The False Doctrine of a 7-year Tribulation

[Arial]

Which is what happens when you isolate scripture from itself, something you say you do not do.

I have isolated no scripture from its context, ( not itself). If I give singular scriptures or passages it is because I have considered the context, its surrounding context and not only that context, but the whole counsel of God on redemption, and not only that, brought the impact of a complete hermeneutical onto it. Including the historical, interpreting according to the type of literature it is, and its relationship to history, both past, present and the future that is given in Scripture. Having done that I find that the small set of scriptures does indeed say what I am showing it to say. So what scripture did I isolate? It is easy to simply make that accusation and give no example of my having done so, or showing that my having done so changed the meaning.

Dictionary definitions are not bogus presuppositions.

What dictionary definitions are you referring to?

I don't have to. Jesus, who you can take it up with, was being chronological, as the disciples questions were chronological. Take it up with Him. Tell Him what you say He wasn't. Perhaps He'll let you know what He meant.

No He wasn't. He answered their last question first. And don't forget (perhaps you never knew) that there is often more than one fulfillment of a prophecy, as time marches on. And anyway, I said Rev. wasn't chronological. If you didn't think it was, you would realize that up to a certain point--the release of Satan to deceive the nations---(maybe before, I would have to study the book again)--- the what is, and the what was, instead of seeing it all as what will be. It is summary of the entire story of Jesus as it played out in history, from the perspective of the spiritual realm. Inserted in it in places are events that have not happened yet. Don't forget, it is not a puzzle book where we have to make all the pieces fit know exactly what they look like. It is a LETTER written to seven specific churches and for a specific reason. And just like every other epistle in the Bible, they had specific historical purpose for the recipients, and at the same time have purpose, and information, and truths, that are just as pertinent to everyone who has ever read them or ever will read them.

Romans is pretty clear the distinction between Israel and the church. Peter and James were pretty clear the distinction between Israel and the church at the council in Acts.

What is the distinction you say they are making? I remember Paul and Peter saying that God made no distinction. Peter when Cornelius was saved in the same way as the Jewish believers, and Paul when he said God made of the two one, tearing down the wall of division. So why are you rebuilding the wall?

So there were seven ages?

No. I am using your rhetoric. Covenant theology recognizes that God dealt with people in different ways over time. That is not the issue. The issue is that is not the framework of redemption, but its process. They are the historical events in redemption.

From what I read and what I learned in college about dispensationalism, a dispensation speaks to a different economy of God, that is, how God relates to man.

God isn't relating to man through those dispensations, He is relating to man in those dispensations, through covenant. Redemption has "dispensations" because it is the way in which God is acting in history as He moves redemption towards the goal line. The dispensations that dispensationalism has marked out are roadways so so speak, they are not redemption, and they are not isolated from one another but all part of the covenant of redemption. God always relates in a personal wa with mankind through covenant. Not dispensations.

What are the seven dispensations, which you are saying is an age. "Poiret divided history into seven dispensations: early childhood (ended in the Flood), childhood (ended in Moses's ministry), boyhood (ended in Malachi), youth (ended in Christ), manhood (most of the Church era), old age ("human decay", meaning the last hour of the Church), and the restoration of all things (the Millennium, including a literal earthly reign of Christ with Israel restored)" I'm pretty sure that it isn't an age, but "a system of order, government, or organization of a nation, community, etc., especially as existing at a particular time."

It's nonsense is what it is. And I am not saying they are ages. I am considering two ages. The two spoken of byJesus and Paul. This age and the one to come. They are not dispensations as D'ism defines dispensations. This age is a time period that began with Jesus' first advent. The age to come is the eternal age when Jesus returns and all things are restored, and the death of death. Rev 21 iow.

But in this statement above you have Poiret saying the restoration of all things ins the mIllennium, including a literal earthly reign of Christ with Israel restored. Is that what you believe? Because in another post you said the millennium is not the restoration of all things. That it is after the millennial reign. With that in mind, now address what I wrote instead of deflecting with red herrings:

If an age is considered a dispensation, which of course it is--duh--again, Jesus and the apostles mention this age, and the age to come which is the consummation. According to dispensationalism itself, the millennial kingdom they put forth is an age or dispensation. A millennial kingdom as described, would not be this age, and if the age to come is the consummation, neither would it be the age to come. Plus, if restored temporal Israel is the Kingdom of God, then God has two kingdoms. One for the church at the consummation, and one for Israel in the millennium, that is not eternal, but temporal.

