• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

@Josheb Re: post #91 You show that as a quote from @CrowCross but it is actually something I said. Does that change your understanding of why it was said and how you would respond ----knowing where I am coming from, and what Crow would likely mean if he had said it?
My bad. Thanks for the correction.

I understand the positions each of you are trading. The fact is @CrowCross has asserted a synonymity between dispensation and age. Post #30 states, "BTW, post 25 showed a difference in the current dispensation...age...and the dispensation...age of Gideon." and you are 100% correct when posting, "the story is not dispensations as D'ists define them." I would argue they (what DPism teaches are dispensations) are not dispensations at all.... but explaining the alternative digresses from the matter of proving Dispensational Premillennialism fact or fiction.
All I do, day after day is present verses that support the dispensation
No, all you do day after day is present interpretations of verses that support Dispensational Premillennialism. That is much different than presenting verses that "support" "the dispensation" and much, much different that posting verses that explicitly state something is a dispensation and verses that explicitly define a dispensation the way Dispensational Premillennialism defines the term.
 
That is true. It is a hermeneuitical system of theology just a Covenant.
A Christian can actually find the word "covenant" in scripture. A Christian can actually find scripture marking itself using the term covenant. A Christian can actually find scripture explaining a covenant without referencing extra-scriptural, man-made doctrine.

Dispensational Premillennialists cannot do any of that. All DPism can do s post eisegetic interpretations of scripture, nothing literal or explicit.
I could have use ages instead of time but @Josheb would get upset again.
I have yet to get "upset" a first time. What I will do if you use ages instead of time is ask you to prove your claims with scripture, beginning with scripture as written and not eisegetic interpretations thereof. No "upset" wanted, needed, or existent. Just direct, scriptural answers to questions asked when asked.

Dispensational Premillennialists do not do that, either.
 
Okay. Next question:

Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?

Please do not take 70 posts to post an answer to the question asked.
Do you expect a verse such as.....and the word of the Lord came to me saying, I God declare I have two people.

Lets start with Amos 9...
11“In that day I will restore
the fallen tent of David.
I will repair its gaps, restore its ruins,
and rebuild it as in the days of old,
12that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear My name,”
declares the LORD, who will do this.
13“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when the plowman will overtake the reaper
and the treader of grapes, the sower of seed.
The mountains will drip with sweet wine,
with which all the hills will flow.
14I will restore My people Israel from captivity;e
they will rebuild and inhabit the ruined cities.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15I will firmly plant them in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land that I have given them,”

This began in 1948.
 
No, all you do day after day is present interpretations of verses that support Dispensational Premillennialism.
Well of course. the Bible presents Dispensational Premillennialism.
That is much different than presenting verses that "support" "the dispensation" and much, much different that posting verses that explicitly state something is a dispensation and verses that explicitly define a dispensation the way Dispensational Premillennialism defines the term.
Daniel 12 tells us the resurrection happens prior to the tribulation...

1“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
 
A Christian can actually find the word "covenant" in scripture. A Christian can actually find scripture marking itself using the term covenant. A Christian can actually find scripture explaining a covenant without referencing extra-scriptural, man-made doctrine.

Dispensational Premillennialists cannot do any of that. All DPism can do s post eisegetic interpretations of scripture, nothing literal or explicit.

I have yet to get "upset" a first time. What I will do if you use ages instead of time is ask you to prove your claims with scripture, beginning with scripture as written and not eisegetic interpretations thereof. No "upset" wanted, needed, or existent. Just direct, scriptural answers to questions asked when asked.

Dispensational Premillennialists do not do that, either.
I have no problem with God making covenants.

When you fully understand the term "dispensation"....feel free to get back to me.
 
Do you expect a verse such as.....and the word of the Lord came to me saying, I God declare I have two people.

Lets start with Amos 9...
11“In that day I will restore
the fallen tent of David.
I will repair its gaps, restore its ruins,
and rebuild it as in the days of old,
12that they may possess the remnant of Edom
and all the nations that bear My name,”
declares the LORD, who will do this.
13“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when the plowman will overtake the reaper
and the treader of grapes, the sower of seed.
The mountains will drip with sweet wine,
with which all the hills will flow.
14I will restore My people Israel from captivity;e
they will rebuild and inhabit the ruined cities.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
15I will firmly plant them in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land that I have given them,”
No, I expect a verse, or a passage that explicitly states God has two peoples. Amos 9:14 does the exact opposite: It asserts a single people!!! The singular use of the word "people" is right there in the verse! The word "people" is not identical to the word "peoples." The word "people" is singular, and the word "peoples" is plural.

The question asked was,

Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?

