Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[Arial]

John Darby is generally credited as the father of dispensational premillennialism. This has been disputed by dispensational premillennialist on the grounds that it elements can be found among other theologians and in previous time periods to Darby (b. 1800 d 1892). That ignores the word "father" and also that the claim relates to modern dispensational premillennialism. It is a matter of debate whether Darby had redemption divided into seven dispensations or three. And he did not call them dispensations but simply ways in which God tests humanity. Modern dispensational premillennialism has seven, serving the same purpose.

In both this remains true. Quoted from daretothink.info/dispensationalism/the-origins-and-tenets-of-dispensational-premillennialism/



" Darby’s innovative approach to theology, particularly his division of history into dispensations—periods during which God tests humanity—laid the groundwork for Dispensational Premillennialism. He posited that God had two distinct peoples: the earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. According to Darby, the Church was a temporary phase in God’s plan, destined to end with the secret rapture, after which God would resume His dealings with Israel."

Does that have any biblical precedent? If one interprets the Bible by dividing it into specific ways in which God deals with and tests humanity, one could certainly find scriptures to support that view. Though imo, they would need to be isolated from the consistency of the whole of Scripture. So the question is, is that what the Bible, as a whole, is, and is doing? Is that what determines interpretation?

I don't believe it is. First, in Gen, it gives the account of creation, including the creation of mankind, the fall of humanity through Adam, and a declaration. A curse on the serpent who deceived Eve and instigated a rebellion. A promise that her seed would crush his head. That is the central destination of everything that follows. Everything that follows is connected and anchored in that verse (Gen 3:14-15). Jesus is the focus in every page, the main actor in every page. It is in the covenants that God makes with mankind that we see a uniformity of purpose. And these covenants are not ways in which God interacts with humanity to test them. They are relationships that he forms with mankind that lead to the ultimate and final relationship. God dwelling with us. He will be our God and we will be his people (Rev 21).

I am going to give an example of what dispensational premillennialism does to the full counsel of God. The example will come from John MacArthur's study Bible. This is not to bash him, I am sure his is basking in the presence of the Lord right now. Much of what he taught is consistent with the Reformed/Calvinist Doctrines of Grace. I can understand why the millions of people who agree with his teaching and are swayed by it, would just accept it as truth, given the source. He was a great theologian and teacher. What I don't understand is how, as such, he could have been swayed and interpret particularly OT prophecy, Revelation, and the couple of passages in the NT that are the staple of proof of a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. And do so from the premise of those things. My observation is to everyone, including myself, that we all must be very careful, to check and recheck and recheck again, anything that we see as truth or fact, against the whole counsel of God. That being said, I did that before posting this to the best of my ability, and I expect to be corrected where it is necessary---but with sound biblical support done by the one who corrects.

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."

This is a dispensational premillennialism interpretation of prophecy. It does not consider the form of OT prophecy and how it is to be interpreted. It often has an immediate application to those it is being given to, but often goes beyond that within the same prophecy to the ultimate fulfillment when Christ arrives and does his redemptive work, and even at times beyond that to the consummation of redemption. MacArthur here is interpreting the things found in Eze. as applying only to Israel as dis'/premil has two separate people of God or kingdoms of God. And he is applying this temple that is being measured and the reinstated sacrifices to a restored Israel in some future 1000 year period. So, even if the measurements and everything in them including the above verses are literal, and they may be, Ezek. was prophesying from exile in Babylon. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra's time. And even if the measurements are literal, they also have a spiritual significance. They are what they are because they are signing something. In any case, there is no reason to apply this to a rebuilt third temple after Christ's return and before the return of the Church. (Which is what is done in dispen/amil.)

Aside from that, the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated, no matter what gymnastics with words are used to justify it, is antithetical to Heb 10:8-9 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law). then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The covenant that over arches the entire Bible is the eternal covenant between the Godhead before creation. Therefore Christ is the central figure always, never geo/politcal Israel. The covenant with Israel is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, not a separate interaction/testing by God of mankind. The Redeemer, the promised Seed, comes through Israel and Israel is a shadow of the things to come, just as the animal sacrifices were. That is the value of Israel, and it is no small value, but it is not what the Bible is interpreted through as its own central figure.

 

[CrowCross]

John Darby is generally credited as the father of dispensational premillennialism. This has been disputed by dispensational premillennialist on the grounds that it elements can be found among other theologians and in previous time periods to Darby (b. 1800 d 1892). That ignores the word "father" and also that the claim relates to modern dispensational premillennialism. It is a matter of debate whether Darby had redemption divided into seven dispensations or three. And he did not call them dispensations but simply ways in which God tests humanity. Modern dispensational premillennialism has seven, serving the same purpose.

A HISTORY OF PRE-DARBY RAPTURE ADVOCATES

by Thomas Ice

Critics of pretribulationism frequently state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal

development of entirely recent origin. They argued that the doctrine of the rapture or

any semblance of it was completely unknown before the early 1800s and the writings of

John Nelson Darby. While it is clear that pretribulationism was not widely known since

the days of the New Testament writers, there have been clear examples of some form of

pretribulationism sprinkled throughout church history.......want to read more?

In both this remains true. Quoted from daretothink.info/dispensationalism/the-origins-and-tenets-of-dispensational-premillennialism/



" Darby’s innovative approach to theology, particularly his division of history into dispensations—periods during which God tests humanity—laid the groundwork for Dispensational Premillennialism. He posited that God had two distinct peoples: the earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. According to Darby, the Church was a temporary phase in God’s plan, destined to end with the secret rapture, after which God would resume His dealings with Israel."