 

[makesends]

Dictionary definitions are not bogus presuppositions.

Sometimes their terminology is. Even worse, as always seems to be the case, the use a person makes of the definition, with such an assumption as you make above.

Take, for example, The Definition for Freewill.​

​

1. "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."​

​

Only by making careful definitions of each of those terms, can I even agree to the statement. And most who like that definition think that what THEY think it is saying is what it means.​

​

But the Christians who will accept pretty much anything that is written in a book because it sounds authoritative, and will accept any supposed cure because the symptoms describe their own experience, think that because there is a definition, that the thing described in it is therefore a valid concept —a real thing— no matter how far it goes against logic.​

​

If Freewill of the creature is uncaused, then there is no such thing.​

I'm not talking about freewill, here. I'm talking about your claim that dictionary definitions are not bogus. They may well be, and certainly are, as far as when some people look at them wrong.

 

[Arial]

I'm talking about your claim that dictionary definitions are not bogus. They may well be, and certainly are, as far as when some people look at them wrong.

I have found that sometimes the dictionary will give only a "sort of like" type of definition, missing its sharpest meaning. Or that they will list synonyms of a word, the would completely lessen the impact or direction of what is being said if the it were used instead of the original word.

If a person is using a word in a theological sense it is best to look up the theological use of the word----how it is used or the concept found in the Bible. A Bible dictionary iow.

Sometimes their terminology is. Even worse, as always seems to be the case, the use a person makes of the definition, with such an assumption as you make above.

Take, for example, The Definition for Freewill.​

​

1. "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."​

​

Only by making careful definitions of each of those terms, can I even agree to the statement. And most who like that definition think that what THEY think it is saying is what it means.​

​

But the Christians who will accept pretty much anything that is written in a book because it sounds authoritative, and will accept any supposed cure because the symptoms describe their own experience, think that because there is a definition, that the thing described in it is therefore a valid concept —a real thing— no matter how far it goes against logic.​

​

If Freewill of the creature is uncaused, then there is no such thing.​

I'm not talking about freewill, here. I'm talking about your claim that dictionary definitions are not bogus. They may well be, and certainly are, as far as when some people look at them wrong.

Another example:

Those opposed to any form of amillennialism will often use the accusation that amillennialists spiritualize the book of Revelation and OT prophecy, whereas they interpret it literally. Idealist amillennialists also say they interpret it literally. ( I use the idealist because it don't really know what the other "a" views say.) And they see the premil views as not being literal, but literalizing.

If you look up literal in the online Webster dictionary you will get this:
a
: according with the letter of the scriptures
adheres to a literal reading of the passage

b
: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

In the Webster you won't get a def of literalize other than to make literal. In vocabulary.com you will get
verb
make literal
“literalize metaphors”

Spiritualize:

: to give a spiritual meaning to or understand in a spiritual sense (Webster)

Obviously amil does interpret Rev according to this definition of spiritualize, so how can they say they are interpreting in a literal sense? The answer is because there is another definition of literal that you won't find in a dictionary, or at least I have not, if you just look up the word. However if you search more specifically to what the conversation is about, i.e. literal interpretation of the Bible, you will find this in britannica.com:

Literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. St. Jerome, an influential biblical scholar of the 4th and 5th centuries, championed the literal interpretation of the Bible in opposition to what he regarded as the excesses of allegorical interpretation.

If you go to ligonier. org you will find that it means to interpret scripture according to the type of literature it is: historic narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, wisdom etc. and the historical context, in agreement with the above.

So, let's look at how Revelation begins and what it is.
It is a letter and letters of the time period (and even today) usually followed the format of a prologue, (1:1-3) a greeting (4-8)and then the body of the letter.

