Six Problems Inherent in Dispensationalism: Examples

[Josheb]

Except from the first century on in various ways and various places people have seen those circumstances (that news. those signs) as the final "revving up."

Ooooo, be vigilant.

@CrowCross Crow has done a bait and switch by attempting to move the conversation from "near" too "soon." from "engys" to "tacheos." I exhort everyone to pay attention to that slight of word and not take the red herring bait (at least not until the matter of "near" has been addressed). One of the many problems within Dispensationalism is the problem of having a cogent conversation with a Dispensationalist about Dispensationalist teachings because they near-constantly obfuscate and one of the ways that obfuscation occurs is by repeated changes of topic without ever resolving any of them. I doubt there is a single thread in this board where that doesn't happen. I've wasted many a post and lots of time missing the subtlety with which that device is employed and the fruitlessness of trying to get them to stick to any one single claim when they make it.

This op is specifically on examples of my previous critical ops. We are observing the examples right here in this thread....... AND they're being observed despite my attempts at aiding, encouraging, exhorting @CrowCross to answer the question asked, directly and immediately without obfuscation for the purposes of moving through the claim to its logically necessary outcomes measured by scripture. It's nearly impossible to do with a Dispensationalist and Crow has the power to answer every question any of us could ask about his "near," and move the discussion rapidly along (tacheos ) but that does not happen. I asked about Matthew 26's "near a dozen posts ago and still haven't received the answer to the question asked. Obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation. The inherent eschatological significance of the verse a has been denied and an attempt to change the subject to "soon," instead of "near," along with his view of what is and is not eschatological, and all of it in avoidance of answering what should be a very easily answered question.

What does Jesus mean when he uses the word "near" (engys) in Matthew 26:18?

It isn't only about the radically different teachings of DPism. ALL the delays and red herrings and non sequiturs are all examples of what have cited in my six critical ops. There are only two options: either he's not very good at defending his own eschatology, or the eschatology is bad. Remind him. Remind him what's happening with you is exactly what this op is about, and he is proving the op correct by both the content and method of his posts. When discussing "soon," hold him to soon because it's only a matter of time before some diversion is posted.



.

 

[Josheb]

Other than the Lord Himself:

Mat 25:13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Phl 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

The day of the Lord's coming has been near since He ascended to heaven. The disciples were standing around looking up in the sky for Him to come right back after sitting with the Father on His throne. (Which sitting was prophesied that the risen Lord should do: "Sit thou on my right hand...")

Paul believed he could still be alive when the Lord returns into the air.

1 Th 4:15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep...Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

In fact, not to believe His coming is near, is the unbelief that corrupts the hearts of servants of the Lord to begin to do evil:

Mat 24:48But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming.


True. I accept your own personal testimony of some corrupt practices in the dispensational church you were a part of.





There is of course a difference between believing the Scriptures the Lord is at hand, and making predictions of the day and hour of His coming.

The Bible teaches it is wise to understand tomorrow is not promised, and the fool does not number his days.



Is there an opposition of dispensationalism to the covenants of God? Do they deny the OT and NT?

I'm born again into the new covenant of the risen God of Israel Jesus Christ. I don't believe in his imminence the Pope. (Just joking)

If you mean, the Spirit of the Lord is everywhere, then that's always been true, and always will be. If you mean the Lord is searching all hearts, and calling all men unto repentance, and judging all men by our works, then that has been true since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

That's not any faith particular to any doctrine: That is the doctrine of Jesus Christ in Scripture. His covenant is taking away the foreskin of lust to be wholly new creatures of God in deed and in truth.

As a new testament member of the Lord's body on earth, I wholeheartedly believe and practice the Lord is at hand, and I pray for it daily.

And we already see the danger to the heart of not believing in His coming is always near at hand.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

It was the same in the OT pertaining prophecy of His coming to earth the first time.

Isa 30:9That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

Isa 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.




By definition they reject the Lord is at hand. And some don't believe His coming at all. And some make a fabulous joke out of it.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


True. It also applies to false prophets saying what will not come to pass.

Joe 1:15Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.