Does that have any biblical precedent? If one interprets the Bible by dividing it into specific ways in which God deals with and tests humanity, one could certainly find scriptures to support that view. Though imo, they would need to be isolated from the consistency of the whole of Scripture. So the question is, is that what the Bible, as a whole, is, and is doing? Is that what determines interpretation?

I don't believe it is. First, in Gen, it gives the account of creation, including the creation of mankind, the fall of humanity through Adam, and a declaration. A curse on the serpent who deceived Eve and instigated a rebellion. A promise that her seed would crush his head. That is the central destination of everything that follows. Everything that follows is connected and anchored in that verse (Gen 3:14-15). Jesus is the focus in every page, the main actor in every page. It is in the covenants that God makes with mankind that we see a uniformity of purpose. And these covenants are not ways in which God interacts with humanity to test them. They are relationships that he forms with mankind that lead to the ultimate and final relationship. God dwelling with us. He will be our God and we will be his people (Rev 21).

I am going to give an example of what dispensational premillennialism does to the full counsel of God. The example will come from John MacArthur's study Bible. This is not to bash him, I am sure his is basking in the presence of the Lord right now. Much of what he taught is consistent with the Reformed/Calvinist Doctrines of Grace. I can understand why the millions of people who agree with his teaching and are swayed by it, would just accept it as truth, given the source. He was a great theologian and teacher. What I don't understand is how, as such, he could have been swayed and interpret particularly OT prophecy, Revelation, and the couple of passages in the NT that are the staple of proof of a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. And do so from the premise of those things. My observation is to everyone, including myself, that we all must be very careful, to check and recheck and recheck again, anything that we see as truth or fact, against the whole counsel of God. That being said, I did that before posting this to the best of my ability, and I expect to be corrected where it is necessary---but with sound biblical support done by the one who corrects.

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."

This is a dispensational premillennialism interpretation of prophecy. It does not consider the form of OT prophecy and how it is to be interpreted. It often has an immediate application to those it is being given to, but often goes beyond that within the same prophecy to the ultimate fulfillment when Christ arrives and does his redemptive work, and even at times beyond that to the consummation of redemption. MacArthur here is interpreting the things found in Eze. as applying only to Israel as dis'/premil has two separate people of God or kingdoms of God. And he is applying this temple that is being measured and the reinstated sacrifices to a restored Israel in some future 1000 year period. So, even if the measurements and everything in them including the above verses are literal, and they may be, Ezek. was prophesying from exile in Babylon. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra's time. And even if the measurements are literal, they also have a spiritual significance. They are what they are because they are signing something. In any case, there is no reason to apply this to a rebuilt third temple after Christ's return and before the return of the Church. (Which is what is done in dispen/amil.)

Aside from that, the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated, no matter what gymnastics with words are used to justify it, is antithetical to Heb 10:8-9 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law). then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The covenant that over arches the entire Bible is the eternal covenant between the Godhead before creation. Therefore Christ is the central figure always, never geo/politcal Israel. The covenant with Israel is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, not a separate interaction/testing by God of mankind. The Redeemer, the promised Seed, comes through Israel and Israel is a shadow of the things to come, just as the animal sacrifices were. That is the value of Israel, and it is no small value, but it is not what the Bible is interpreted through as its own central figure.

 

[Arial]

A HISTORY OF PRE-DARBY RAPTURE ADVOCATES

by Thomas Ice

Critics of pretribulationism frequently state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal

development of entirely recent origin. They argued that the doctrine of the rapture or

any semblance of it was completely unknown before the early 1800s and the writings of

John Nelson Darby. While it is clear that pretribulationism was not widely known since

the days of the New Testament writers, there have been clear examples of some form of

pretribulationism sprinkled throughout church history.......want toead more?

John Darby is generally credited as the father of dispensational premillennialism. This has been disputed by dispensational premillennialist on the grounds that it elements can be found among other theologians and in previous time periods to Darby (b. 1800 d 1892). That ignores the word "father" and also that the claim relates to modern dispensational premillennialism. It is a matter of debate whether Darby had redemption divided into seven dispensations or three. And he did not call them dispensations but simply ways in which God tests humanity. Modern dispensational premillennialism has seven, serving the same purpose.

In both this remains true. Quoted from daretothink.info/dispensationalism/the-origins-and-tenets-of-dispensational-premillennialism/



" Darby’s innovative approach to theology, particularly his division of history into dispensations—periods during which God tests humanity—laid the groundwork for Dispensational Premillennialism. He posited that God had two distinct peoples: the earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. According to Darby, the Church was a temporary phase in God’s plan, destined to end with the secret rapture, after which God would resume His dealings with Israel."

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?

 

[CrowCross]

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?

I don't follow Darby. I follow Jesus.

 

[Arial]

I don't follow Darby. I follow Jesus.

I didn't ask you who you followed.

 

[EarlyActs]

John Darby is generally credited as the father of dispensational premillennialism. This has been disputed by dispensational premillennialist on the grounds that it elements can be found among other theologians and in previous time periods to Darby (b. 1800 d 1892). That ignores the word "father" and also that the claim relates to modern dispensational premillennialism. It is a matter of debate whether Darby had redemption divided into seven dispensations or three. And he did not call them dispensations but simply ways in which God tests humanity. Modern dispensational premillennialism has seven, serving the same purpose.