In this prologue of Revelation are two things that clue us into how what is in this book is to be understood and interpreted. Verse 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show is servants---things which must shortly take place. In verse 19 the one who speaks to John in the first vision is identified as Jesus and He expands the "which must shortly take place" to "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this."

The second clue as to how this letter is to be understood is the word signified. In the Greek text analysis reads: The revelation of Jesus Christ, which gave Him -God, to show to the bond-servants of Him what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified [it], having sent through the angel of Him, ---

"He signified" is translated from esemanen, (semaino) in Strong's Concordance: to give a sign. So we know that Revelation speaks of both things that were, things that are, and things to come. And we know they are going to be given with signs. This is the same thing we see in a certain type of prophecy in the OT. The literary genre is apocalyptic---uses symbolic language, ironically, to reveal things that are hidden. So much of Revelation and OT apocalyptic prophecy, is signified. This is done through metaphors. figures of speech, symbols where one thing represents another thing. In order to find the meaning of these in Revelation, we should not just guess, but look to their usage in the OT. One of the things frequently used in a representative way is numbers. Anyone who has not noticed a consistent repetition of certain numbers concerning the historical actions in redemption, has not been paying attention. And these same numbers or multiples of the number appear throughout the entire OT and again in the NT, always representing the same thing. One way of seeing that, is eternal, perfect, design.

So Reformed a'ist are interpreting Revelation according to the literal meaning behind the signifiers. The book itself tells us that is the way it is to be understood.

Those of the Dispensational camp who say they are interpreting literally, are literalizing---making signifiers literal. Interpreting metaphors as literal.

When they say a'ist are spiritualizing, they are confusing spiritualizing and allegorizing. They do not use an interpretive, hermeneutical definition of spiritualize, and I suspect don't even know such a definition exists.

 

[makesends]

I have found that sometimes the dictionary will give only a "sort of like" type of definition, missing its sharpest meaning. Or that they will list synonyms of a word, the would completely lessen the impact or direction of what is being said if the it were used instead of the original word.

If a person is using a word in a theological sense it is best to look up the theological use of the word----how it is used or the concept found in the Bible. A Bible dictionary iow.

Another example:

Those opposed to any form of amillennialism will often use the accusation that amillennialists spiritualize the book of Revelation and OT prophecy, whereas they interpret it literally. Idealist amillennialists also say they interpret it literally. ( I use the idealist because it don't really know what the other "a" views say.) And they see the premil views as not being literal, but literalizing.

If you look up literal in the online Webster dictionary you will get this:
a
: according with the letter of the scriptures
adheres to a literal reading of the passage

b
: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

In the Webster you won't get a def of literalize other than to make literal. In vocabulary.com you will get
verb
make literal
“literalize metaphors”

Spiritualize:

: to give a spiritual meaning to or understand in a spiritual sense (Webster)

Obviously amil does interpret Rev according to this definition of spiritualize, so how can they say they are interpreting in a literal sense? The answer is because there is another definition of literal that you won't find in a dictionary, or at least I have not, if you just look up the word. However if you search more specifically to what the conversation is about, i.e. literal interpretation of the Bible, you will find this in britannica.com:

Literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. St. Jerome, an influential biblical scholar of the 4th and 5th centuries, championed the literal interpretation of the Bible in opposition to what he regarded as the excesses of allegorical interpretation.

If you go to ligonier. org you will find that it means to interpret scripture according to the type of literature it is: historic narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, wisdom etc. and the historical context, in agreement with the above.

So, let's look at how Revelation begins and what it is.
It is a letter and letters of the time period (and even today) usually followed the format of a prologue, (1:1-3) a greeting (4-8)and then the body of the letter.

In this prologue of Revelation are two things that clue us into how what is in this book is to be understood and interpreted. Verse 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show is servants---things which must shortly take place. In verse 19 the one who speaks to John in the first vision is identified as Jesus and He expands the "which must shortly take place" to "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this."