True. It will once again be the same in the Lord's millennium:

Zec 13:3And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

Any righteous person on earth will have right of law of the King, to execute on the spot any false prophet in their own family.




Scripture sufficiently teaches the coming of the Lord is at hand this day. And Scripture also sufficeintly warns against unbelief with a spirit of mocking His near coming.

Just no predictions of days.


True. Though I imagine every resurrected and change saint rising to meet the Lord in the air, will not doubt be looking up at Him, whom they loved unto the end.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

But we see Jesus...


My own experince with your handling of my own words, forbids any granted trust in what you may report about others. I don't even trust, but verify. I only verify if I care to.

Nothing personal. It's only that some people are so personally and emotionally charged about certain things, that they throw discipline out the window.

And in your case, I have no doubt your personal experince is hard learned from the past. Believe me, I can entirely empathize with you.

What does Dispensational Premillennialism teach about any or all of those concerns?

 

[CrowCross]

That's a logical leap, to go from 5030. tacheós to "see[ing] things rev... up". It's spiritualizing the text —not good hermeneutics.

Yes, it's bad, especially when looking at it concerning "birth pangs". As we know things won't rev up in the future. There will be no quickness to Christ coming.

 

[Ghada]

Would you please answer the question just asked and answer it as politely and respectfully, directly and immediately as you can without added delay, obfuscation, or subterfuge. Prove to me and @Ghada the problems I have cited in my ops critical of Dispensationalism are not correct.

If you are wrong and the response is "So be it,"

It shows a mockery of the Lord's coming, similar to them that say His coming is too late, or not at all.

 

[CrowCross]

Except from the first century on in various ways and various places people have seen those circumstances (that news. those signs) as the final "revving up."

Yes they have...but never to the extent we see them happening today. Should I post my short list again?

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross Crow has done a bait and switch by attempting to move the conversation from "near" too "soon." from "engys" to "tacheos."

Retract that false statement or you will go on my ignore list. I will not respond to such false accusations. Got it?

 

[Arial]

Yes they have...but never to the extent we see them happening today. Should I post my short list again?

More people, more movement, more and faster ways of communication. And last but not least, the invention of an eschatology that is antithetical to the Bible in its full counsel, all the "ologies" included.

 

[Ghada]

Dispensationalism has all this happening and then Jesus sitting on a throne in a physical rebuilt temple as animal sacrifices are resumed.

Unless the doctrine of dispensationalism teaches this, then it's not dispensationalism teaching it, but only dispensationalists. And it's not just dispensationists teaching it.

The return of the Lord and His millennial kingdom on earth is first learned from the Bible. Not from dispensationalism.

Mortal and sinful humans living alongside the resurrected righteous,

Will be mostly righteous people during His millennium. The King's law will swiftly do away with the unrighteous transgressing His law. There will be no more longsuffering of the guilty to repent.

Mortal and sinful humans living alongside the resurrected righteous,

Not living alongside the resurrected saints ruling the cities, no more than the Jews will be living alongside the King in Jerusalem.

and all the immortal, incorruptible, people.

The resurrected righteous saints reigning with the Lord.

Armies of enemies (sinners) making war against national Israel.

That's before the war with the Lamb from the air. Resurrected Abraham will recieve his promised land from the Lord, with any natural seed remaining alive on earth after the war.

No national warfare during the Lord's reign upon earth.

Where did these people come from?

The people gathering around Armagreddon? From among the inhabitors of the earth not resurrected to meet the Lord in the air.

And if the devil has been destroyed

Shut up in the pit. Not destroyed. Your reading of Scripture is as sloppy as your reading of millennial teaching of Scripture.

and death destroyed

Death is only destroyed for the resurrected righteous unto life.

There will be no death in the New Jerusalem on the new earth, but there will still be sickness and death outside the walls. The nations will need enter the gates with clean hands to eat of the healing leaves of the tree of life.

and Jesus has already been victorious,

He already is victorious by resurrection from the dead. Now He commands all His enemies that slew Him to repent for His mercy's sake.

Not all do. Many are still piercing and crucifying Him to themselves daily.