In both this remains true. Quoted from daretothink.info/dispensationalism/the-origins-and-tenets-of-dispensational-premillennialism/



" Darby’s innovative approach to theology, particularly his division of history into dispensations—periods during which God tests humanity—laid the groundwork for Dispensational Premillennialism. He posited that God had two distinct peoples: the earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. According to Darby, the Church was a temporary phase in God’s plan, destined to end with the secret rapture, after which God would resume His dealings with Israel."

Does that have any biblical precedent? If one interprets the Bible by dividing it into specific ways in which God deals with and tests humanity, one could certainly find scriptures to support that view. Though imo, they would need to be isolated from the consistency of the whole of Scripture. So the question is, is that what the Bible, as a whole, is, and is doing? Is that what determines interpretation?

I don't believe it is. First, in Gen, it gives the account of creation, including the creation of mankind, the fall of humanity through Adam, and a declaration. A curse on the serpent who deceived Eve and instigated a rebellion. A promise that her seed would crush his head. That is the central destination of everything that follows. Everything that follows is connected and anchored in that verse (Gen 3:14-15). Jesus is the focus in every page, the main actor in every page. It is in the covenants that God makes with mankind that we see a uniformity of purpose. And these covenants are not ways in which God interacts with humanity to test them. They are relationships that he forms with mankind that lead to the ultimate and final relationship. God dwelling with us. He will be our God and we will be his people (Rev 21).

I am going to give an example of what dispensational premillennialism does to the full counsel of God. The example will come from John MacArthur's study Bible. This is not to bash him, I am sure his is basking in the presence of the Lord right now. Much of what he taught is consistent with the Reformed/Calvinist Doctrines of Grace. I can understand why the millions of people who agree with his teaching and are swayed by it, would just accept it as truth, given the source. He was a great theologian and teacher. What I don't understand is how, as such, he could have been swayed and interpret particularly OT prophecy, Revelation, and the couple of passages in the NT that are the staple of proof of a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. And do so from the premise of those things. My observation is to everyone, including myself, that we all must be very careful, to check and recheck and recheck again, anything that we see as truth or fact, against the whole counsel of God. That being said, I did that before posting this to the best of my ability, and I expect to be corrected where it is necessary---but with sound biblical support done by the one who corrects.

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."

This is a dispensational premillennialism interpretation of prophecy. It does not consider the form of OT prophecy and how it is to be interpreted. It often has an immediate application to those it is being given to, but often goes beyond that within the same prophecy to the ultimate fulfillment when Christ arrives and does his redemptive work, and even at times beyond that to the consummation of redemption. MacArthur here is interpreting the things found in Eze. as applying only to Israel as dis'/premil has two separate people of God or kingdoms of God. And he is applying this temple that is being measured and the reinstated sacrifices to a restored Israel in some future 1000 year period. So, even if the measurements and everything in them including the above verses are literal, and they may be, Ezek. was prophesying from exile in Babylon. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra's time. And even if the measurements are literal, they also have a spiritual significance. They are what they are because they are signing something. In any case, there is no reason to apply this to a rebuilt third temple after Christ's return and before the return of the Church. (Which is what is done in dispen/amil.)

Aside from that, the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated, no matter what gymnastics with words are used to justify it, is antithetical to Heb 10:8-9 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law). then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The covenant that over arches the entire Bible is the eternal covenant between the Godhead before creation. Therefore Christ is the central figure always, never geo/politcal Israel. The covenant with Israel is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, not a separate interaction/testing by God of mankind. The Redeemer, the promised Seed, comes through Israel and Israel is a shadow of the things to come, just as the animal sacrifices were. That is the value of Israel, and it is no small value, but it is not what the Bible is interpreted through as its own central figure.

A theological map of the 19th century may help us understand why a system that found a reason for a future of Israel was so intriguing to people by the end of that century.

Paine and Jefferson had made a case that the strange sayings of Jesus were a bit too much, and only the ethical remarks were worth keeping. They serious doubted his divinity. But this was countered by Holford, though not directly. He was more likely responding to the excesses of the 1798 Reign of Terror etc., and compiled research on how the zealots of Judaism ruined Israel in their revolt in the 66-72 period, in the 1st century. The prediction of the destruction of Israel a generation in advance impressed thinkers of the time that Christ was indeed divine. While Holford circuited England from 1805 onward with his lectures, the publication of his treatise was in the 30s.

Skeptics then began to hit creation, but not before G Eliot's translation and novels. She made Strauss' late-dated Life Of Christ popular in England; the apostles were stumped after 70 AD and wrote 'gospels' that made the crucifixion/resurrection of Christ a patching-up explanation about him. One undercurrent that stuck with Eliot about this was that the zealot cause was legitimized all along. So she was now a leading cynic about Christ, and becoming a champion of the Zionist cause. Her last novel was DANIEL DERONDA (1876) and it took the OT prophecies and made them a rallying point for Jews in London and N Europe to reclaim their land. She got Lord Shaftesbury on her side about that; he was an evangelical with a lot of social reform success and influence.

