Study of the Bible

[makesends]

The topic of the op is the study of the Bible.

ROTFLMBO!

It is overtly and directly related to the subject of this op.

My bad. I thought we were on the other thread.

 

[John Bauer]

I agree and it is very important. It is just that when I am writing, I need to keep my focus somewhat narrow when dealing with a specific topic (the different hermeneutics used by Reformed and Dispensationalism, in this case,) or I can go all over the place.

Fair enough. I can respect that.

I was exchanging posts with a dispensationalist concerning pre-millennialism, pre-tribulation [rapture], and I mentioned that a correct hermeneutic needed to be used. The reply was, "We use different hermeneutics"—as if whatever hermeneutic one used is what made it the correct one.

If it had been me, I would've asked them to specify the hermeneutic they are using. It is unlikely they would be able to, which lays the weakness of that position bare all by itself.

But even if they had specified a particular hermeneutic—and it almost doesn't matter which one—it would not survive critical scrutiny. Their Israel–Church distinction runs afoul of both canonical and redemptive-historical hermeneutics; their allowance for unclear or symbolic texts to override clear and literal texts flips analogia fidei on its head; and so on.

Dispensationalism is the child of inconsistent hermeneutics. All roads—grammatical-historical, canonical, redemptive-historical, theological—lead inexorably to covenant theology, not dispensationalism. Dispensationalism survives only by applying inconsistent principles—grammatical-historical applied here, but suspended there, and refusing the apostolic pattern of interpreting Israel's scriptures Christologically.

 

[makesends]

Fair enough. I can respect that.




If it had been me, I would've asked them to specify the hermeneutic they are using. It is unlikely they would be able to, which lays the weakness of that position bare all by itself.

But even if they had specified a particular hermeneutic—and it almost doesn't matter which one—it would not survive critical scrutiny. Their Israel–Church distinction runs afoul of both canonical and redemptive-historical hermeneutics; their allowance for unclear or symbolic texts to override clear and literal texts flips analogia fidei on its head; and so on.

Dispensationalism is the child of inconsistent hermeneutics. All roads—grammatical-historical, canonical, redemptive-historical, theological—lead inexorably to covenant theology, not dispensationalism. Dispensationalism survives only by applying inconsistent principles—grammatical-historical applied here, but suspended there, and refusing the apostolic pattern of interpreting Israel's scriptures Christologically.

It is likely that he well knew, as I did when a kid, and as they taught us, that all their use of scripture BEGINS with that basic 'fact' that it is to be divided into its historical dispensations.

 

[Arial]

If it had been me, I would've asked them to specify the hermeneutic they are using. It is unlikely they would be able to, which lays the weakness of that position bare all by itself.

You are right. It would be another of the many questions that were never answered and treated as though they were not asked.

But even if they had specified a particular hermeneutic—and it almost doesn't matter which one—it would not survive critical scrutiny. Their Israel–Church distinction runs afoul of both canonical and redemptive-historical hermeneutics; their allowance for unclear or symbolic texts to override clear and literal texts flips analogia fidei on its head; and so on.

Yep.

Dispensationalism is the child of inconsistent hermeneutics. All roads—grammatical-historical, canonical, redemptive-historical, theological—lead inexorably to covenant theology, not dispensationalism. Dispensationalism survives only by applying inconsistent principles—grammatical-historical applied here, but suspended there, and refusing the apostolic pattern of interpreting Israel's scriptures Christologically.

Yep again. I am going through the seven dispensations with their timeline, responsibility. failure, judgment, format in this thread. In order to even think it was a valid framework of interpretation, it had to start with the preconceived idea God deals with national Israel and the Church separately and differently. It had to do that (divide into dispensations) in order to keep a central focus on national Israel, instead of Christ or redemption. What is blatant in these dispensations containing responsibility, failure, judgment format, is the complete absence of Christ in the storyline.