The second clue as to how this letter is to be understood is the word signified. In the Greek text analysis reads: The revelation of Jesus Christ, which gave Him -God, to show to the bond-servants of Him what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified [it], having sent through the angel of Him, ---

"He signified" is translated from esemanen, (semaino) in Strong's Concordance: to give a sign. So we know that Revelation speaks of both things that were, things that are, and things to come. And we know they are going to be given with signs. This is the same thing we see in a certain type of prophecy in the OT. The literary genre is apocalyptic---uses symbolic language, ironically, to reveal things that are hidden. So much of Revelation and OT apocalyptic prophecy, is signified. This is done through metaphors. figures of speech, symbols where one thing represents another thing. In order to find the meaning of these in Revelation, we should not just guess, but look to their usage in the OT. One of the things frequently used in a representative way is numbers. Anyone who has not noticed a consistent repetition of certain numbers concerning the historical actions in redemption, has not been paying attention. And these same numbers or multiples of the number appear throughout the entire OT and again in the NT, always representing the same thing. One way of seeing that, is eternal, perfect, design.

So Reformed a'ist are interpreting Revelation according to the literal meaning behind the signifiers. The book itself tells us that is the way it is to be understood.

Those of the Dispensational camp who say they are interpreting literally, are literalizing---making signifiers literal. Interpreting metaphors as literal.

When they say a'ist are spiritualizing, they are confusing spiritualizing and allegorizing. They do not use an interpretive, hermeneutical definition of spiritualize, and I suspect don't even know such a definition exists.

Nice job! Hopefully that will satisfy @TMSO as to what you were saying. Even if he disagrees with your terminology, he can now get on with the point, rather than to waste time arguing the terms.

 

[Arial]

There is a lot of incredible things in the Bible that are missed when you isolate scripture. And you do that especially when you say, since you have to, that it is mentioned in Revelation and in the Old Testament, but Jesus didn't mention it.

WHAT IS?

You have no idea what I miss and what I don't miss. But I can tell you one thing you missed, and therefore have broken the entire flow of everything that followed, zeroing in on national Israel as a focal point. "He will crush your head, and you will bruise His heel."

You can't stop seeing a temporal restored geo/political Israel with a king on a temporal throne (which they were never intended to have in the first place), personified in Jesus, as the only way in which God can fulfill every last promise to Israel. It is in a sense, bowing down to the land and the nation. Standing with the Pharisees with an encompassing wave of the arms over the land. "Oh our land, our land!"

And whether or not you believe that while the Prophet, Priest and King stands in this temporal Temple as rams and bulls are again slaughtered, I do not know. You failed to answer that question when I asked. But many do.

 

[Arial]

The explain the Psalmist prophecies.

Specifics?

If His kingdom encompasses the Earth right now, then wouldn't that make His kingdom a kingdom of darkness?

I did not say it encompasses the earth right now. Do you think God has ever been without a kingdom. The whole creation is kingdom. He made it, He rules over it, He holds it together.

Man fell. (wow. Must we really return to theological kindergarten?). The earth came under a curse, was subjected to futility---all because Adam and Eve broke the covenant of creation, and though made in God's image and likeness, became sinners. The serpent was cursed, that old devil called Satan, and utter defeat was pronounced on him through the seed of the woman. And so it began, the steadfast march towards redemption, of a people and the earth.

Jesus came as King, saying the kingdom is at hand. The King, purchased redemption with His life. The King rose from the grave and ascended on high, to receive the crown in his coronation. He defeated sin and death, what He came to do, and returned to the Father.

What you don't grasp is the right now, not yet, aspects of redemption. Jesus has not yet returned to dwell among us. (Rev 21). But His people, those united with Him in His death and resurrection through faith, are being gathered to Him in this age, and they are sealed in Him through the Holy Spirit. Nothing can take them out of His hands. He is their King, not will be their King. When the King returns, He returns to dwell among us, He will be our God, and we will be His people. We will have resurrected and glorified bodies. The lion will lie down with the lamb. That is the next age.

There is no other dispensation in between. One in which you have Jesus returning but no resurrection of the dead. Though the Bible clearly states in 1 Cor and I have given you the scriptures before, that at the last trumpet, when Christ returns, the dead shall be raised and immortality will put on immortality.