This feature (the recycling of OT prophecy) had a strong impact on England's rift between Catholics and Protestants. One thing about it was a solution: antichrist was a future Jewish character who would come along in this developing modern Israel, not the Pope! (It's up to you to decide if that's a good deal!). But it also popularized the re-opening of modern Israel as a theological theme.

It meant that now the "actual" structure of the Bible was not A-B-A (world-wide down to Israel and back to world-wide), but really the other way around--even if the messy antichrist episode was included.

And so the century ended with the Brethren eschatology's increasingly popularity, and they did sincerely want to get past the problem of calling the Pope antichrist. People began to quote Gen 12's bless/curse forumula almost as the beginning of everything, and a modern Israel was considered a 'miracle' that answer other apologetics problems.

 

[makesends]

John Darby is generally credited as the father of dispensational premillennialism. This has been disputed by dispensational premillennialist on the grounds that it elements can be found among other theologians and in previous time periods to Darby (b. 1800 d 1892). That ignores the word "father" and also that the claim relates to modern dispensational premillennialism. It is a matter of debate whether Darby had redemption divided into seven dispensations or three. And he did not call them dispensations but simply ways in which God tests humanity. Modern dispensational premillennialism has seven, serving the same purpose.

In both this remains true. Quoted from daretothink.info/dispensationalism/the-origins-and-tenets-of-dispensational-premillennialism/



" Darby’s innovative approach to theology, particularly his division of history into dispensations—periods during which God tests humanity—laid the groundwork for Dispensational Premillennialism. He posited that God had two distinct peoples: the earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. According to Darby, the Church was a temporary phase in God’s plan, destined to end with the secret rapture, after which God would resume His dealings with Israel."

Does that have any biblical precedent? If one interprets the Bible by dividing it into specific ways in which God deals with and tests humanity, one could certainly find scriptures to support that view. Though imo, they would need to be isolated from the consistency of the whole of Scripture. So the question is, is that what the Bible, as a whole, is, and is doing? Is that what determines interpretation?

I don't believe it is. First, in Gen, it gives the account of creation, including the creation of mankind, the fall of humanity through Adam, and a declaration. A curse on the serpent who deceived Eve and instigated a rebellion. A promise that her seed would crush his head. That is the central destination of everything that follows. Everything that follows is connected and anchored in that verse (Gen 3:14-15). Jesus is the focus in every page, the main actor in every page. It is in the covenants that God makes with mankind that we see a uniformity of purpose. And these covenants are not ways in which God interacts with humanity to test them. They are relationships that he forms with mankind that lead to the ultimate and final relationship. God dwelling with us. He will be our God and we will be his people (Rev 21).

I am going to give an example of what dispensational premillennialism does to the full counsel of God. The example will come from John MacArthur's study Bible. This is not to bash him, I am sure his is basking in the presence of the Lord right now. Much of what he taught is consistent with the Reformed/Calvinist Doctrines of Grace. I can understand why the millions of people who agree with his teaching and are swayed by it, would just accept it as truth, given the source. He was a great theologian and teacher. What I don't understand is how, as such, he could have been swayed and interpret particularly OT prophecy, Revelation, and the couple of passages in the NT that are the staple of proof of a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. And do so from the premise of those things. My observation is to everyone, including myself, that we all must be very careful, to check and recheck and recheck again, anything that we see as truth or fact, against the whole counsel of God. That being said, I did that before posting this to the best of my ability, and I expect to be corrected where it is necessary---but with sound biblical support done by the one who corrects.

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."

This is a dispensational premillennialism interpretation of prophecy. It does not consider the form of OT prophecy and how it is to be interpreted. It often has an immediate application to those it is being given to, but often goes beyond that within the same prophecy to the ultimate fulfillment when Christ arrives and does his redemptive work, and even at times beyond that to the consummation of redemption. MacArthur here is interpreting the things found in Eze. as applying only to Israel as dis'/premil has two separate people of God or kingdoms of God. And he is applying this temple that is being measured and the reinstated sacrifices to a restored Israel in some future 1000 year period. So, even if the measurements and everything in them including the above verses are literal, and they may be, Ezek. was prophesying from exile in Babylon. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra's time. And even if the measurements are literal, they also have a spiritual significance. They are what they are because they are signing something. In any case, there is no reason to apply this to a rebuilt third temple after Christ's return and before the return of the Church. (Which is what is done in dispen/amil.)

Aside from that, the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated, no matter what gymnastics with words are used to justify it, is antithetical to Heb 10:8-9 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law). then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The covenant that over arches the entire Bible is the eternal covenant between the Godhead before creation. Therefore Christ is the central figure always, never geo/politcal Israel. The covenant with Israel is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, not a separate interaction/testing by God of mankind. The Redeemer, the promised Seed, comes through Israel and Israel is a shadow of the things to come, just as the animal sacrifices were. That is the value of Israel, and it is no small value, but it is not what the Bible is interpreted through as its own central figure.

I agree.

Given that, I should think that to be consistent with such use of related Law/Commandments/Traditions, JMac would've gone with Saturday worship.

Haha! I was thinking as I read, that given the basics of what I suppose to be Darby's mindset as I remember the mindset of those who followed in his footsteps —i.e. freewill and the value of mankind and the utter responsibility of man (as in, "God can't do what he intends unless we obey", "It all depends on us" etc) — it is understandable that they would produce such tripe. But then, you went and brought up MacArthur. I hate it when a good premise falls apart!

 

[Arial]

I agree.