 

[Arial]

Dispensation #3

Human Government: Post flood to Bable (Gen 9-11)

• Responsibility: Rule the earth, administer justice, multiply, and fill the earth.
• Failure: Humanity united in pride at Bable, refusing to spread.
• Judgment: Confusion of languages and scattering of nations.

The mandate to rule the earth, to multiply and fill the earth is the same mandate given to Adam and Eve. After the flood, when there was only one family remaining, the mandate was renewed. It is not a new mandate, but the same one given to Adam and always our mandate. Even when we fail.

Administer justice falls under the category of being made in the image of God. God is just. It always was and always will be a mandate, even though we fail.

Man did not first fail by falling into pride between the flood and Babel. That began with Adam and Eve and continued with all going forward. Yes, they disobeyed the command to fill the earth---but then so did national Israel (Gen12:3). They were to be as a light to the world that knew many gods but not the living God. Only the Church, through Christ and those he redeems, is doing this.

Yes, the confusion of language and scattering of nations was a judgment but it was every bit of it intentional by God. It did not close one dispensation and open another. It is a progression from Gen3:13, the seed of the woman. Where was that Seed at the time of the flood? In Noah, in Shem.

 

[Arial]

Dispensation #4:

Promise (Patriarchal Rule): Abraham to the Exodus (Gen 12-Exodus 19).

• Responsibility: Abraham and his descendants to dwell in the land by faith, trusting God's promises.
• Failure: Israel fell into unbelief and slavery in Egypt.
• Judgment: Egyptian bondage (though God preserved them).

God never promised the land to Abraham. He promised it to his descendants and that not until after 400 years as slaves in Egypt (Gen 15:13-15). That was not a judgment on Israel, but God was cleansing the land (16) "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." They were taken into Egypt by God's own design.

This is what happens when the storyline is chopped up into completely arbitrary dispensations. The flow of the story and the mighty working of God, even the security of the promises, is lost. The Bible begins with patriarchal rule. God over Adam, Adam over his descendants, Christ the second head of mankind. It moves from there to the failure (fall) that infected all creation. Judgement. It gives a promise of redemption in Christ (Gen 3:15), and all the rest is an unbroken progressive historical account of Christ redeeming.

Where was Christ in Gen 12-Exodus 19? He was in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah. He was in the deliverance of Jacob's descendants from bondage. He was in the cloud and the pillar of fire, and the smoking mountain and in the law. He was in the manna and the rock.

This dispensation as given above as to responsibility, failure, judgment, is unscriptural at its premise. It does not give an accurate account of what the Bible states about Abraham, or the captivity, or judgment. There was no Israel to fall into unbelief and be judged by being sent into slavery in Egypt. It ignores the sovereignty of God entirely. So how is anything that comes out of interpreting scripture through a broken lens going to be a correct interpretation?

 

[Arial]

Dispensation #5

Law: Sinai to the Cross (Ex 20-Acts 1)

• Responsibility: Israel to obey the Mosaic Law and live as God's holy nation.
• Failure: Israel continually broke the Law and rejected the prophets.
• Judgment: Babylon exile, Roman domination, and ultimately rejection of Christ.

The responsibility is correct, but what is the reason for considering this a dispensation in which God deals differently with people and determine it a separate from all else, period of specific responsibility and judgment? Mankind has always had the responsibility to obey God, and his first failure to do so resulted in judgement on all men and what happened to creation is a part of that judgment.

The Mosaic Law was the law belonging to a covenant relationship between God and Israel. The Law was given, in part, as a tool of judgement as well as that of teaching. It shows us the impossibility of ever pleasing God by our works. It does not change our conscience or our hearts (Heb 10:1-3). The Mosaic Law in not a dispensation. It is a covenant. In disobeying, Israel broke the covenant, not just the Law.