That
question was not answered. Instead, what happened was a passage was posted that was eisegetically interpreted to say something it does not actually state. If there is a verse that actually, factually, literally, objectively verifiably explicitly states God has two peoples then post it. If there is no verse the post an acknowledgment there is no such verse. Once either answer has been posted we can discuss that verse, or the lack thereof. Let's establish the facts of scripture (either affirmative statement or silence) and work the discussion from that.
All I do, day after day is present verses that support the dispensation
No, all you do day after day is present interpretations of verses that support Dispensational Premillennialism. That is much different than presenting verses that "support" "the dispensation" and much, much different that posting verses that explicitly state something is a dispensation and verses that explicitly define a dispensation the way Dispensational Premillennialism defines the term. Post 104 is an observable example of a posted interpretation, not a verse that actually states what DPism teaches. You were asked to provide scripture that explicitly states God has two people and have not done that in Post #104.
This began in 1948.
I will not digress from the op's specified subject of determining whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction other than to say, no, Amos 9:11-15 was not fulfilled in 1948. That is a Dispensational Premillennialist teaching, a Dispensational Premillennial interpretation of the verse, not what the text actually states. You were not asked to provide a verse that could be interpreted to say Israel was restored in 1948. You were asked to provide scripture explicitly stating God has two peoples. Post #104 does not do that.


Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?

.
 
I will not digress from the op's specified subject of determining whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction other than to say, no, Amos 9:11-15 was not fulfilled in 1948. That is a Dispensational Premillennialist teaching, a Dispensational Premillennial interpretation of the verse, not what the text actually states. You were not asked to provide a verse that could be interpreted to say Israel was restored in 1948. You were asked to provide scripture explicitly stating God has two peoples. Post #104 does not do that.
Then what happened in 1948?
 
Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?
Because the Jews rejected Christ the gentiles were then grafted into the tree.

The tribulation is a time when God will restore the Jews...graft the natural branches back into the tree. At the "end" all of the saved will be one people...one bride.
 
You do know it didn't start with Darby?
It did start with Darby.

An "~ism" is a formalized system of thought. Prior to Darby many theologians spoke/wrote about dispensations but there was no formal system of thought known as "Dispensationalism." Furthermore, Dispensational Premillennialism is not Dispensationalism and more than premillennialism is Dispensational Premillennialism. This op specifies Dispensational Premillennialism, not mere dispensationalism and not the use of dispensation in theological discourse. Dispensational Premillennialism is something different than either mere dispensationalism and mere premillennialism.

This has always been a point of deceit in Dispensational Premillennialism. Premillennialism prior to Darby was covenantal. Premillennialists were horrified when Darby formalized his system of thought. They were so against any association with Darbyism that they changed the name of their premillennialism and that is why Historical Premillennialism has a name. They wanted to put as much distance between the historical viewpoint as possible. The called it Historical Premillennialism because that is what it is = historical! Darby's Dispensational Premillennialism is not historical. As a formal system of theological thought Dispensational Premillennialism started with Darby.

Prior to Darby theologians wrote about dispensations within an established context of the covenant. Darbyism separates dispensations from the covenants. Prior to Darby premillennialists considered Israel irrelevant to Christian eschatology. It is not that there were no theologians who thought Israel might be "restored," but none of the conflated God bringing the Jews back to their land with Christian eschatology. Darby changed that viewpoint. Darby's Dispensational Premillennialism teaches Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology. It started with Darby.

When Dispensational Premillennialist theologians teach the relevance of Israel as part of their formalized system of thought they are practicing something new, something less than 200 years old In Christian thought, doctrine, and practice and they are teaching something that is completely irreconcilable with the historical, orthodox teaching of both scripture and the Church and what scripture and the Church has taught for 2000 years. When they do not teach their viewpoint is new and different they are committing a lie of omission. When Dispensational Premillennialists like Ice (or William C. Watson) expound on the precedents of Darbyism they often cite heretics. They do not tell the reader the source is heretical. They commit a lie of omission. Ice does this when he cites Another falsehood is the appeal to history interpreted. An example of this with Thomas Ice is his article, "A History of Dispensationalism," and "A Short History of Dispensationalism." The same article with two different titles. The first deceit is equating a history of dispensationalism with the history of Dispensational Premillennialism. The second deceit is equating mere mentions of dispensations with the formalized system of thought, or theology now known as Dispensational Premillennialism. Here's an example of the latter taken from page 7 of both artciles...

Crude, but clear, schemes of ages and dispensations are found in ante-Nicene fathers such as Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (130-200), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Methodius (d. 311), and Victorinus of Petau (d. 304).

A "crude" "scheme" is not a formalized system of thought. Notice Darby does not actually prove any scheme actualy exists with any of the authors cited. He assumes it, and assumes it without any evidence to support his interpretation of their writings. Instead, what he does do is make an appeal to a second-hand source.