Given that, I should think that to be consistent with such use of related Law/Commandments/Traditions, JMac would've gone with Saturday worship.

Haha! I was thinking as I read, that given the basics of what I suppose to be Darby's mindset as I remember the mindset of those who followed in his footsteps —i.e. freewill and the value of mankind and the utter responsibility of man (as in, "God can't do what he intends unless we obey", "It all depends on us" etc) — it is understandable that they would produce such tripe. But then, you went and brought up MacArthur. I hate it when a good premise falls apart!

That is one of the reasons I can't fathom how MacArthur would buy into a dispensational way of interpreting scripture. Just this one passage, in my view, removes any possibility of Israel as a geo/political nation and the church as separate entities as the people of God.

1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the exellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

 

[CrowCross]

What I don't understand is how, as such, he could have been swayed and interpret particularly OT prophecy, Revelation, and the couple of passages in the NT that are the staple of proof of a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. And do so from the premise of those things. My observation is to everyone, including myself, that we all must be very careful, to check and recheck and recheck again, anything that we see as truth or fact, against the whole counsel of God.

Over the years I have checked and rechecked and rechecked scripture. I have looked at the council of God and have come to the conclusion that there is a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. This post will show a pre-tribulation rapture.

In this study of the council of God we'll go back to the book of Daniel

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:1 speaks of a time of "trouble"...One so great that there has never been a time of trouble like it or will occur after it. This time of trouble is also know as the time of Jacobs trouble or the tribulation as described in the book of Revelation.
We can know this time of trouble is still future as the Jews trouble in the past such as the destruction of the temple has been shown in the unfolding history as not the worse trouble they have experienced...nor has the world. Adding to that there is no biblical reference when Gods children who have their names written in the book been delivered (resurrected) in the past.

Daniel 12:2 tells us..."And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life..." (The resurrection)

The many in verse 2 inform us not all who sleep in the dust shall awake. This verse is in reference to the resurrection. That is, at the time Michael stands up and the time of trouble begins not all people are resurrected.

Next we can skip ahead in time to 1 Cor 15:51 and read about this resurrection.......51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must be clothedf with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

....In verse 51 Paul tells us it's a "mystery"...and begins to unwrap it... Once again the bible tells us "We will all not sleep"...verse 52 goes on to say...the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised. The mystery is being brought forth.

Back to Daniel 12....Daniel tells of the same event in general terms...the resurrection when the time of trouble begins... Paul expanded on it in 1 Cor 15 and now once more in 1 Thes 4....

1 Thes 4:13 Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death,c so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.
15 By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 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.
18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Paul speaks of the resurrection. Paul tells us the "dead in Christ will be the first to arise...Paul adds to it in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4:16 when he tells us there will be a sound of the trumpet of God...Paul tells us at the Daniel 12 resurrection Christ will descend and bring with Him the spirits of them that have previously died and went to heaven...to rejoin with their body at the resurrection...all this happens when the time of trouble begins...not at the end.

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.

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.

@makesends
@EarlyActs

 

[makesends]

That is one of the reasons I can't fathom how MacArthur would buy into a dispensational way of interpreting scripture. Just this one passage, in my view, removes any possibility of Israel as a geo/political nation and the church as separate entities as the people of God.

1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the exellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Yes. In fact, as a 14 or 15 year old, being taught dispensationlism, drawing my time charts, etc. I never could make sense, from a Biblical view, no matter how many quotes from the Bible they extracted, that there was more than one Israel/chosen people in the end, and more than one gospel. Since when, has the Dispensation of Works had anything to do with the subject? It never made sense to me, even after becoming more or less Reformed.

 

[makesends]

That is one of the reasons I can't fathom how MacArthur would buy into a dispensational way of interpreting scripture. Just this one passage, in my view, removes any possibility of Israel as a geo/political nation and the church as separate entities as the people of God.

1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the exellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

And yet, JMac did do so, which speaks to the very different ways of taking a passage to say whatever one presupposes. MacArthur would take that verse you quoted, to say a completely different thing, tough not a complete thing.

 

[Arial]

And yet, JMac did do so, which speaks to the very different ways of taking a passage to say whatever one presupposes. MacArthur would take that verse you quoted, to say a completely different thing, tough not a complete thing.

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?

 

[Josheb]

Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

Fiction

The entire theology is built on inference, DPers literally invent stuff on a near-daily basis, and they haven't made a single correct prognostication since the theologies inception in the 19th century. Here's an example....

A HISTORY OF PRE-DARBY RAPTURE ADVOCATES

by Thomas Ice

Critics of pretribulationism frequently state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal........

There are two acts of deception within this "history" of "pre-Darby rapture."

The first is that all Christians believe in a rapture, but they do not separate the rapture from the final coming of Christ. What Ice has done, what DPists chronically do, is not openly, forthcomingly, disclose the kind of rapture to which they are referring. Ice's view of the rapture is pre-tribulational, not tribulational. Ice left that out. It is a life of omission, and he does this often. This is observable again when he quotes Irenaeus. Anyone who clicks on the link @CrowCross provided will read a quote mine from Irenaeus in which Ice's interpretation of a pre-trib rapture becomes evident, but Irenaeus was post-tribulational! Irenaeus explicitly links the rapture to the perseverance of the saints overcoming the tribulation, not avoiding it before it happens. So, not only has Ice committed another lie of omission, but he's also willfully misrepresented his source and willingly misled his readers. He gets away with this because the average DPist doesn't know Irenaeus, so they read Ice and think Ice is being honest and correct AND they've been taught to read the Bible Dispensationally so it's challenging for them to read the Bible exegetically. All anyone has to do to see the falsity in Thomas' article is read the seven letters to the Church in the opening of Revelation because every single one of those congregations is explicitly directed to overcome. Every single one of them is told to persevere and overcome. Not a single one of them is told they'll be removed from the then-existing and coming travail.

