Posted on 12/13/2010 11:56:24 PM PST by RJR_fan
... Perhaps Jerry most grabbed my attention early on in the film when he emphasized that the argument over dispensationalism does not merely pertain to one doctrine in the way that, say, arguments over baptism, or church government, etc., have limited effects. Instead, the dispensational system has universal implications for the Christian faith. It, in fact, has impacted the fate of Western Civilization. This claim jerked me to reality, mainly because—it’s absolutely correct and so absolutely important. ...
That the greatest historical waning of Christian influence throughout the world has occurred parallel to the rise of dispensationalism, I believe, is no mere coincidence. Cultural retreatism has its consequences. ...
The history behind Darby, Scofield, Chafer and others puts the emergence of the dispensational system in a new light, helping the viewer see how and why the system grew so popular in American culture, while at the same time showing some of its numerous deficiencies. I appreciated one insight that puts dispensationalism in its peculiar historical context: it belongs historically to an era in which individualistic prophecy experts appeared all over, pronouncing themselves as the ones who would “raise up the true church” once again. Most of these groups we today mark clearly as “Cults,” including Joseph Smith’s Mormonism, William Miller’s millenarianism, and Charles Taze Russell’s Jehovah’s Witnesses. The lumping of these types with Darby’s novel dispensationalism by no means equates them, but to see their similarities in emergence and methodology provides a helpful insight into their appeal and success.
Could be, there are many flavors, and they regularly changed their tune. I might not have gotten the memo.
I heard Johnny Mac make that very claim once in so many words.
Can't wait. This should be good. Who's bringing the popcorn?
There's a big gap between the period and the "T".I heard Johnny Mac make that very claim once in so many words.
I'll have to check (it's been a couple years since I read it), but I think Geerhardus Vos addresses that very point in his Pauline Eschatology
In the dispensational system, during the “thousand years” who is it that populates the earth (besides Christ seated on the earthly throne of David)?
I’ve found dispensationalism to simply be more true to the literal hermeneutic than any other system of theology
So it doesn't bother you that Dispensationalism is less than two hundred years old, and is largely believed by the most biblically and doctrinally illiterate people who have ever called themselves "Christians"?
What, exactly, would our prediction-pimping fortune-telling friends have us prepare for?
Ironically, our LORD told those who would see that prophecy fulfilled in their generation to actually do something - that is, flee to the mountains of Judea, not sit around doing nothing to be secretly "raptured" away.
Our Futurists friends have conjured up a perverse system that keeps warning us to "prepare" but instead of "fleeing to the mountains of Judea" they just sit on the hands and wait for the magic elevator to swoop them up to destinations unknown. Maybe "mountains of Judea" is the "literal interpretation" of the wedding feast, and "flee" is the "literal interpretation" of "sit around wringing your hands while the world collapses"
If you could interpret Matthew 24 (an impossiblity for a preterist) you would know that those who come to Christ during the tribulation ... and are not martyred by the anti-christ will be on the earth during the millenial reign.
lol ... You know that you are winning the argument when the opponent resorts to claiming his opponent is unqualified to comment.
So, if I’m reading the dispensational interpretation of Matthew 24 correctly (and I admit I may not be), there will be “saved” but non-resurrected Jews and gentiles on the earth during the “thousand years,” is that correct?
And what becomes of these “saved but non-resurrected Jews and gentiles” as the thousand years progresses? E.g., how does Isaiah 65:20-25 fit into this?
This was my claim that you objected to:
The premillennialist has the kingdom still on earth after the second coming, not yet delivered to the Father. The premillennialist has the kingdom still subject to sin, death, and misery … and satanic influences. This is not the post-second coming kingdom of Scripture.Other than the fact that I should have been more specific and said “dispensational premillennialist”, how did what I say conflict with your Joe Average dispensational system?
Very nice topcat ... nice to finally have a civil conversation of ideas. We are both passionate about our doctrine of course, doesn’t mean we can’t tone it down. I will certainly try to be move civil and turn my passion knob down a volume or two ...
OK ...
I am not familar with the passage off the top of my head but will take a peak at it this evening ...
lol ... You know that you are winning the argument when the opponent resorts to claiming his opponent is unqualified to comment.
Exactly the response I was looking for. Now that the gauntlet has been thrown, lets discuss this in pure theological terms. Except, so far, what we know is that you place zero value on doctrinal consistency and are OK with abandoning doctrinal integrity. We also know that you consider each and every theologian prior to Darby as heretical and dead wrong concerning the doctrines of atonement, redemption, soteriology and eschatology - because Dispensationalism was invented in the mid 1800s and never has been accepted within orthodoxy.
This ought to be a quick.
That would be the normal dispensational view ... yes.
So what was it about my description of the dispensational kingdom that you objected to?
If you have mortal believers inhabiting your millennial kingdom, then you still have to deal with sin and death and misery. People naturally grow old and die (as indicated in Isaiah 65). And we know that sin is still present since Satan is able to turn the nations and amass a huge army to go up against the camp of the saints at the end (Rev. 20).