Dispensational historian, Larry Crutchfield concluded that: Regardless of the number of economies to which the Fathers held, the fact remains that they set forth what can only be considered a doctrine of ages and dispensations which foreshadows dispensationalism as it is held today.

The essence of Ice's argument is that some guy who was a Dispensational Premillennialist concluded (code for interpreted) those sources as dispensationalists when they were not. Ice is appealing to a second-hand interpretation instead of the sources themselves. Why would he do that? The ECFs' writings are available to everyone freely, thanks to the internet. He has easy, ready access to those sources and, if he has actually read them then he can and should cite them first-hand and not rely on one of his Dispensationally Premillennialist buddy's interpretation. This is dishonest.

A third deceit occurs because Martyr, Tertullian, and Watts were all covenantal. Their views in dispensations occurred within the context of a theological understanding of covenant, and they did so because the word, and the concept, of the covenant is something explicitly stated in the Bible whereas the word/concept dispensation is not found therein.

This is what the Ice article states about Watts,

Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the famous theologian and hymn writer, also wrote about dispensations in a forty-page essay entitled “The Harmony of all the Religions which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations towards them. His definition of dispensations is very close to modern statements. The public dispensations of God towards men, are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, where in are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealing with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behavior, both in this world and in that which is to come. Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different religions, or at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men in the several successive ages of the world.”

All you, @CrowCross (or anyone else reading this post), have to do to verify the covenantal beliefs of the Martyr, Tertullian, and Wats is to Google, "Was Justin Martyr covenantal?" "Was Tertullian covenantal?" or "Was Isaac Watts covenantal?" The answer in all three cases will be yes! These men did write about dispensations but they did NOT write about dispensations the way Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach and other Dispensational Premillennialists write about Dispensationalism. Isaac Watts is particularly relevant because modern-day Dispensational Premillennialists cite Watts as a proto-dispensationalist because of his co-occurring premillennial views but Watts believe Israel would be brought into the Church. Watts was a subscriber to what today would be called a form of Replacement Theology. He taught the Church had replaced national Israel as God's people (singular), and Israel would be brought into the Church (made one with God's one people). Watts was a covenantal RTer when he expounded on his views of dispensations! Wats was NOT Dispensational Premillennialist. He did not hold nation Israel's future was relevant in Christian eschatology, he did not separate dispensations from covenants, he did not hold the Bible to be discontinuous, he did not hold God had two peoples, he did not think there were two completely unrelated eternal purposes for national Israel and the Church. He believed national Israel would become part of the Church. One people. It is not accurate to portray Watts as an early Dispensational Premillennialist. Watts was a covenantal dispensationalist and Historic Premillennialist.

Ice, Crutchfield, and Watson lied. They committed lies of omission in their efforts to justify Dispensational Premillennialism. They argued a false cause fallacy = just because someone mentioned the word "dispensations" does not mean they were early dispensationalists, and it definitely does not mean they were Dispensational Premillennialists. It does mean Darby used these men to form his own thinking but what Darby created is much different than what anyone before him has conceived. We cannot say these Ice made "honest mistakes," or that they may have inadvertently or unintentionally misrepresented their sources because he has a doctorate. Ice, Crutchfield, and Watson are highly educated men, whose education taught them to be objective and whose ethics code requires them to accurate present any and all sources. There are only two possible explanations for Ice's article, and Crutchfield's failure to correctly portray the ECFs and Watts. They are either incompetent, or they are lying (deliberately misrepresenting the facts for the purpose of deception). Either way, whether incompetent or lying, they are not reliable sources.

Which is why I have repeatedly told you, @CrowCross, to be as critical of your own sources as you are of my posts!!! Be an equal opportunity critic. What Ice, Crutchfield, Watson, and other DP apologists do is comparable to saying the Essenes and Acts 2:44 are early examples of Marxism. It is utter hogwash.

Darby used writings from earlier writers selectively. He created an entirely new and radically different theology in which the understanding of dispensation was removed from its covenant moorings, scripture was divided up in discontinuity, the people of God (singular) was divided into two peoples, national Israel was made critically important to Christian eschatology, and in the [process he compromised several core Christian historically held orthodox doctrines. Dispensationalism teaches a different Christology, a different soteriology, a different ecclesiology, a different eschatology.

Dispensational Premillennialism did start with Darby; Darby is the individual who formalized a system of thought that was previously non-existent in Christian theology.
 
It did start with Darby.
LOL...no it didn't.

I've seen early Hebrew translations of 1 and 2nd Thes that present the rapture as pre-trib. Translated long, long before Darby.

Now, you can believe what ever you want to believe.
 
Well of course. the Bible presents Dispensational Premillennialism.

Daniel 12 tells us the resurrection happens prior to the tribulation...