He will make a swift slaughter of the armies in Judea, to victoriously sit down on His glorious kingdom throne in Jersualem, and roar.

where do these evil people come from?

Same as all evil angles and people: From the lust of their own hearts against the Lord.

If Jesus is the final perfect sacrifice,

No if about it.

why are bulls and rams being offered in worship to God?

They aren't. At least not by the will of God.

They will by the High Priest's will on earth for Abraham's natural seed to offer at His temple. The priests offering sacrifice must be born again with outward and inward circumcision of Christ.

Even though Is. 11 tells us when Jesus returns in the consummation, the bear will graze with the cow?

Bears and cows have no natural problem with peace. Nor are they under law made only for man.

 

[Josheb]

Retract that false statement or you will go on my ignore list. I will not respond to such false accusations. Got it?

Welll......... let's go to the evidence.

1. Going all the way back to Post 19, you were asked about the word "soon." That's a demonstrable fact, not something open for interpretation.
2. In Post 21 the answer was, "This has been explained to you several times...do you honestly need to go over it again????" That answer is an example of obfuscation. These are demonstrable facts objectively verifiable by anyone reading the post.
3. A more specific answer was eventually given in Post 24, where the answer is "...shorter than 5 years...probably sooner," and that answer is much different than what was explained to me several times in the previous thread where we discussed the very same mater. In other words, Post 24 contradicts Post 21's reference to what was said in the op titled, "The Rapture/Resurrection of the Church is Near." In that thread the answer given was "When is it going to happen? Some say it could happen on a Jewish festival this October. Perhaps the The Feast of Tabernacles. Yup, this October. Then again next October may still be in the window." One month, nor one year, are equal to, identical to, or synonymous with five years. Those are the facts, the objectively verifiable facts that anyone can observe simply by reading what is explicitly stated in the posts.
4. In Post 25 and Post 26 I stopped asking about "soon," and asked about "near." The word "soon" is nowhere found in either post. You may not have caught that, but those are the facts of the posts.
5. In Post 27, you mentioned both "soon," and "near," adding an insult, "I've already explained that to you....so, for you to keep acting dumb...as if I haven't answered your question is being dishonest," and again maintaining an answer different than what was stated in the other op.
6. In the very next post, Post 28, I asked, "What does Jesus mean when saying his time is near? Does he mean a month from then? A year from then? Five years from then? The Greek word is "engys." In Matthew 26:18, what did Jesus' use of the word mean in terms of an amount of time?" Having already received an answer to the question of "soon," I asked about "near," and I continued asking only about near in every subsequent post.
7. The answer to Post 28's question is found in Post 30, where it is states, "Jesus in the above was talking about his soon to happen death on the cross....not some eschatological event." That is the first place we find "near" and "soon" conflated or used to explain each other. I asked about "near" and a "soon" answer was given..... and according to Post 24 the word "soon" means "shorter than five years, probably sooner," which everyone knows is not what Jesus meant in Matthew 26:18.
8. It is at that point that @Arial states, "It was an eschatological event. The entire Bible from Gen 3 on is eschatological." In other words, by the time she arrives in the thread to comment on your posts you've already interchanged "near" with "soon." The two of you go back on forth on the eschatological relevance and by the time Post 35 arrives she too is commenting and inquiring about "near," not "soon."
9. But in the next post, Post 36, the post is all about "soon," with nothing about "near."
10. In the next two posts she replies to the "soon" and I point out the switch.

Those are the facts in evidence. You may not have been tracking the conversation as diligently as I am, or you may not have been heeding the details as I have but that lack on your part does not change the facts in evidence. I stopped asking about "soon," and began asking about "near," and Arial followed suit. You didn't. And then, when the switch was observed the proper response should have been to return to the topic of "near," and not accuse me falsely of having accused you falsely without first examining the flow of the conversation yourself to check the facts in evidence before posting (which is what I did).