The judgement is badly misstated in this rendering (Chat GPT) of the dispensations. Babylonia exile, yes. But after the seventy years God determined for the cleansing of the land, the covenant was renewed, Judah returned to the land and the covenant relationship. When the continued worshiping other gods alongside the one true God, there was four hundre years of silence from God, the land and the people came under the rule of the Roman Empire. When they rejected the Messiah, final judgment fell with the destruction of the temple and any future possibility of there ever again being a meeting place for them with God in a temple, and no pure line of Aaronic priesthood to mediate for them through sacrifices. The New Covenant with Christ as mediator was innaugerated in Acts 1, the old covenant had become obsolete. One continuous story of redemption in Christ.

 

[Arial]

Dispensation #6

Grace: (Church Age); Pentecost to the Rapture (Acts 2-Rev 3)

• Responsibility: All people everywhere to receive God's gift of salvation in Christ by faith.
• Failure: The world at large rejects the gospel.
• Judgment: The Tribulation (Rev 6-19)

Not only did God's grace towards mankind not begin with the ascension of Christ (the grace of God towards his creation began before creation), but the Rapture shows up here without ever demonstrating that there is a pre-trib Rapture or that Revelation 6-19 is depicting a seven-year tribulation. So, I have to ask, was that a presupposition that contributed to dividing the Bible into dispensations and interpreting through that lens? Or did the division of dispensations lead naturally to a pre-trib rapture and seven-year tribulation?

In addition, an undemonstrated A'ist view of the order of salvation and how we are saved is entered in. That being, that salvation through faith (not by faith) in Christ is a matter of someone choosing to accept a gift. These presuppositions should never be our starting point in interpretation. It leaves us susceptible to reading into scripture what is not there.

The world at large rejecting the Bible is not a failure of men. If it was a failure at all it would be a failure of God.

What we see in Revelation that Dispensationalism deems a seven-year tribulation, is not a series of judgments for man not choosing Christ. It is plain to see that the judgments overlap and culminate in Christ's second coming. They are a perspective from heaven (the unseen realm of unseen beings) with Christ in victorious battle. What we see in the rest of the Bible concerning that war is the earthly human perspective as it plays out on earth.

 

[makesends]

I really don't see a problem with looking at history as seven different periods, —even seven different ways God has dealt with mankind— but to divide scripture —not just its history but its interpretation and doctrine— that way, to me reeks of divination; they are trying to fit God's doings into their framework, in order to prognosticate. Invariably, their attention is, in the end, on last days—the purest of them on the hope/expectation of the "2nd coming", the rest on everything else to come, how to prepare for it, as though obedience and knowing Christ was secondary to 'spirituality'.

There's a reason why the Arminians seem more susceptible to this. Their notion of personal responsibility has to do with 'figuring it all out' so that THEY know what God wants and how to react to what he intends. They think it is THEIR CHOICE that counts.

 

[Josheb]

I really don't see a problem with looking at history as seven different periods....

Do you think that (man-made) construct should replace the construct God had already provided in His word?
Do you think the schema should be defined by men inventing a new definition?
Do you think the conceptualization should be defined and applied to make scripture discontinuous (i.e., as opposed to the viewpoint holding scripture a single continuous revelation of God)?

but to divide scripture —not just its history but its interpretation and doctrine— that way, to me reeks of divination; they are trying to fit God's doings into their framework, in order to prognosticate.

.....which is the problem with dividing history into seven different periods the way the dividers do.

they are trying to fit God's doings into their framework, in order to prognosticate. Invariably, their attention is, in the end, on last days—the purest of them on the hope/expectation of the "2nd coming", the rest on everything else to come, how to prepare for it, as though obedience and knowing Christ was secondary to 'spirituality'.

Yep. Their faith is couched in what God will do while most Christians' faith is couched in what God has done.

There's a reason why the Arminians seem more susceptible to this. Their notion of personal responsibility has to do with 'figuring it all out' so that THEY know what God wants and how to react to what he intends. They think it is THEIR CHOICE that counts.

