal. God then tells Abraham to kill/sacrifice Isaac. To Abraham, the covenant is still a done deal, even with Isaac dead. Uh... even with... Isaac... dead. Yep. That's right. Abraham believed that God would have to raise Isaac from the dead, in order to fulfill His covenant with Abraham. It doesn't matter whether or not Abraham believed God could do it. God would have to, or break His covenant. So Abraham believed, with his whole heart, soul and mind, that God would raise Isaac from the dead so that the covenant would be fulfilled. It was the only visible means that this could happen. Abraham did not know that God would stop him.

This covenant, which I will say bluntly, GOD WILL NOT VIOLATE, came with a land promise. God promised in this covenant that this nation has an exact land possession that it will possess. Not the Gentiles. Not the Edomites. (I know they are Gentiles...) No one but Israel would possess this land as part of the covenant God made with Abraham, which Abraham did not violate in any way. God will not violate this covenant either. So, if Israel has never possessed this land which God covenanted to Abraham, and promised that they would, how do you keep God from breaking the covenant? Not to mention that the covenant was made with Abraham, which means that he will actually see it live. The only way I can see God fulfilling the covenant is by the Messianic Kingdom. And Abraham will be there when God fulfills His covenant with him.

It is a physical land promise. You can say that God tossed that aside, but the simple way to put that is that, God simply broke His promise. However, God doesn't break promises, so exactly how will God fulfill this promise He made, to whom He made it to? One can play games with this all you want, but we are talking about God. God is faithful to keep His promises as given.

Jews and Gentiles are two peoples and they continue to be such. The intersection of the two into one is the church. However, the Jews do not lose their covenant status in the Abrahamic covenant. The Gentiles do not gain covenant status, as even the Syro-canaanite woman who dealt with Jesus understood. Jesus is the Messiah to Israel, and the Savior of the Gentiles. He is not the Messiah to the Gentiles. Israel is the wife of God, while the church is the bride of Christ.

There is a lot to understand in Danile, in which there is separation made. You have the Jews and God in covenant, no Gentile in sight. Just God dealing with Israel. Then Nebuchadnezzar shows up and attacks Jersualem, and God gives vision to Nebuchadnezzar, and tells Daniel in interpretation about the beginning of the times of the Gentiles. Israel is in exile, and will continue to be contrary to God, so it is the times of the Gentiles. In Daniel 9, God tells Daniel that He has cut out/divided out 70 sets of 7 years in the times of the Gentiles, for His dealings with His people and the Holy City. That is, with the Jews/Israel, and Jerusalem. In that timeframe, He is not dealing with the Gentiles at all. The 70 sets of 7 are solely dealing with the Jews. the 6 results of the 70 sets of 7 are solely to the Jews.

Please do not take 70 posts to post an answer to the question asked.

How about 69.5?

So in the Bible there are two people. That division remains through the New Testament, considering that Peter was the apostle to the circumcised, which means his epistles were written to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, in which his epistles are aimed at the Gentiles, as well as Jews in the church. Paul more than once reminds that he is the apostle to the uncircumcised, and that Peter is the apostle to the circumcised. He also, more than once tells the Jews that he is done with them, and is going to the Gentiles. However, he never lost his heart for his people.

So I guess the best questions to ask are:
1. Are Gentiles part of the ABRAHAMIC covenant? [Remembering that God simply promised outside the covenant, that all the nations of the world would be blessed by Abraham's seed, which does not require those nations to be a part of the covenant.]
2. Why did God break the covenant with Abraham? [To say he didn't means you realize that God has unfinished business solely with the Jews.]
3. If the physical promises made specifically within the covenant are not fulfilled, is God simply going to break the covenant He made with Abraham? Or, are we to believe as Abraham did, that God already knows exactly how He is going to fulfill those promises? That takes as much faith as Abraham had...
4. If the Abrahamic Covenant has not been broken by God, then does that mean there has to be two peoples in the Bible, the Jews under the Abrahamic covenant, and the Gentiles who are not?