You said that I “have no clue what the dispensationalist believes.” But yet I have just articulated what appears to be the common dispensational theology on the situation in the millennial kingdom.
So, where’s the beef?
I appreciate that and I will try to do the same.
what we know is that you place zero value on doctrinal consistency and are OK with abandoning doctrinal integrity.
lol ... ok ... Is there a question in there somewhere? What do you mean by doctrinal consistency? Doctrinal integrity? My guess is that any doctrine that doesnt hold your view is inconsistent ... so there is not much point.
We also know that you consider each and every theologian prior to Darby as heretical and dead wrong concerning the doctrines of atonement, redemption, soteriology and eschatology ...
You really are behind the rest of the class. Do you reject all theologians prior to Luther?
Perhaps you could educate me on how dispensationalism rejects the Biblical doctrine of atonement, redemption, and soteriology of theologians prior to Darby. Maybe just pick one ... for example, please expound on how modern dispensationalists reject the doctrine of soteriology as espoused by Calvin.
because Dispensationalism was invented in the mid 1800s
And by your logic you should adopt the doctrines of the RCC because Protestantism was invented a mere 500 years ago.
and never has been accepted within orthodoxy.
And apparently you have the corner on orthodoxy.
I think we are done here ...
What do you mean by doctrinal consistency? Doctrinal integrity? My guess is that any doctrine that doesnt hold your view is inconsistent ... so there is not much point.
So your a priori position is that ALL of Christendom before Darby had it ALL wrong about eschatology, the doctrines of redemption, the Church, the Atonement, and, depending on which of the several variants of Dispensationalism you subscribe to, the doctrines of Grace. YOU are projecting that unless people agree with YOU, they are wrong.
Here is a random example of Dispensationalism's doctrinal inconsistency: Restoration of Temple Sacrifices. It is impossible for a Dispensationalist to recognize the final work of Christ on the cross and simultaneously say that Jesus Christ will be administering blood animal sacrifices in a temple made of human hands in the new earthly Jerusalem. So pick one, was His death and resurrection the final and perfect sacrifice, or is exactly one thousand years of future animal sacrifices administered by Jesus Christ in the [glorified] flesh the way to atone for sins?
Let's start there.
If you have mortal believers inhabiting your millennial kingdom, then you still have to deal with sin and death and misery.
Yes ... with some clarifying points:
The dispensational view has the second coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the 7 year tribulation period; followed by a judgment called the first resurrection. The text of Revelation identifies who the people are that are judged. It is believers who were killed during the tribulation period (those that survive will be dealt with shortly). Dispensationalists view this as a counterpart to the bema seat judgment of Christ that you and I shall experience in heaven while the events of the tribulation on earth are taking place. But this judgment is only for those believers killed in the tribulation. That they are only believers is evident ... "blessed are those who take part in the first resurrection." After the first resurrection, Jesus Christ then sets up the millennial reign (MK for short).
You have our view of Matt 24 correct, one taken and one left. The ones taken are taken away into judgment at the return of Christ ... there is no rapture in Matt 24.
What is the nature of the believers that are left on earth? Just like us today. They were saved during the tribulation and survived it. Regenerate, but not possessing a resurrection body yet. Since they are just like us today they will obviously still struggle with sin.
What about death? The passage you mentioned (and I see that Isaiah passage as an MK passage) suggests that there will still be death. I have not studied enough on the textual issues in the original language (I can read Greek but not Hebrew) to study all the details ... but at least in most English versions it seems to say that death will still be part of the nature of things.
One dispensationalist (a converted Jew) supports the position that death will be confined to unbelievers only and believers will all live for the entire MK. I'm not sure how he arrives at that from this passage, but you can kinda see how he would argue that point. I don't have an opinion on the topic at this time.
Misery ... I think the passage shows that there will be no more misery in the kingdom. And I think there are excellent reasons for that:
Jesus Christ will rule with a rod of iron from Jerusalem. What does that mean? Many dispensationalists view that as representative of the swiftness of judgment that Christ will execute on unbelievers who blatantly rebel against His rule. He will reign with perfect justice and righteousness ... misery will be gone.
The created order will certainly undergo drastic changes. The prophets foretell many changes happen in the MK ... perfect control of weather, suppression of natural disasters, no sickness and disease, taming of the animal kingdom. The curse of the earth will be removed causing a super abundance of food and wine (i.e. no hunger in the millennium).
And we know that sin is still present since Satan is able to turn the nations and amass a huge army to go up against the camp of the saints at the end (Rev. 20).
The dispensational view is that Satan is bound during the millennial kingdom. He nor his cohorts will be on the scene deceiving anyone. They will be out of the picture. The only sin that will exist during the millennium will be due to unrepentant humans, whether regenerate or not.
What about Satans release?
Now ... this is important. ... Dispensationalists view Psalm 2 as an MK passage; specifically, the conditions toward the end (perhaps just before the end) of the millennial reign. Look at the whole Psalm ... but notice what the passage says about the people and nations and rulers ... they will say ... "let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us." Even after 1000 years of peace and prosperity, there will be a portion of unbelieving man who will despise the rule of Christ over their lives in the MK. By the end of the MK there will be enough malcontents for Satan to round up that they actually align with him thinking they will finally be able to "cast their cords from us."