Hmmmm.... interesting. Can I replace "personal responsibility" with "volitional agency"? The ones who believe in and take personal responsibility for the rapture are the one taken away? I have been by more than one Dispensationalist a person has to be looking for the rapture to occur when it arrives in order to be taken. If you're not looking for it at that moment of arrival, then you get left behind.

 

[makesends]

Do you think that (man-made) construct should replace the construct God had already provided in His word?

Shoot, no! I have always found God consistent and faithful, not changing and capricious, not "finding new ways to convince people to choose him". Even when I was a little kid I found the Plan B thing to make no sense. But I was a kid —"I'm still young and learning from people that have it all together. What do I know?"

Do you think the schema should be defined by men inventing a new definition?
Do you think the conceptualization should be defined and applied to make scripture discontinuous (i.e., as opposed to the viewpoint holding scripture a single continuous revelation of God)?

Nope. I think it is simply an interesting look at things. I see Jesus talking differently to the woman at the well than I do him talking to the Pharisees. Interesting.

Actually, come to think of it, I've got a problem with too close an adherence to what some use the covenants for. In somewhat the same way as the Dispy's produce two gospels, some who hold to regeneration and faith by the work of the Spirit of God, after Christ, to NOT be the way of salvation before Christ.

.....which is the problem with dividing history into seven different periods the way the dividers do.

Yep. Their faith is couched in what God will do while most Christians' faith is couched in what God has done.

Good way to put that. Actually, that knocks out a whole lot of false doctrine and useless questions.

Hmmmm.... interesting. Can I replace "personal responsibility" with "volitional agency"? The ones who believe in and take personal responsibility for the rapture are the one taken away?

I don't see them replacing "personal responsibility" with "volitional agency", but certainly, to them, the one implies the other —"volitional agency" to them meaning "free will", that is.

I have been by more than one Dispensationalist a person has to be looking for the rapture to occur when it arrives in order to be taken. If you're not looking for it at that moment of arrival, then you get left behind.

I can't say I was taught anything that stupid, but, then, I've heard that Calvinists believe that if a person doesn't believe in TULIP they can't be saved. Maybe the oil in their lamps is of a different source from ours.

 

[Josheb]

I don't see them replacing "personal responsibility" with "volitional agency", but certainly, to them, the one implies the other —"volitional agency" to them meaning "free will", that is.

The word replacement was my doing, and it had more to do with Arminianism than Dispensationalism. All synergisms are variations on the premise a sinner's will has agency, and ability to choose, and thereby contribute collaboratively to one's own salvation. It's a curious thing because most of the earlier DPists were Reformed in their soteriology (and many still say they are) and it's only as experientialism gained territory that Arminianism increased among the Dispensationalists.

 

[makesends]

The word replacement was my doing, and it had more to do with Arminianism than Dispensationalism. All synergisms are variations on the premise a sinner's will has agency, and ability to choose, and thereby contribute collaboratively to one's own salvation. It's a curious thing because most of the earlier DPists were Reformed in their soteriology (and many still say they are) and it's only as experientialism gained territory that Arminianism increased among the Dispensationalists.

The Reformed in my experience are generally very logical-minded, at least as opposed to the doctrine-by-sentimentality of the Arminiam / Pelagian who sacrifices Omnipotence to their notions of lovingness/respect toward the creature. So it would make sense, I guess, that they would love to categorize and structure history. Witness the same sort of thinking in Lapsarianism. That there are glaring mistakes doesn't stop them from the structuring that they love to do.

At a Founders' Conference meeting where James White was taking questions, someone supposed that some 'on our side' did not well represent James' thinking, and he said something like, "Boy! Isn't THAT the truth!" with this far-away look in his eyes. Couldn't help but wonder what he was thinking about.