The reason all of this is important is because we're discussing examples of the criticisms I have posted about Dispensational Premillennialism. Three of the six criticisms are directly about how Dispensationalists handle themselves as they try to live out their beliefs and two of the biggest problems in that context are the difficulty staying on topic and the lack of accountability. Any Dispensationalist entering this thread must be posting at his best because I will cite any lapse as an example of the criticisms I have posted. The only way for a Dispensationalist to prove my criticisms incorrect is to not make those mistakes. You have now put yourself in a predicament because if you leave this thread then I will exploit that fact, and I will cite it as often as I like as an example where a Dispensationalist would not explain his own claims when asked to do so and would not be accountable for his own words. Your best play here is to now acknowledge your mistake, accept responsibility for it, and get back to the topic of near, answer the question asked....... and continue to answer all the other questions everyone else has to the best of your ability without committing any of the problems listed in my six ops! When I finally get done with Matthew 26:18 I will ask you about two other uses of engys in the New Testament and compare them to your answers here and in the other op. Any discrepancy will be used as an example of the six problems inherent within Dispensationalism. Every discrepancy will be treated accordingly.

Every Dispensationalist entering this thread to dispute my ops has a substantial set of standards to meet. You entered the thread voluntarily and you are free to leave whenever you like. Place me on ignore all you like but that will only prove my point(s). Your best play is to start over and re-engage the topic at hand and stick to it until the discussion has reached its logically necessary conclusion. I have yet to see a Dispensationalist do that in my 20+ years of internet discussions. You'd be the first. If you are the first I will give you credit for that and on every occasion where such praise is warranted, I will cite you as the only Dispy with which I have ever traded posts who sticks to a single topic without obfuscation.

You're not doing a very good job, so far, but I remain hopeful and patient, and I am willing to provide you with a degree of latitude since you are the one having to defend DP teachings.






Start over. The question to be answered is what did Jesus mean when he used the word "near" in Matthew 26:18. He most definitely did not mean a month later, a year later, or five years later. So, what did he mean? I'll even help you answer the question! How long was it between the time Jesus spoke that statement until that event actually happened? Aside from the timeline given in scripture that verifies the "near," what other verses tell us the near was not a month, a year, or five years later? Take your time. Think it through. The question can be answered in a single post in as little as two or three words (which is what should have happened immediately after the question was asked in Post 28.

 

[Josheb]

Unless the doctrine of dispensationalism teaches this, then it's not dispensationalism teaching it, but only dispensationalists.

This has all already been covered. What Dispensationalism teaches has been correctly cited using leading Dispensationalists, including the inventers of this theology describing the teachings of Dispensationalism in their own words. Therefore, any Dispensationalist who claims to be a Dispensationalist but holds different beliefs is either a very poor Dispensationalist or not a Dispensationalist at all and they need to reconsider what they believe and how they identify themselves.

And it's not just dispensationists teaching it.

All of which is off topic from this op!


This op is specifically and explicitly about examples within Dispensationalism, not examples in any other point of view. You have repeatedly been asked to stay op-relevant and not violate Rule 3 of the tou.

Please also make a conscious and deliberate attempt to post content relevant to the point of inquiry or comment specified in an opening post. For example, not every post is about end times. Not every thread on soteriology is about all of salvation. Do not hijack others' threads for your own purpose or agenda.​

Post op-relevantly.





The doctrines of Dispensational Premillennialism are so radically different than anything Christianity has ever taught, so different that they are irreconcilable with historic, orthodox Christianity. They are false teachings and some of them compromise core doctrines of our faith, including but not limited to Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Practically speaking, Dispensationalists invariably prove incapable of practicing their own Dispensationalism and being accountable for those lapses. This is most evident in the chronic practice of prognostication and the fact not a single prediction that's been made by any Dispensationalist since the inception of the theology has ever come true. They do not actually live according to what they preach or according to some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

And this op has not only cited a couple of examples but we're watching it happen here and now as the only Dispensationalist here so far proves my criticisms correct. I will give any Dispy entering the thread, including @CrowCross, the opportunity to do better because one of the purposes of these ops is to prompt reform.

So, would you, @Ghada, please stick to what Dispensationalism teaches and not what other perspectives teach? Your cooperation is appreciated.