Why any poster would think Ice is evidence of anything, but willful deceit is incomprehensible were it not for the possibility of ideological indoctrination.

Ice also appeals to pseudepigraphic sources. On most occasions "pseudepigraphic" is code for "cult." but, again, Ice never, ever mentions anything remotely close to that very real and serious problem. In the linked-to article he mentions, Pseudo-Ephraem. Pseudo-Ephraem is not canonical. It was written in the 4th century. It is one man's personal opinion and the reason it's not considered veracious by scholars is because it doesn't reconcile with scripture. Since Ice is a PhD (making him an individual of some intellectual faculty) its inclusion cannot be attributed to a lack of intelligence. Its use can only be attributed to incompetence, or willful deceit, or..... ideological bondage. Since Ice knows how to do research only the last two options can explain the inclusion of Pseudo-Ephraem and his attempt to use that source to legitimate Darbyism.

It is ungodly practice, and it unequivocally qualifies as evidence Dispensational Premillennialism is fiction.



It is my current practice to read Dispensational Premillennialists' own report of the history of DPism. That is what I am in the modst of doing right now. I am at the beach, on vacation, and I am reading through William C. Watson's book, "Dispensationalism Before Darby." Having read the last two centuries' leading Dispensationalists (including Ice) and all the ECFs in chronological order (the best way to track the evolution of thought and challenges they sought to address), I am reading through the history of DPism in the words of the DPists themselves. That being said, the best source for understanding the paucity of Dispensational Premillennialism is the Bible. The Bible states things DPism denies and nowhere states things DPism teaches. This is all anyone needs to know Dispensational Premillennialism is fiction. It is confirmed by the practices of its advocates who pen articles laden with lies of omission and fallacy and those who unwittingly and uncritically use those sources incorrectly believing the sources have any veracity at all.

And it is my opinion Dispensational Premillennialism is the single greatest influence on the waning influence of the Church and the gospel (which can be traced back to the Restoration Movement), the huge dividedness of the Church (the explosion of sectarianism makes the Reformation look like an amateurish trial run), the increase in liberalism, and two of the most legitimate complaints any non-believer can make (Christianity doesn't know what it believes and Christianity teaches obvious falsehoods). Russel was influenced by Dispensationalists and Liberals. Had he consulted with Spurgeon or someone like Van Til he might never have written his notorious "Why I Am not a Christian." Dispensationalism bring folks into the faith through its prolific evangelism but it teaches falsehoods. Every single Dispensational Premillennialist who has ever lived has died, drawing his/her last breath without ever seeing what s/he taught never coming true. Every single one of them has died knowing they often told others things that were not true. Jesus did not come when they said he would come. None of the then current events ever proved to be a sign for anything they predicted. Not a single one of them were raptured. ALL of them died with the knowledge their beliefs were not true and they unintentionally told others things that were not true.

It happens every day in DPism. Every Christian forum, including this one, is filled with threads demonstrating the ungodly practice of false prognostication.

 

[Josheb]

I don't follow Darby. I follow Jesus.

Every post you've authored in the Eschatology and prophecy boards prove otherwise. The simple fact that you chronically avoid fundamental questions about your own posts (like, "When, exactly, will this happen?") is not something Jesus ever taught. Neither did Jesus ever make a false prediction, emulate those who do so, or support those who do so. You would serve both this thread and yourself best if you did not make this about you. The minute you do that you open yourself up to personal examination and when it comes to end-times viewpoints your views are profoundly lacking. Just keep the posts about the posts. Defend DPism (if possible), not yourself. Prepare yourself because you're this forum's most prominent (and vocal) Dispensational Premillennialist so you're going to have to field a plethora of inquiries, commentary, and criticism. Post #5 has no place in this discussion.

 

[CrowCross]

John Darby is generally credited as the father of dispensational premillennialism. This has been disputed by dispensational premillennialist on the grounds that it elements can be found among other theologians and in previous time periods to Darby (b. 1800 d 1892). That ignores the word "father" and also that the claim relates to modern dispensational premillennialism. It is a matter of debate whether Darby had redemption divided into seven dispensations or three. And he did not call them dispensations but simply ways in which God tests humanity. Modern dispensational premillennialism has seven, serving the same purpose.

In both this remains true. Quoted from daretothink.info/dispensationalism/the-origins-and-tenets-of-dispensational-premillennialism/



" Darby’s innovative approach to theology, particularly his division of history into dispensations—periods during which God tests humanity—laid the groundwork for Dispensational Premillennialism. He posited that God had two distinct peoples: the earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. According to Darby, the Church was a temporary phase in God’s plan, destined to end with the secret rapture, after which God would resume His dealings with Israel."

Does that have any biblical precedent? If one interprets the Bible by dividing it into specific ways in which God deals with and tests humanity, one could certainly find scriptures to support that view. Though imo, they would need to be isolated from the consistency of the whole of Scripture. So the question is, is that what the Bible, as a whole, is, and is doing? Is that what determines interpretation?