1“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?
I have no problem with God making covenants.

When you fully understand the term "dispensation"....feel free to get back to me.
Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?
Then what happened in 1948?
Nothing prophetic and nothing relevant to whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction. Nothing I will discuss with you until I have an answer to the question asked back in Post #101.

Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?
LOL...no it didn't.

I've seen early Hebrew translations of 1 and 2nd Thes that present the rapture as pre-trib. Translated long, long before Darby.

Now, you can believe what ever you want to believe.
Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?
Because the Jews rejected Christ the gentiles were then grafted into the tree.

The tribulation is a time when God will restore the Jews...graft the natural branches back into the tree. At the "end" all of the saved will be one people...one bride.
Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?



The question asked has not been answered. You have posted five posts and not a single one of them answers the question asked. Please do us all the courtesy of answering the question asked. I'll even barter with you. If you answer this question in the very next post then I will explain why the existence of Israel in 1948 is not a fulfillment of Amos 9:14. I will not digress from the op further than that and discuss Amos 9:14 after I provide that explanation but I will answer your question if the question I asked in Post #101 is answered in your very next post. Any non-answer will be taken as an inability and unwillingness to answer Post 101's inquiry and a lack of interest in the answer to your own question.

Take your time. Search the scriptures. Verify every impulse you might have by reading the scripture as objectively as possible before posting. I am heading to the beach to work on my tan and read, and I'll likely be gone for four to five hours. You've got all that time to examine what you've been taught, to check your sources, to decide what to post so another non-answer is not posted. Just answer the question asked.

Where does the Bible explicitly state God has two peoples?

.
 
Last edited:
LOL...no it didn't.

I've seen early Hebrew translations of 1 and 2nd Thes that present the rapture as pre-trib. Translated long, long before Darby.

Now, you can believe what ever you want to believe.
LOL What you see is your interpretation of those translations, which does not automatically equate to what those making the translation MEANT by translating into the words they used. Meanings of words change drastically over time. Evidently Darby had the same problem. He gave it his interpretation and developed a whole new revelation as to how the Bible and redemption was to be divided and interpreted. I say "new revelation" because it is not IN the Bible but utterly outside of it.

And it was Darby. He is the one that invented dispensational premillenialism. It exploded and became almost the only, because of those who realized, "This is a real money maker for us!" And out came the books, the movies, the central focus on the majority of Christians for years and years, turning away from seeking the kingdom of heaven, to signs of the times. First love grown cold.
 
LOL What you see is your interpretation of those translations, which does not automatically equate to what those making the translation MEANT by translating into the words they used. Meanings of words change drastically over time. Evidently Darby had the same problem. He gave it his interpretation and developed a whole new revelation as to how the Bible and redemption was to be divided and interpreted. I say "new revelation" because it is not IN the Bible but utterly outside of it.

And it was Darby. He is the one that invented dispensational premillenialism. It exploded and became almost the only, because of those who realized, "This is a real money maker for us!" And out came the books, the movies, the central focus on the majority of Christians for years and years, turning away from seeking the kingdom of heaven, to signs of the times. First love grown cold.
Though I have demonstrated that Darby wasn't the inventor and the concept was around for a long, long time...IF..Darby was the discoverer then God used Darby to magnify the mystery of the pre-trib rapture....as it is biblical truth.

You should be looking up...not over the top of your glasses at me.

Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Note: The end time events are coming to pass. Look up!!!
 
Notice Darby does not actually prove any scheme actually exists with any of the authors cited. He assumes it and assumes it without any evidence to support his interpretation of their writings.
Oops! My bad. I meant to post "Notice Ice does not actually prove any scheme actually exists....."
 
Do you expect a verse such as.....and the word of the Lord came to me saying, I God declare I have two people.
Q. Who are the people of God in the OT, post the covenant with Abraham?
A. The descendants of Jacob. God makes them into a nation, and the nation Israel are the people of God.

Q. Who are the people of God in the NT?
A. Believing Jews and believing Gentiles---Christ's church (ekklesia called- out ones. In Acts 7:38 Stephen calls the people of Israel the assembly (ekklesia) in the wilderness. Matt 16:18 Jesus says "I will build my church (ekklesia).


Either this is two people groups or they are one people group. DIspensationalism has them being treated as two separate people groups. And not only that but one people group is a geo/political nation that needs to be dealt with separately from the people of all other nations. It has Jesus saving Gentiles and some Jews, and in D premillennialism, it has that people completely removed from the earth while he vents his wrath. Then Jesus comes back to save the nation group of his people and lets them reign with him for a thousand years. ANd then, his real wrath in final judgement comes and then and only then does he make the two one. Even though Scripture says that he already did that---on the cross.
 
Back
Top