 

[Arial]

The return of the Lord and His millennial kingdom on earth is first learned from the Bible. Not from dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism has a way of defining it though. And it is antithetical to the Bible and reality. As I showed. So here's a thought.

Give your definition of Christ's millennial kingdom on earth.

 

[Ghada]

What does Dispensational Premillennialism teach about any or all of those concerns?

The prophecy of the Lord's coming is near, is Bible as quoted.

If dispensationals have a habit of prediction, that's their problem.

Premillennialism is not a doctrine, but a present state on earth before the Lord comes a second time to rule all nations for a thousand years, with His resurrected saints ruling all cities by reward, for good ministerial service during these last days of premillennial earth.

 

[Ghada]

This op is specifically and explicitly about examples within Dispensationalism,

Ok. It sufficiently clarifes the title. It's not about what dispensationalism teaches, but only about their practices.

The doctrines of Dispensational Premillennialism are so radically different than anything Christianity has ever taught, so different that they are irreconcilable with historic, orthodox Christianity.

All of which is off topic from this op!

This op is specifically and explicitly about examples within Dispensationalism,

This is on topic. Examples inherint within dispensationalist practices. Not teaching dispensational doctrine. Nor are similar examples of nondispensationals allowed.

Practically speaking, Dispensationalists invariably prove incapable of practicing their own Dispensationalism and being accountable for those lapses.

This is on topic.

This is most evident in the chronic practice of prognostication and the fact not a single prediction that's been made by any Dispensationalist since the inception of the theology has ever come true.

Dittoes.

They do not actually live according to what they preach or according to some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

Dittoes

So, would you, @Ghada, please stick to what Dispensationalism teaches

All of which is off topic from this op!

It's not about the doctrine of dispensation, but the practices of some dispensationals.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

In what? The topic of the op about bad examples within dispensational ranks, or the off-topic teaching of dispensational doctrine?

Please also make a conscious and deliberate attempt to post content relevant to the point of inquiry or comment specified in an opening post. For example, not every post is about end times. Not every thread on soteriology is about all of salvation. Do not hijack others' threads for your own purpose or agenda.

Post op-relevantly.

I'll pick this one, since you apparently wish to go to law. So, I advice you to do the same, else I'll have to report the OP for going off-topic from his own OP.

The rule does not allow for the OP to change the rule of staying on-topic.

You're not a dispensationalist, but you are practicing what they practice of not practicing what you preach. This does not qualify as off-topic from this OP, as being an example of bad dispensational practices being practiced by others, because it is being practiced within this OP.

 

[Josheb]

If dispensationals have a habit of prediction, that's their problem.

Yep.

It's their problem. They have a problem.

Premillennialism is not a doctrine...

Yes, it is. It is a doctrine within the subject of eschatology that is defined by how the millennium is defined and what occurs prior to its occurrence.

 

[Mr GLee]

Thank, but this op is not about the near.

Yes not near. . . . . . . .Drawing near . . daily bread hidden mana .

No one can get near Him if He is not drawing (let there be) freely giving us ears to hear His understanding.

Isaiah 29:18And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Isaiah 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see

Beautiful words, wonderful words of life

 

[CrowCross]

If dispensationals have a habit of prediction, that's their problem.

Yes, that would be their problem. Over the years some, not many have actually made predictions...As we know Jesus hasn't come for His church at the pre-tribulation resurrection/rapture event.

The best one can do is say the resurrection/rapture is "soon" or "near". As I have explained to some those words have a wide berth as well as a sudden quickness or revving up associated with them. The best one can really say is the resurrection/rapture is "imminent"...that is can happen at any moment. Could be tomorrow or next year sometime....or 5 years from now. It has to be sooner or later or technology and nation alignments and religious direction will step past what is biblically required.

When one reads Revelations 13 and the requirements for such a system to be in place during the second half of the 7 year tribulation period all one has to do is look at the worlds technology, economics and religious direction to see a scenario or as some have said...the table is all but set...for the return of Christ.