 

[Arial]

@makesends said "The Reformed in my experience are generally very logical-minded, at least as opposed to the doctrine-by-sentimentality of the Arminiam / Pelagian who sacrifices Omnipotence to their notions of lovingness/respect toward the creature. So it would make sense, I guess, that they would love to categorize and structure history. Witness the same sort of thinking in Lapsarianism. That there are glaring mistakes doesn't stop them from the structuring that they love to do."



Just to make a clarification between Calvinism and Reformed. There are Reformed Calvinists and Dispensational Calvinists. The "Reformed" indicates all the doctrines that came out of the Reformation, and they were not born out of a division of dispensations as an interpretive framework but were covenantal in the interpretive framework ---which keeps the Bible as one unified story of redemption, all parts fitting together towards the same goal. So there are no Reformed Dispensationalist--that is a contradiction in terms., Even if that is what they call themselves. A Dispensational Calvinist, hold to the doctrines of grace and most of the other Reformation doctrines, but they divide the Bible into dispensations and then interpret it through that lens. Whether A'ist or Calvinist is doing this, it arrives at the same division between Israel and the Church. And a break in the natural forward flow of all of Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

Study of the Bible is quite different than Bible Study as in a Bible study group associated with a particular congregation. I have been in a lot of Bible studies over the years, and not a single one of them actually studied the Bible. With one exception and that was a Calvinistic church. However, it was not Reformed (Covenant theology) but Dispensational. Which I was eschatologically, at the time. It adhered to the Doctrines of Grace and referred to itself as Calvinism. However, Calvin was not dispensational but Reformed (a covenant framework of Bible interpretation.) So, it was a misnomer to say they were Calvinist. Nothing can be done about that. At least it identifies them as holding to the DoG.

Since Dispensationalism uses a different hermeneutic, (and I strongly believe that is not a correct biblical hermeneutic) in an actual study of the Bible, it is not just the end times and last days, that would be off, but most of their interpretation of the OT would be.

If we are going to do a study of the Bible, we must do so with a correct Bible hermeneutic. So, let's look at the classical hermeneutic used in Reformed theology. Just a note, it is called Reformed because it is the theology and doctrinal statements that came out of the Reformation as Protestants broke away from the heresies in the RCC.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting texts, especially the Bible.

Reformed theology uses a covenantal structure. It does not view the Bible as a collection of isolated stories or as God dealing with/relating to humanity in different time periods. It sees the Bible as a unified covenantal drama, the eternal Covenant of Redemption between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before creation, unfolding through history. The various covenants God makes with creation (Noah), individuals and Israel, are all connected to the overarching Covenant of Redemption.

The Reformed tradition that grew out of the Protestant Reformation. emphasized six guiiding principles for interpretation.

1. Sola Scripture. Scripture alone is the highest authority ofr faith and practice.
2. Christ-Centered. All of Scripture ultimately points to and is fulfilled in Christ (Luke 24:27).
3. Analogy of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scriputre; clear passages shed light on less clear ones.
4. Literal but Contextual Readinng. The Bible is read according to its plain sense, respecting grammar, history, and literary form.
5. Covenantal Framework. The Bible is one unified covenant story, not a collection of disconnected writings.
6. Redemptive-Historical Focus. Every passage contributes to the unfolding plan of God's redemption in Christ.

The key hermeneutical methods are:

• Grammatical-Historical
• Redemptive-Historical

What does this entail?

The grammatical-historic method interprets Scripture by examining the meaning of words (grammar) in their original setting (history). It discovers what the author intended to Communicate to the original audience. It anchors interpretation in the text's plain sense.

The redemptive-historical method interprets Scripture in light of the overarching story of God's redemptive plan. Remember, Reformed hermeneutics considers all of the Bible to be one story; the historic progressing through history (the plan)) of the Covenant of Redemption before the world was created. This shows how each passage fits the covenantal drama that culminates in Christ. This method prevents moralistic or fragmented readings. It keeps Christ and the gospel at the center.

