What end time view do you hold to?

[makesends]

Dispensationalism openly teaches this. It is, by their own acknowledgement, a theology that emphasizes ecclesiology and eschatology and not Christology and soteriology (historical places of emphasis). That wouldn't inherently be problematic, but the Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology Dispensationalism teaches is very different than anything the Church has taught. Not only is it different, but it is different in substantive ways that make it irreconcilable with long-held and well-established thought, doctrine, and practice of the Church. The differences are so substantive that if Dispensationalism is correct then 20 centuries of Christianity is wrong.

• They've got a Jesus who isn't currently King on earth.
• They've got a Church that is corrupt, impotent, and in need of rescue, rather than one that is righteous, victorious, and powerful as Christ's body.
• They've got an end times view that has God handing His creation over to His adversary and having His creation destroyed.
• People claiming to adhere to it don't actually live it.

It's a bad theology.

Agreed. From what they tried to teach me, I found, also:

• It dismisses many things relevant to the elect currently alive, as belonging to other dispensations and not for us.
• It teaches superiority of the current church members over the OT saints, and encourages disrespect for God's chosen people.
• It suggests a skewed mindset, that seeks correct interpretation of prophetic riddles as a substitute for Godliness, ignoring the fact that he who sins is a slave to sin. For example, somehow they seem to think that if one has figured out the signs, that he will be able to avoid the Mark of the Beast, whether or not he has the habit of obedience. In fact, I've heard that if one is not pre-mil pre-trib, one is not a true believer.
• It teaches two Gospels, as though one can (or at least, could in the past) be saved some other way than by Grace through Faith.

• While this (mind) is not limited to Dispensationalists, I also have seen endemic to their mindset, a mind of Arminianistic self-determinism, where God set up his equations, but we are the ones filling the variables, to which God must adjust his results. Too often, their god is not omnipotent. An example: "God can not use us unless we are obedient."
  • Granted, there are some Calvinist/Reformed that prefer a dispensational take on history, over covenental or other views, and are not characterized by my criticisms here. There are also some Arminianistic believers whose focus is certainly on Christ, and the pursuit of Christ, and who depend on Christ for their very lives, who only cling to tenets of this failed theology, but do not think in the usual terms they claim to espouse. Witness their prayers, which to me sound entirely Calvinistic.

 

[David1701]

Y'all keep saying that. I, personally, don't see it that way. Obviously.

So have fun in the bubble. If any of you decide to take the time to read the material I've suggested then hit me up. You know where I'm at.

Grace and peace

It's what the Bible states - clearly; so, no, I won't be comparing that with the traditions of men.

Eph. 2:11-15 (KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Rom. 11:13-18 (KJV)
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

It's what the Bible states - clearly; so, no, I won't be comparing that with the traditions of men.

Eph. 2:11-15 (KJV)
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Rom. 11:13-18 (KJV)
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Is the KJV your favourite? Is so, why?

 

[David1701]

Is the KJV your favourite? Is so, why?

I use several translations of the Bible. The KJV is one of my favourites, but I don't know if it's the outright best (it's not perfect).

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I use several translations of the Bible. The KJV is one of my favourites, but I don't know if it's the outright best (it's not perfect).

I'm sorry to go off topic. I'm coming around to believing that the KJV is probably more inspired spiritually, for various reasons. I'm not a KJV only person either. What do you make of it?

 

[David1701]

I'm sorry to go off topic. I'm coming around to believing that the KJV is probably more inspired spiritually, for various reasons. I'm not a KJV only person either. What do you make of it?

It's interesting: spiritually speaking, I find there's a kind of "strength" in the KJV, which I don't find as much in other translations. It's not an intellectual thing but a kind of intuitive perception. This is certainly subjective, but I know others who've found the same. It's not the old-fashioned language, because I don't get the same sense from other older translations.

The Geneva (modernised spelling version) also feels trustworthy, but not quite as much, and that in spite of the fact that some places in the Geneva are better translated.

The NKJV, although closely based on the KJV, with modernised English and some minor corrections, also has a weaker feel about it and I've read that some people have found that their faith grows much stronger reading the KJV than the NKJV.

I tend not to mention these perceptions, because they are so subjective and because people sometimes try to tar you with the KJO brush (I'm not KJO and never have been).

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

It's interesting: spiritually speaking, I find there's a kind of "strength" in the KJV, which I don't find as much in other translations. It's not an intellectual thing but a kind of intuitive perception. This is certainly subjective, but I know others who've found the same. It's not the old-fashioned language, because I don't get the same sense from other older translations.

The Geneva (modernised spelling version) also feels trustworthy, but not quite as much, and that in spite of the fact that some places in the Geneva are better translated.

The NKJV, although closely based on the KJV, with modernised English and some minor corrections, also has a weaker feel about it and I've read that some people have found that their faith grows much stronger reading the KJV than the NKJV.

I tend not to mention these perceptions, because they are so subjective and because people sometimes try to tar you with the KJO brush (I'm not KJO and never have been).

Thanks. I get the sense of what you mean and I feel the same way.