Now, if one disagree's with my view....so be it. Salvation isn't dependent on it.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, that would be their problem. Over the years some, not many have actually made predictions...As we know Jesus hasn't come for His church at the pre-tribulation resurrection/rapture event.

Some?

Nearly every Dispensationalist in this forum, if not all of them, makes predictions. The same practice is prevalent in other Christian forums. Christian radio is inundated with Dispensationalist preachers, and every single one of them make predictions. YOU make predictions! You make predictions and not a single one of them has come true. Not one. Ever. You, @CrowCross, are part of the problem to be solved and you, @CrowCross, could instantly improve your faith walk AND contribute to the welfare of all other Christians AND improve the standing of DPism (albeit in a very small way). It is within your ability to single-handedly effect positive change in your personal integrity, you position as a representative of modern futurism, and the reputation of Dpism.....

.....but you do not.

The best one can do is say the resurrection/rapture is "soon" or "near".

No, that is not the best one can do. The best a Christian can do is to say, "We have no idea when Christ might return, but it could be at any time (near or far), and that is what Christianity has always taught."

As I have explained to some those words have a wide berth as well as a sudden quickness or revving up associated with them. The best one can really say is the resurrection/rapture is "imminent"...that is can happen at any moment.

Yes!

Dispensationalism compromises the doctrine of imminence (and many other doctrines, too)! Your example compromises the doctrine of imminence. With one breath Dispensational Premillennialism claims to adhere to and espouse the classic, historic, orthodox position of imminence but with its next breath DPism teaches a variety of events must first occur prior to the second coming of Christ. In point of fact, one of the single biggest divides between DPism and ALL other eschatological points of view is its separation of the rapture apart from the second or final coming of Christ. No one else does that. Only DPism. Christ doesn't come a second time in DPism; he comes three times, four times, multiple times and the defense for this is "Well, he doesn't actually come all the way to earth in the rapture; he comes only in the air," which does nothing to solve the problem of DPism's radically different teachings of he comes in the air, then he comes to live here on earth but his reign fails, so he has to come back and lay waste to planet again to subdue the rebellion.

It's a very, very messed up theology.

If a rapture has to first happen before the second coming, then the doctrine of imminence goes out the window. If a temple or a priesthood have to be built and reconstituted before his final return then that is inherently, inescapably, and irrefutably contradictory, by definition, to the doctrine of imminence. What DPism teaches is a radical departure form everything Christianity has taught since its inception.

And Dispensationalists do that nonsense day in and day out every day all day long around the world..... because that is the example set for them to practice by their leaders. And you, @CrowCross, are culpable, just as culpable as any Dispensationalist preacher on the radio.

Could be tomorrow or next year sometime....or 5 years from now.

Or a century, or another millennium (or more) from now.

It has to be sooner or later or technology and nation alignments and religious direction will step past what is biblically required.

ROTFLMBO!

Think about that sentence. The Bible is subordinate to and subject to human technology. That is prima facie irrational. Where did you get the idea the Bible requires a specific technology and alignment of nations?

When one reads Revelations 13 and the requirements for such a system to be in place during the second half of the 7 year tribulation period all one has to do is look at the worlds technology, economics and religious direction to see a scenario or as some have said...the table is all but set...for the return of Christ.

There's no mention of technology or alignment of nations in Revelation 7. In point of fact, the word "nation" is found only once in the entire chapter and it states,

Revelation 7:9-10
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

All the nations declare the salvation of the lamb.

Now, if one disagree's with my view....so be it.

Scripture disagrees with your view.

Salvation isn't dependent on it.

That is an ironic statement because salvation is another doctrine compromised by Dispensational Premillennialism. Unblessedly, I do not have time right now to address that, but I will do so when I return.

These are all examples of problems inherent in Dispensationalism.

 

[CrowCross]

Some?

Nearly every Dispensationalist in this forum, if not all of them, makes predictions. The same practice is prevalent in other Christian forums. Christian radio is inundated with Dispensationalist preachers, and every single one of them make predictions. YOU make predictions! You make predictions and not a single one of them has come true. Not one. Ever. You, @CrowCross, are part of the problem to be solved and you, @CrowCross, could instantly improve your faith walk AND contribute to the welfare of all other Christians AND improve the standing of DPism (albeit in a very small way). It is within your ability to single-handedly effect positive change in your personal integrity, you position as a representative of modern futurism, and the reputation of Dpism.....

