Perhaps we should discontinue this conversation since you want to talk about DPism and that is not at all the subject of this post.
That is up to you. All you have to do is ignore my posts. The silence will all that is necessary. In other words, statements of the obvious, like "
We clearly disagree," or digressions like "
Teachings of the rapture have been around long before Dispensationalism," or ad hominems like, "
You're a dunderhead," or insinuations like, "
If you'd listen to the Holy Spirit/read the word then you'd know ________," are all unnecessary (and off-topic).
If folks ignored my posts, I'd have no one with which to discuss anything.
I hope you won't give up. I am confident you and I can come to some agreement, maybe even complete agreement if we continue as we've been doing. In comparison to the other DPers here you have been doing very well, and I have openly commended your participationg.....
even though we have disagreement. We're doing exactly what we should be doing. Once the foundation of your beliefs has been established, we can then review the details built upon that foundation and measure them for their own integrity. That will avoid the more commonly occurring disagreement characterized by an Amillennialist or a Postmillennialist or an Idealist telling you your op is screwed up because scripture says X and means Y based on
their belief system. I stated very early on I'm not interested in the commonly occurring competitive-comparison approach
(that never solves anything in this board).
What we're discovering is you, apparently, feel challenged examining your own foundation(s).
That's okay. I promise not to be unkind. If it's true an eschatology/theology that was invented in the 19th century is believed, and it is still maintained by a series of leaders who have never had any prediction correct
then we can discuss that and
perhaps why it is you choose to do so in regard to the process of creation and redemption. Maybe the history of DPism wasn't known
(or why that's relevant) and learning its history will be informative. We've already seen how two DPists have had difficulty with my inquiries and comments, and they weren't the ones asked! You are doing much better than either of them. You have the opportunity to teach me, to convince me this op is correct
and the opportunity to set a better example for your fellow DPists regarding
how conversations can and should work. Kill two proverbial birds with one stone, so to speak.
I would not bother with you at all if I did not have confidence in your abilities. I practice a "three strikes" rule (Tit. 3:9-11). I don't suffer trolls, but I will, in goodwill and good faith, give anyone three chances to prove they're not a troll before I stop returning their posts.
There is also the possibility that through the process of collaborative critical examination you learn there are some things that need fixing in this timeline and how it informs the process of creation and redemption. That too is one of the purposes of discussion boards. It's not a good thing if we post error, defend the errors, ignore correction and walk away delusionally thinking we've got everything figured out when we do not.
Ephesians 4:11-16
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Iron sharpening iron necessarily entails some degree of friction, but it does not have to be ill-mannered or disrespectful.
If we disagree about Dispensationalism that is okay, but the facts in evidence so far support my posts. Dispensationalism is a new and different theology that holds a completely different eschatology, and those differences directly apply to the process of creation and redemption and the timelines contained in the attachments you've employed. Everything I have posted so far is factually correct, topically relevant, and legitimate. So, if you are willing, let this momentary apprehension pass and let's get back to the conversation.
I have suggested we look at the Dispensational Premillennial hermeneutic. I can quote the basics directly from leading DPists in their own words, if you like. It's your op and I'm normally inclined to let to you post first. The hermeneutic is critically important because this timeline presumably wasn't assembled wantonly. You had some basic presuppositions pertaining to how scripture should be read, and those principles were presumably applied to achieve the timeline. You providing that foundation has the potential to make this op much more meaningful because you'd then have not only told people what to believe, but
why it is the position to believe. If, alternatively, you and I learn there are some problems with the methodology and the constituent elements, then any mistakes can be corrected collaboratively. Isn't that how conversations of differences are supposed to happen?
One such example is the matter of the temple. Even though that is not a specified marker in this op's attachments, it is a marker in Dispensational Premillennialism and you've posted it will happen. I did
exactly what any conscientious Christian should do. I asked for scripture. I asked
first for an explicit statement in scripture. I am happy to discuss the inferences, but not at the expense of standing firmly upon what is explicitly stated and not stated. That same value and respect for scripture should be shared by is all (
and we hold with some suspicion anyone who does not!)
I will, therefore, offer what I think are the correct answers to my most recent questions and ask you to simply confirm it, and then we can go from there.
Dispensational Premillennialism was, in fact, invented during the Restoration Movement of the 19th century, primarily among the Plymouth Brethren, and mostly by the hands of John Nelson Darby (although he and others were building on ideas that existed beforehand). There is no specific verse in the Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future. That position is unique to Dispensational Premillennialism (along with several other markers, which have already been listed), and not a position shared by any other Christian eschatology. The belief in a future temple, and its necessity, is part of the Dispensational Premillennial timeline they see as critical to the process of creation and redemption. Now you, @Jarhead4Jesus, may hold a different perspective because when I posted about the works-salvation inherent in DPism, you stated that's not what you believe (if I understood the posts correctly). Nonetheless, you think there'll be another temple, even if there is no specific verse that explicitly states such a thing. The temple is garnered from scripture by inference.
Yes? Is that a fair and accurate summary of what's transpired and the position you will continue espousing in this thread as you make the case for the process of creation and redemption?
If so,
then what hermeneutic did was used to infer a future temple? What hermeneutic was used to create this timeline, this process of creation and redemption? Surely the methods can be explained and you are delighted to do so for the edification of everyone reading these posts!