The grammatical-historical meaning comes first. What did the passage mean then and there? Then the redemptive- historical asks how does this meaning fit within the larger drama of redemption.

After this is done, we can draw out principles that are timeless truths for God's people. Having done that, those truth's (theological principles) can be applied to the believer and the church, without compromising or contradicting anything else in Scripture., or misapplying it by treating it as an isolated statement.

Why? Because it comes out of a solid foundation with Christ as the Rock upon which it is built. It is exactly what the apostles did when they interpreted OT scriptures.

There is no other hermeneutic that does this, and yet, those who scoff at Reformation theology, do that scoffing without even knowing how it came to be.

.

Nice summery, would just like to add that there are Calvinists who uphold DOG and its Soteriology, while those who hold to Covenant theology and Confessions of faith would be reformed

 

[Arial]

Nice summery, would just like to add that there are Calvinists who uphold DOG and its Soteriology, while those who hold to Covenant theology and Confessions of faith would be reformed

Yes. Many are often confused by that and use Reformed and Calvinists interchangeably. There are Reformed Calvinists like our dear brother Voddie Baucham, who rests in peace with the Lord. And there are Dispensationalist Calvinists who, as far as I know, do not have a clarifying name that identifies them as such.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Arial]

Dispensation #7

Kingdom (Millennial Reign): Christ's second coming through the 1,000-year reign (Rev 20)

• Responsibility: Humanit to obey Christ, who rules as King on earth.
• Failure: After 1,000 years, Satan is released and many rebel against Christ.
• Judgment: Final rebellion creshed, Satat cast into the lake of fire, Great White Throne judgment.

I hardly know where to start!

In dispensation #6, Rev 6-19 is all lumped together as being a seven-year period of judgment on mankind. And yet in #7, another judgement of mankind is given a thousand years later. Evidently for 1000 years, only Jews are alive---so where are the non-Jews who were not raptured out because they were not believers? Christ is said to be reigning on the earth at that time, no unbelievers, and yet at the end of those 1000 years, there is a rebellion against him.

To step back to the Church age again for a moment, it has the timeframe of Acts 2-Rev 3 as Pentecost to Rapture. That puts the Rapture immediately after the address to the seven churches, even though no such thing as a rapture is mentioned in that portion of John's letter. And no indication that what comes after the chapter 3 is not part of the body of the letter sent to those seven churches.

And there is nothing in #7 stating that Jesus will reign on earth for a 1000 years. Nothing there or anywhere in the Bible that Jesus' second coming involves Jerusalem, a temple or renewed animal sacrifices as at least some factions of dispensationalism proclaim.

I know Dispensationalism has scriptures that they use to support all of this, because that is what eisegesis does. But when pressed, I have never found a one who can actually do the legitimate work of doing so, which shows in itself that it cannot be done. What usually happens when a presentation of the Reformed hermeneutic along with careful exegesis according to the rule of both disciplines, and done so consistently, is the Dispensationalist gets angry, and a series of red herrings, trying to shift the conversation, and/or insults take the place of discussion and examination.

 

[Josheb]

The Reformed in my experience are generally very logical-minded, at least as opposed to the doctrine-by-sentimentality of the Arminiam / Pelagian who sacrifices Omnipotence to their notions of lovingness/respect toward the creature. So it would make sense, I guess, that they would love to categorize and structure history. Witness the same sort of thinking in Lapsarianism. That there are glaring mistakes doesn't stop them from the structuring that they love to do.

At a Founders' Conference meeting where James White was taking questions, someone supposed that some 'on our side' did not well represent James' thinking, and he said something like, "Boy! Isn't THAT the truth!" with this far-away look in his eyes. Couldn't help but wonder what he was thinking about.