.....but you do not.

No, that is not the best one can do. The best a Christian can do is to say, "We have no idea when Christ might return, but it could be at any time (near or far), and that is what Christianity has always taught."

Yes!

Dispensationalism compromises the doctrine of imminence (and many other doctrines, too)! Your example compromises the doctrine of imminence. With one breath Dispensational Premillennialism claims to adhere to and espouse the classic, historic, orthodox position of imminence but with its next breath DPism teaches a variety of events must first occur prior to the second coming of Christ. In point of fact, one of the single biggest divides between DPism and ALL other eschatological points of view is its separation of the rapture apart from the second or final coming of Christ. No one else does that. Only DPism. Christ doesn't come a second time in DPism; he comes three times, four times, multiple times and the defense for this is "Well, he doesn't actually come all the way to earth in the rapture; he comes only in the air," which does nothing to solve the problem of DPism's radically different teachings of he comes in the air, then he comes to live here on earth but his reign fails, so he has to come back and lay waste to planet again to subdue the rebellion.

It's a very, very messed up theology.

If a rapture has to first happen before the second coming, then the doctrine of imminence goes out the window. If a temple or a priesthood have to be built and reconstituted before his final return then that is inherently, inescapably, and irrefutably contradictory, by definition, to the doctrine of imminence. What DPism teaches is a radical departure form everything Christianity has taught since its inception.

And Dispensationalists do that nonsense day in and day out every day all day long around the world..... because that is the example set for them to practice by their leaders. And you, @CrowCross, are culpable, just as culpable as any Dispensationalist preacher on the radio.

Or a century, or another millennium (or more) from now.

ROTFLMBO!

Think about that sentence. The Bible is subordinate to and subject to human technology. That is prima facie irrational. Where did you get the idea the Bible requires a specific technology and alignment of nations?

There's no mention of technology or alignment of nations in Revelation 7. In point of fact, the word "nation" is found only once in the entire chapter and it states,

Revelation 7:9-10
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

All the nations declare the salvation of the lamb.

Scripture disagrees with your view.

That is an ironic statement because salvation is another doctrine compromised by Dispensational Premillennialism. Unblessedly, I do not have time right now to address that, but I will do so when I return.

These are all examples of problems inherent in Dispensationalism.

With all due respect...I didn't read your post. When you apologize for misrepresenting me I will read and reply to you.

 

[Ghada]

Dispensationalism has a way of defining it though.

Dispenastionists do. I see nothing in the doctrine itself about such things. There's a difference between the doctrine, and people expounding things from it.

Nothing in dispensational doctrine is contary to any Scripture. Certain expoundings pertaining to the Israel of God on earth, and prophecies of the Lord's coming and kingdom on earth, are true, false, and half-true.

Many people expound on the doctrine of Christ found in Scripture, that is either false, true, or mixed up. It does not mean the doctrine of Christ is not all true.

Give your definition of Christ's millennial kingdom on earth.

I'll give the Bible's:

Psa 67:4O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah.

Later prophecies expound on this first prophecy of the Lord giverning all nations upon the earth.

It will be after the Lord comes and descends into the air with a shout and trump and power, and it will be with His first resurrected saints. It will be after the slaughter of His swift war around Judea, concluding with the Lord standing on Mt Olivet with a roar of triumph. He will build His temple in Jersualem, and give resurrected Abraham the land promised him and his natural seed remaining alive on earth. They will have their natural priesthood around the King, that are outwardly and inwardly circumcised by the Spirit. There will be animal sacrifices for sanctification of the sancturary and errors of the offspring of Abraham. All nations will be governed by one law of the King, and judged by His resurrected brethren in all cities given them for ministerial reward. There will be no more wars of nations, with peace between man and beast. The people of the nations will be free to come to hear the King Himself, and some will hold skirts of Jews to find where and when. Any nation not coming up to worship the King at the yearly feast of tabernalces will be plagued with no rain. The kingdom of heaven will be come over all the earth, as it is in heaven, but the risen Lord and King Jesus Christ Himself in resurrected flesh and bones, with peach on earth, good will toward men. His governing with His saints upon the earth will expire from the day His coming into the air, to (I suppose) the day ending the thousand years.