I don't believe it is. First, in Gen, it gives the account of creation, including the creation of mankind, the fall of humanity through Adam, and a declaration. A curse on the serpent who deceived Eve and instigated a rebellion. A promise that her seed would crush his head. That is the central destination of everything that follows. Everything that follows is connected and anchored in that verse (Gen 3:14-15). Jesus is the focus in every page, the main actor in every page. It is in the covenants that God makes with mankind that we see a uniformity of purpose. And these covenants are not ways in which God interacts with humanity to test them. They are relationships that he forms with mankind that lead to the ultimate and final relationship. God dwelling with us. He will be our God and we will be his people (Rev 21).

I am going to give an example of what dispensational premillennialism does to the full counsel of God. The example will come from John MacArthur's study Bible. This is not to bash him, I am sure his is basking in the presence of the Lord right now. Much of what he taught is consistent with the Reformed/Calvinist Doctrines of Grace. I can understand why the millions of people who agree with his teaching and are swayed by it, would just accept it as truth, given the source. He was a great theologian and teacher. What I don't understand is how, as such, he could have been swayed and interpret particularly OT prophecy, Revelation, and the couple of passages in the NT that are the staple of proof of a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. And do so from the premise of those things. My observation is to everyone, including myself, that we all must be very careful, to check and recheck and recheck again, anything that we see as truth or fact, against the whole counsel of God. That being said, I did that before posting this to the best of my ability, and I expect to be corrected where it is necessary---but with sound biblical support done by the one who corrects.

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."

This is a dispensational premillennialism interpretation of prophecy. It does not consider the form of OT prophecy and how it is to be interpreted. It often has an immediate application to those it is being given to, but often goes beyond that within the same prophecy to the ultimate fulfillment when Christ arrives and does his redemptive work, and even at times beyond that to the consummation of redemption. MacArthur here is interpreting the things found in Eze. as applying only to Israel as dis'/premil has two separate people of God or kingdoms of God. And he is applying this temple that is being measured and the reinstated sacrifices to a restored Israel in some future 1000 year period. So, even if the measurements and everything in them including the above verses are literal, and they may be, Ezek. was prophesying from exile in Babylon. The temple was rebuilt in Ezra's time. And even if the measurements are literal, they also have a spiritual significance. They are what they are because they are signing something. In any case, there is no reason to apply this to a rebuilt third temple after Christ's return and before the return of the Church. (Which is what is done in dispen/amil.)

Aside from that, the idea of animal sacrifices being reinstated, no matter what gymnastics with words are used to justify it, is antithetical to Heb 10:8-9 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law). then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The covenant that over arches the entire Bible is the eternal covenant between the Godhead before creation. Therefore Christ is the central figure always, never geo/politcal Israel. The covenant with Israel is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, not a separate interaction/testing by God of mankind. The Redeemer, the promised Seed, comes through Israel and Israel is a shadow of the things to come, just as the animal sacrifices were. That is the value of Israel, and it is no small value, but it is not what the Bible is interpreted through as its own central figure.

Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?

 

[CrowCross]

Every post you've authored in the Eschatology and prophecy boards prove otherwise. The simple fact that you chronically avoid fundamental questions about your own posts (like, "When, exactly, will this happen?") is not something Jesus ever taught. Neither did Jesus ever make a false prediction, emulate those who do so, or support those who do so. You would serve both this thread and yourself best if you did not make this about you. The minute you do that you open yourself up to personal examination and when it comes to end-times viewpoints your views are profoundly lacking. Just keep the posts about the posts. Defend DPism (if possible), not yourself. Prepare yourself because you're this forum's most prominent (and vocal) Dispensational Premillennialist so you're going to have to field a plethora of inquiries, commentary, and criticism. Post #5 has no place in this discussion.

Same question.....Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?

 

[CrowCross]

And it is my opinion Dispensational Premillennialism is the single greatest influence on the waning influence of the Church and the gospel

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion....but from what I read most American churches are Premillennial Dispensationalist. That pretty much shows your opinion is incorrect.

Why are they Premillennial Dispensationalist? Because that's what the bible teaches.

To be honest when I see some of the aspects of Covenant Theology I see them as somewhat parallel to Dispensationalism.

 

[Arial]

Over the years I have checked and rechecked and rechecked scripture. I have looked at the council of God and have come to the conclusion that there is a pre-trib rapture and a seven year tribulation. This post will show a pre-tribulation rapture.

In this study of the council of God we'll go back to the book of Daniel

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.

Daniel 12:2 tells us..."And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life..." (The resurrection)

Of course it is about the resurrection.

The many in verse 2 inform us not all who sleep in the dust shall awake. This verse is in reference to the resurrection. That is, at the time Michael stands up and the time of trouble begins not all people are resurrected.

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"?

Next we can skip ahead in time to 1 Cor 15:51 and read about this resurrection.......51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must be clothedf with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

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.

1 Thes 4:13 Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death,c so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.
15 By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 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.
18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

See above.

Paul speaks of the resurrection. Paul tells us the "dead in Christ will be the first to arise...Paul adds to it in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4:16 when he tells us there will be a sound of the trumpet of God...Paul tells us at the Daniel 12 resurrection Christ will descend and bring with Him the spirits of them that have previously died and went to heaven...to rejoin with their body at the resurrection...all this happens when the time of trouble begins...not at the end.