 

[fastfredy0]

When it comes to eschatology I just sit back munching my popcorn and watch the antics of others trying to validate their opinions.

I do like to use eschatology to impress people as it's one of the few 5 syllable words I know.

 

[ReverendRV]

When it comes to eschatology I just sit back munching my popcorn and watch the antics of others trying to validate their opinions.

I do like to use eschatology to impress people as it's one of the few 5 syllable words I know.

It makes more sense to favor a small house of cards, than a Tower of cards. The bigger the house, the more perilous it is. Sure, a huge house of cards like Premillenial Dispensational Eschatology is impressive. But a little house of cards like Amillenialism is easier to build. Of course, ease of build is no reason to not favor a complex truth. But a small house of cards should be closer to the Foundation; IE the Bible...

 

[Reformedguy]

Postmillennialist here!!!

Orthodox Preterist

 

[Josheb]

Agreed. From what they tried to teach me, I found, also:

• It dismisses many things relevant to the elect currently alive, as belonging to other dispensations and not for us.
• It teaches superiority of the current church members over the OT saints, and encourages disrespect for God's chosen people.
• It suggests a skewed mindset, that seeks correct interpretation of prophetic riddles as a substitute for Godliness, ignoring the fact that he who sins is a slave to sin. For example, somehow they seem to think that if one has figured out the signs, that he will be able to avoid the Mark of the Beast, whether or not he has the habit of obedience. In fact, I've heard that if one is not pre-mil pre-trib, one is not a true believer.
• It teaches two Gospels, as though one can (or at least, could in the past) be saved some other way than by Grace through Faith.

• While this (mind) is not limited to Dispensationalists, I also have seen endemic to their mindset, a mind of Arminianistic self-determinism, where God set up his equations, but we are the ones filling the variables, to which God must adjust his results. Too often, their god is not omnipotent. An example: "God can not use us unless we are obedient."

Which, when all is compiled, leads to an entirely different religion. If you've seen my threads in other forums on "Six Problems with Dispensational Premillennialism" (maybe I'll post the ops here) then you know there are numerous problems that are irreconcilable with historic Christianity and no one in DPism does anything about it.

• • Granted, there are some Calvinist/Reformed that prefer a dispensational take on history, over covenental or other views, and are not characterized by my criticisms here. There are also some Arminianistic believers whose focus is certainly on Christ, and the pursuit of Christ, and who depend on Christ for their very lives, who only cling to tenets of this failed theology, but do not think in the usual terms they claim to espouse. Witness their prayers, which to me sound entirely Calvinistic.

Yeah, don't get me started on Covenant Theology (CT) because I find there are problems in that view, too. It's a view objectively more consistent with whole scripture, and therefore comparatively better, but not without flaws. I can at least find the word "covenant" in the Bible AND find the Bible itself explicitly labeling events with that term. DPers are making it up; literally inventing labels and markers artificially and inferentially.

Just as the Progressive Dispensationalists have attempted in-house improvement with DPism, the Progressive Covenantalists are doing the same with CT. I highly recommend Stephen Wellum's and Peter Gentry's "Kingdom Through Covenant" to any who haven't already read it. It is, imo, an improvement on classic CT and much better than any Dispensational alternative.

Eschatologically speaking (since the thread is on end times views ), the covenants are inherently eschatological. They also evidence continuity (in comparison to the discontinuity of Dispensationalism). It's worth studying the terms "covenant" and "covenants" simply to learn how often the scriptures speak of "covenant" in the singular form and how rarely and under what circumstances it does so in the plural.

 

[Carbon]

Postmillennialist here!!!

Are you still post mill?

 

[Carbon]

Orthodox Preterist

Partial?

 

[Deleted member 6]

Are you still post mill?

There ain’t no other option, IMO.

 

[Carbon]

There ain’t no other option, IMO.

Okay, just checking. Ill check back in a bit.

 

[armylngst]

Postmillennialist here!!!

Serious question. Do you believe that God will take what is His, or we have to win it for Him? Do you believe God is sovereign, or that God requires help? Is God allowed to take back what is His? (This is all really part of one question, not multiple questions. I am having difficulty squeezing into one question.)

And, from before, the world is supposed to be getting better until the world has been covered by the church, however even in the US, I believe they said that the number of people who believe in God, just as a base, is lower than ever recorded in the history of the US, and it is continuing to decline rapidly. The number of conservative, Bible believing Christians and churches are declining rapidly, as Satan deceives the churches into accepting liberal theology, which in turn leads to a massive falling away from the church.

So, the best I can wrap the question up, is God permitted to judge and pour His wrath on the world, and why not? Wrapped up in this, why would God pour out His wrath on the church?

 

[armylngst]

I am die hard premil, though I hover between historic and dispensational type, in that dispensational type puts a different aspect on Israel than the historic. I am not a die hard dispy, but convenant theology needs help.

My view is there is a rapture either before the tribulation, or before in the middle, right before God pours out his wrath on the kingdom of the beast and his image. Either one works, however scripture never promises that the church will avoid persecution, only wrath. (Like Israel in the Old Testament where God put a division between Egypt and Goshen for the last half of the plagues.