It's sure prophecy, and not a lying fabulous dream for the meek and the righteous, that does not come true.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty...We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Any other millennium preached without the Lord governing all nations upon the earth, or any other time of reigning of the Lord over the earth, is not the prophesied millennial government of Jesus Christ and His resurrected saints upon the earth.

I could give the Scriptures for each point made, but if the first one is not believed as written, then what would be the point? Right?

 

[Ghada]

As we know Jesus hasn't come for His church at the pre-tribulation resurrection/rapture event.

That's a given, since no eye has seen Him come as lightning flash over all the earth. It's the brightness of the lightning He comes with, not necessarily the speed. He won't need to be in a rush. He'll give every newly convinced eye on earth a chance to see Him, and wail for what they did not watch for.

The best one can do is say the resurrection/rapture is "soon" or "near".

True. As near in these last days begun after His resurrection from the dead. His faithful servants watched daily for Him then, as we do today, that love His appearing.

2Ti 4:8Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Rev 22:20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

As I have explained to some those words have a wide berth as well as a sudden quickness or revving up associated with them. The best one can really say is the resurrection/rapture is "imminent"...that is can happen at any moment.

I.e. near at hand. Paul did say His coming would not be until a falling away from the faith to false antichrists, which was in these last days, that the apostles also were in:

2Th 2:2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

1Jo 2:18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Back then there were busybody predictors of the Lord's coming, that were troubling some of the sheep of Jesus Christ.

It has to be sooner or later or technology and nation alignments and religious direction will step past what is biblically required.

By wisdom man knows not God, nor fulfilling the prophecy of God.

Man's religions and abuse of things made both natural and unnatural, stepped past God's law long ago, when Adam ate fruit made in the garden, that he was commanded not to.

God doesn't 'have to' anything, other than the counsel of His own will, promises made by His own oath, and the fulfillment of all His prophecies in due time.

He will sure come quickly, for the Lord is at hand, but He doesn't have to come for another thousand years or more.

2Pe 3:8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

When one reads Revelations 13 and the requirements for such a system to be in place during the second half of the 7 year tribulation period all one has to do is look at the worlds technology, economics and religious direction to see a scenario or as some have said...

Or, good ol' tatts and brandings. Anything other than the falling away to false antichrists, which happened in the days of the apostles, that would demand the Lord to come, is a defacto commandment of man by their own wisdom of experience and technoliogical surmisings.

I.e. No man on earth in all his prognosticating, governs God's will and fulfillment of prophecy. Only the Father's own word will command His Son back to earth with all power and hosts of angels.

Whether today, tomorrow, next yeard, decade, century, millennium, etc... But all that love Him pray for Him to come today! But then that would leave all the remaining unbelievers and hypocrites out in the cold. (I don't mind so much about the hypcorites naming His name, but what about all those good intending working neighborly sinners, and their children?)

And don't forget all the innocent poo-poos.

Now, if one disagree's with my view....so be it. Salvation isn't dependent on it.

I agree to a point. So long as we are not corrupting our hearts and service in unbelief at His coming, nor predicting His return, then speculations can be just so much personal opinion.

However, making a prediction of a certain period and day, that does not come to pass, is false prophecy. It can't be written off as ''so be it". Especially when it does damage to lives of foolish followers, and certainly if it overthrows the faith of some, which I, and obviously the OP, have personally witnessed.

So, all predictors going beyond watch ye, for the Lord is at hand, really need to honor the Lord words not to predict, and have enough fear of the Lord to be afraid of His wrath:

Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

And this particular warning of the Lord's terror, is only the believers Jesus is talking to, because the unbelievers don't care, and they make no pretentious predictions of any sort for His coming.