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.

 

[Josheb]

Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?

Same question.....Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?

This is an obvious example of another chronic practice by Dispensational Premillennialists: the attempt to change the subject. It does not matter to what theology anyone else subscribed because this op is specifically on the question of whether or not DPism is fact or fiction. No other theology or view of the end times is of concern and yet Dispensationalist cannot stay on topic and prove their now position(s) without fallacy.

Focus. Speak to the contents of the posts and stay on topic. Prove Dispensational Premillennialism is a fact and/or address the many fictions in the theology and resulting from the practice of its adherents (like appealing to extra-biblical sources who appeal to exptra-biblical sources and attempts to change the subject). And @Arial, I encourage you not to answer the question because 1) it's off-topic and irrelevant, 2) because he already knows the answer, the inquiry is demonstrably disingenuous, 3) real and/or unintended attempts to conflate CT with RT are utterly fallacious, and 4) the minute that information is inserted into the thread it becomes fair game as a basis to derail the thread.

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion....

Nice dodge. It's not an opinion. It is demonstrable fact and the attempt to aovid the facts and misrepresent the facts as opinion is..... something Jesus also never taught.

but from what I read most American churches are Premillennial Dispensationalist.

And that is another falsehood. Many polls have been taken on this matter and the results show the Church is divided into thirds with about one third being DPist, one third being Amil, and one third being something other than those two. If you, or anyone else bothers to Google the question, AI will say less than 18% of Christians are full DPers, so this proves to be another example of you speculating falsely when a few seconds to verify the facts before posting nonsense would have helped your case. That did not happen, and the result is another fiction. Adherents are misled into thinking DPism is THE mainstream, orthodox viewpoint because 1) DPists dominate electronic media and 2) DP leaders are not honest and forthcoming when they teach eschatology. They rarely teach all viewpoints and, when they do, it is very common to misrepresent the alternatives. This is visible with the Ice article because if Ice were fully honest and forthcoming then he would openly, forthcomingly volunteer the information that the ECFs were predominantly Historicists, NOT Dispensationalists, that no formal eschatological position existed, and Irenaeus would have been understood by his original, second-century readers through what later became Historic Premillennialism and Amillennialism. By leaving out that information Ice lied. Had he included that information and been consistent including that kind of information wherever appropriate throughout that article he'd 1) have been honest, and 2) painted a much different, accurate view of the rapture prior to Darby.

The perception Dispensational Premillennialism is more prominent than it is a falsehood built on falsehoods. Non-Dispensational Premillennialists do not write fiction series promoting their eschatology.

That pretty much shows your opinion is incorrect.

LOL! No, it does not. What would prove the contents of my posts incorrect is facts and you've posted none.

Why are they Premillennial Dispensationalist?

That question has already been answered so you're dodging the already-posted content.

Because that's what the bible teaches.

Prove it.

To be honest when I see some of the aspects of Covenant Theology I see them as somewhat parallel to Dispensationalism.

Non sequitur. This op is not about CT and the attempt to force a change in the topic of discussion will not receive my collaboration.

Prove Dispensational Premillennialism is fact.

That's all you have to do in this thread. Anything and everything else is off topic and will be attributed as evidence of DPism as fiction and the DPists' inability and unwillingness to engage the specified topic. I recommend you start the defense of Dispensational Premillennialism as fact by providing explicit example of scripture itself using the word "dispensation" to divide temporally divide itself as Dispensational Premillennialism teaches. This gets right to the foundation of Dispensational Premillennialism. That theology teaches the Bible can be divided into dispensations and a dispensation is a period of time in which God interacts with His people in designated ways that are largely discontinuous with other dispensations.

Prove to everyone here that is what the Bible explicitly teaches.

Don't dodge the inquiry. Do not appeal to a false equivalence like the Trinity. Just answer the question asked, even if the answer is, "The Bible does not explicitly contain that information. The Dispensational construct is one developed through inference alone," because that woould be the true, factual answer. Once some honest, true, and accurate facts about Dispensational Premillennialism have been established we can discuss how and why it is an inferential-only theology is thought to be fact and not fiction.

In other words, this thread is going to be one of those threads where method proves to be just as important is content. The thread itself will serve as an object lesson demonstrating the fact or fiction nature of DPism because every obfuscation undermines the premise of Dispensationalism as fact.


Personally, after so many years posting in internet discussion boards, I'd avoid this thread if I were a DPist. I'd never enter a discussion as the only apologist in a thread full of antagonists. That's not because I, personally, cannot tolerate the lopsidedness but because, as a former DPist, I know DPism cannot stand up to the plethora of very real and legitimate criticisms brought to bear on it over the last two hundred years. Anyone who makes the attempt, like you, assumes an enormous onus, and in a thread where method will prove as important as content you should be asking yourself if you have what it takes to post impeccably. You've got six posts in this thread so far and both scripturally and logically every single one of them fails in part or in entirety.

Would you like us to go easy on you?


Show me where the Bible parses itself using the DP definition of dispensation OR acknowledge it does not do so. Start with the most basic, most foundational, most fundamental premise of Dispensational Premillennialism because without that foundation everything else has nothing on which to stand. We can discuss other matters, but all such conversation will occur within the context of no foundation. That will be the fact in evidence unless or until you can show the legitimacy of DPism's foundation.

 

[Arial]

Would you align yourself more with Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology?

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?