I'm inclined to agree. I think I might say they are exegetically-minded because that would include an orientation toward reason/logic applied to scripture and the method of study thereof. That's why White is so respected, even among Arms. That is why Hunt is not respected, even among Arms , and why he comes off looking so bad anytime the two men get together to debate a matter. As you observed previously, there may be nothing inherently wrong about looking at history and dividing/structuring it for the purpose of understanding scripture but the fundamental difference between Dispies and everyone else is that most subordinate history to scripture and not the other way around (which is what modern futurists do). Nearly every thread in the Prophecy/Eschatology boards demonstrates this. We read it every day every time some Dispy uses the latest newscast is proof of some end times prophecy.

The news does not define scripture.

That premise is a faulty presupposition. If we start with scripture and ask ourselves, "What does scripture state about that event," then we conclude with an understanding of events (history) defines by scripture and not an understanding of scripture that is constantly redefined by imposing newscasts on scripture. If we were going to start with a historical structure/schema/categorization then we should first start with that which scripture itself provides, which would be the covenant. If we wanted to examine history through another structure, then we should require and make sure whatever schema or categorization we developed/invented was one defined by scripture (in addition to the covenantal structure already provided by scripture). We most definitely would not want to define the structure contrary to scripture and that is what Dispensational Premillennialism does. It is literally a new and radically different theology that runs into direct conflict with long-standing and well-established core doctrines of Christianity, beginning with its different Christology and different soteriology. Simply put, if DPism is true then what Christianity has been teaching all the way back to the first century is incorrect. Dispensationalism and historic orthodoxy are incompatible. This is readily observable once we begin studying scripture with consistency in hermeneutics, exegesis and interpretation.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. Many are often confused by that and use Reformed and Calvinists interchangeably. There are Reformed Calvinists like our dear brother Voddie Baucham, who rests in peace with the Lord. And there are Dispensationalist Calvinists who, as far as I know, do not have a clarifying name that identifies them as such.

Welcome to the forum!

Dispy Calvinists would be like a Dr MacArthur was, and where it get very interesting would those like myself who would hold to Covenant theology as a Reformed Baptist, but do still see God not totally finished with national Israel, as a premil like Spurgeon was in Eschatology

 

[JesusFan]

Dispensation #7

Kingdom (Millennial Reign): Christ's second coming through the 1,000-year reign (Rev 20)

• Responsibility: Humanit to obey Christ, who rules as King on earth.
• Failure: After 1,000 years, Satan is released and many rebel against Christ.
• Judgment: Final rebellion creshed, Satat cast into the lake of fire, Great White Throne judgment.

I hardly know where to start!

In dispensation #6, Rev 6-19 is all lumped together as being a seven-year period of judgment on mankind. And yet in #7, another judgement of mankind is given a thousand years later. Evidently for 1000 years, only Jews are alive---so where are the non-Jews who were not raptured out because they were not believers? Christ is said to be reigning on the earth at that time, no unbelievers, and yet at the end of those 1000 years, there is a rebellion against him.

To step back to the Church age again for a moment, it has the timeframe of Acts 2-Rev 3 as Pentecost to Rapture. That puts the Rapture immediately after the address to the seven churches, even though no such thing as a rapture is mentioned in that portion of John's letter. And no indication that what comes after the chapter 3 is not part of the body of the letter sent to those seven churches.

And there is nothing in #7 stating that Jesus will reign on earth for a 1000 years. Nothing there or anywhere in the Bible that Jesus' second coming involves Jerusalem, a temple or renewed animal sacrifices as at least some factions of dispensationalism proclaim.

I know Dispensationalism has scriptures that they use to support all of this, because that is what eisegesis does. But when pressed, I have never found a one who can actually do the legitimate work of doing so, which shows in itself that it cannot be done. What usually happens when a presentation of the Reformed hermeneutic along with careful exegesis according to the rule of both disciplines, and done so consistently, is the Dispensationalist gets angry, and a series of red herrings, trying to shift the conversation, and/or insults take the place of discussion and examination.

Think that the Spurgeon model of Historical premil has better scripture support than traditional Dispy pre mil would have