In this concocted interim dispensation, you have the returned Christ in an entirely temporal situation, with temporal people, sin and death still very much active. And either undeemed people populating the earth with Jesus ruling over them, or redeemed people going to war against Him as His restored kingdom, and then the consummation.

 

[Arial]

It is simply a temporal kingdom on Earth fulfilling the promise that the Messiah will rule over the world from Jerusalem. The end of this kingdom is part of the consummation. One of the many parts that consummate as one. It is not an interim age. It is the build up to the parts where Satan is finally defeated, death is defeated and hades, and we have the second resurrection and final judgement. All of that are parts that come together, along with the end of the millennial kingdom, at the consummation.

Nonsense. Consummated means it is complete. It doesn't have parts. What does it mean that a marriage is consummated? Is the wedding ceremony a part of the consummation? The dating, the engagement?

 

[Arial]

Once the last of that which is part of the fulness of the Gentiles (that speaks to a group, not individuals), then the 70th week commences, countdown to the Great Tribulation, and finally the consummation of God's purpose for creation that has many moving parts. The Gentiles are saved, the remnant of Israel gathered in at Jesus second coming, they are now both one group as the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament are consummated, the promise of Lucifer's defeat is consummated, the promise of the defeat of death and hades is consummated, God's judgement is consummated, the destruction of this creation (heavens and earth) is consummated, Christ's kingdom and reign from the trhone of David as prophesied and promised is consummated, the return of the Kingdom to the Father is consummated, etc. There are A LOT of parts that come together and are completed at the consummation of the temporal age. (The 1000 years...that's temporal...) Once all of this is consummated, we enter the eternal age, the age to come. An age that will have no consummation, and will have no end.

You are misusing the word consummated, by applying the same principle to every form consummation. We are not talking about the completed judgement, for example, but the consummation of the kingdom.

A group is made up of individuals and therefore includes them.

Where do you place this literal 1000 years in the above statement? Before Christ returns to restore Israel and sits the throne, or after that, and then He returns again?

I ask because Scripture tells us that He is only returning once, and when He returns the dead are raised immortal.

 

[Arial]

What is he basically telling John? You know, I notice you haven't been writing anything down. Write down what you have seen [already seen], write down the things that are (such as the conversation he is having with Jesus right at that moment, and write the things which take place after these things. How does one make sense of this. The very last sentence. Right after telling John to write the things He has seen, He explains what John had seen, so John can write it down. What you saw was me with seven stars in my right hand, and the seven lampstands. Here is what those stand for. Write it down. How do I know that the discussion with Jesus and the writing of the seven letters are the things which are, and the last sentence with the "which you saw" is the things which he (John) had seen? Chapter 3 starts with: "After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.”" So everything after this point is what must take place after these things. And it is in chronological order. Every next thing He writes is something which takes place after these things.

Except that one can see if they know their Bible, that many of the visions, contain images of what we see in Egypt with Moses, what we see concerning Christ and birth and the attempt to kill Him as a baby, the persecution of His church and the final outcome of it all---from the perspective of heaven, instead of the one we had from our perspective.

There is one Kingdom, but it exists in two forms. The Kingdom of the Father, and the Kingdom of the Son, which is returned to the Father at the consummation.

So one kingdom divided? Two Kings?

 

[TMSO]

Except that one can see if they know their Bible, that many of the visions, contain images of what we see in Egypt with Moses, what we see concerning Christ and birth and the attempt to kill Him as a baby, the persecution of His church and the final outcome of it all---from the perspective of heaven, instead of the one we had from our perspective.

So one kingdom divided? Two Kings?

No. One kingdom that belongs to the Father, is given to the Son for a time, which is then returned to the Father after the final enemy is defeated. (I Cor 15). It is obviously more complicated then that, but Paul says the Son returns the kingdom to the Father so that He is all in all. (Something like that.)

I am going to apologize now for not responding recently. I went on vacation (left Tuesday morning), and when I came back from vacation, was back on night shift the next day, so I haven't had time yet to respond. (I need to head to sleep shortly today, and will be working the next couple of nights.) So I am not ignoring you in any way, shape, or form.