The main part of the end times, and the millennial kingdom is for God to complete the plan He had for His chosen people Israel. Jesus returns and sets up the promised Kingdom from the seat of King David as was promised in the Old Testament. The church and Jesus are together at Jerusalem, while the Jewish people who survived the tribulation and were saved personally by Jesus (Zechariah 14 and other passages) live on in Israel. The rest, who survive the tribulation, but did not fall to the beast and his image live on and repopulate the earth. They know God, they know Jesus, having been saved by the ministry of the 144000 during the last half of the tribulation. Their progeny however, don't have that relationship. When the kingdom comes to an end, and the time for Satan's judgement arrives, he is released and he deceives all those who do not know God and Jesus like those who had been redeemed in the tribulation, and they are wiped out at Jerusalem by Christ. The whole universe is then destroyed (God releases all the nuclear forces binding atoms together and the universe really does go up in flames. It really does melt. And then God presents the new heavens, the new earth, and the New Jerusalem. Completely unscathed by the sin of Adam. Perfect in every way. And so all God's children enter into eternity as one. That is about the gist of it. (Not really in depth in any way, shape, or form.)

 

[Carbon]

I am die hard premil, though I hover between historic and dispensational type, in that dispensational type puts a different aspect on Israel than the historic. I am not a die hard dispy, but convenant theology needs help.

My view is there is a rapture either before the tribulation, or before in the middle, right before God pours out his wrath on the kingdom of the beast and his image. Either one works, however scripture never promises that the church will avoid persecution, only wrath. (Like Israel in the Old Testament where God put a division between Egypt and Goshen for the last half of the plagues.

The main part of the end times, and the millennial kingdom is for God to complete the plan He had for His chosen people Israel. Jesus returns and sets up the promised Kingdom from the seat of King David as was promised in the Old Testament. The church and Jesus are together at Jerusalem, while the Jewish people who survived the tribulation and were saved personally by Jesus (Zechariah 14 and other passages) live on in Israel. The rest, who survive the tribulation, but did not fall to the beast and his image live on and repopulate the earth. They know God, they know Jesus, having been saved by the ministry of the 144000 during the last half of the tribulation. Their progeny however, don't have that relationship. When the kingdom comes to an end, and the time for Satan's judgement arrives, he is released and he deceives all those who do not know God and Jesus like those who had been redeemed in the tribulation, and they are wiped out at Jerusalem by Christ. The whole universe is then destroyed (God releases all the nuclear forces binding atoms together and the universe really does go up in flames. It really does melt. And then God presents the new heavens, the new earth, and the New Jerusalem. Completely unscathed by the sin of Adam. Perfect in every way. And so all God's children enter into eternity as one. That is about the gist of it. (Not really in depth in any way, shape, or form.)

Let me see what I can do to change that.

 

[armylngst]

Let me see what I can do to change that.

Considering I will not spiritualize or allegorize prophecy, you don't have much of a chance. Consider that some say that Israel becoming a nation again was prophesied in Isaiah. Consider that all the way up to the day that Israel became a nation again, no one believed it would/could happen, and then it did. Consider that ALL the Arab countries attacked Israel as to wipe it out, and they lost big time, and Israel gained a lot of its land back. Consider that at this time a Menorah that had ran out of oil did not go out. Consider that prophecy also says that when the Jews return to the land, it would break forth in plant life, and would once again be a land full of life. Consider that Mark Twain had visited Israel before Israel became a nation again, and he, as well as many others, said that Israel was a barren wasteland. Consider that Israel sprouted forth in vegetation and life after it became a nation again. The Arabs couldn't do it, and they want a piece (well all of it) of that paradise. None of these prophecies need to be allegorized to see that they have actually been fulfilled... literally.

 

[Deleted member 6]

Serious question. Do you believe that God will take what is His, or we have to win it for Him? Do you believe God is sovereign, or that God requires help? Is God allowed to take back what is His? (This is all really part of one question, not multiple questions. I am having difficulty squeezing into one question.)

God uses means to accomplish His decreed will. If God wanted to, He could have took Israel out of Egypt Himself, but He used Moses and Aaron to accomplish it for Him. God could save anyone He wants to, regardless they hear(d) the gospel or not, be He chose to use the means of the gospel to save His elect.

And, from before, the world is supposed to be getting better until the world has been covered by the church, however even in the US, I believe they said that the number of people who believe in God, just as a base, is lower than ever recorded in the history of the US, and it is continuing to decline rapidly. The number of conservative, Bible believing Christians and churches are declining rapidly, as Satan deceives the churches into accepting liberal theology, which in turn leads to a massive falling away from the church.

Postmill does not teach that it is only an always upward trajectory, but there will be valleys where things aren't going so well. But this takes place over time, just like it takes time to go from mustard seed to a tree so big that birds can nest in it, and just like it takes time for yeast to spread throughout the whole lump of dough.

So, the best I can wrap the question up, is God permitted to judge and pour His wrath on the world, and why not? Wrapped up in this, why would God pour out His wrath on the church?

God can do whatsoever He pleases and He does exactly that. God will not pour out His wrath on His Son's body and I have no idea why you even ask such a question.