You said that I “have no clue what the dispensationalist believes.” But yet I have just articulated what appears to be the common dispensational theology on the situation in the millennial kingdom. So, where’s the beef?
In the heat of the moment I flew off the handle ... and I humbly retract my beef.
Now ... in the spirit of bipartisanship (man I hate that term) ... how do you view Isaiah 65? When does that happen ... or when did that happen if it has been fulfilled already? What counterpoints do you bring from your perspective against the points I have outlined?
Also, is there a particular source (a book or paper) you find covers all the points of your view? As iron sharpens iron we can both benefit from hashing out our views against the backdrop of those who see it differently. I welcome the exchange and certainly don't have all the answers from my perspective.
As I have said many times ... eschatology is a "matter of conscience" issue, not critical to salvation. And we who are passionate sometimes expect that when we bring one point of contention against an opposing view that the entire theological system of the accused should crumble at that point. You and I have invested years into our theological views and it would take lots and lots of counterpoints to change our view now. That is the position I have going in. I don't expect you will drop your view when I whack you over the head with some point. I'm sure you don't expect me to abandon my worldview when you bloody me either.
Theology is important ... doctrine is important ... but let us all endeavor to make sure our desire for theological studies does not lead to "knowledge that puffs up."
Never said anything even remotely like that.
It is impossible for a Dispensationalist to recognize the final work of Christ on the cross and simultaneously say that Jesus Christ will be administering blood animal sacrifices in a temple made of human hands in the new earthly Jerusalem.
What exactly is your beef? The passages in Ezekiel 40+ (which we dispenstationalists interpret literally) which speak of making atonement?
The dispensational view has the second coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the 7 year tribulation period; followed by a judgment called the first resurrection.
There is no judgment associated with the first resurrection. That's an inference of the dispensationalist.
The text of Revelation identifies who the people are that are judged.
I don't believe it does. Could you be more specific?
Dispensationalists view this as a counterpart to the bema seat judgment of Christ
I'm familiar with the theory. I don't believe it is supported from Scripture.
The ones taken are taken away into judgment at the return of Christ ... there is no rapture in Matt 24.
OK, but you just said that there was no judgment of unbelievers at the first resurrection. Where is this second coming/first resurrection judgment of unbelievers taught? In fact where do you find the Bible addressing at all the fate of unbelievers at the “first resurrection?”
So only regenerate mortal people go into the MK, correct? Again, where exactly if the fate of the unbelievers at this time spoken?
One dispensationalist (a converted Jew) supports the position that death will be confined to unbelievers only and believers will all live for the entire MK.
But there are no unbelievers going into the MK, correct? So where do they come from?
Misery ... I think the passage shows that there will be no more misery in the kingdom.
Where there's sin there's misery. There will still be death so there is misery. There will be unbelievers so there will be misery. No?
Jesus Christ will rule with a rod of iron from Jerusalem.
A rod of iron cannot deal with our misery. Sin is the root of human misery. Until you finally deal with sin, you will have misery. And in the dispensational scheme, Jesus doesn't finally deal with sin and death until after the thousand years, no?
The curse of the earth will be removed
Again, until you deal finally with sin, the curse remains, no? Death is still happening all around. Death is an effect of the curse from the fall.
The dispensational view is that Satan is bound during the millennial kingdom. He nor his cohorts will be on the scene deceiving anyone.
But deception is only one kind of sin. Rev. 20 says nothing about all the other sins that cause folks to stumble.
Even after 1000 years of peace and prosperity, there will be a portion of unbelieving man who will despise the rule of
A rather large group of people, if you take a “literal” view of Rev. 20. He gathers all the nations against the camp of the saints. The image is of an overwhelming hoard, so large that they must be rescued by fire from heaven. Jesus on earth is apparently powerless to do anything, in the dispensational scheme. Do you believe there will be a majority or minority of saved people with Jesus in the camp at this time?
how do you view Isaiah 65?
Interesting question. Both Isaiah 65 and 66 refer to the “new heavens and new earth.” In a non-dispensational system like my own, the beginning of the “new heavens and new earth” happens at Christ first coming. It is fulfilled at the end, at the second coming, when Christ deliver up the kingdom to the Father, after the final judgment. It is finally and fully pictured for us in Rev. 21 and 22. There is obvious progression during the period in which we currently live, which also happens to coincide with the thousand years.
The first resurrection coincides with Christ's resurrection. “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” I believe that refers to all of us in this age who are in Christ. Compare John 5:25 where Jesus tells His disciples, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.” This is our spiritual resurrection, wherein God has raised us up and seated us in heavenly places with Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:5,6).
Now, how do you reconcile the language of Isaiah 65, i.e., “new heavens and new earth” with MK?
Also, is there a particular source (a book or paper) you find covers all the points of your view?
Other than the Bible? :-) No, not all. Here are a few:
Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith A. Mathison
He Shall Have Dominion by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
An Eschatology of Victory by J. Marcellus Kik
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.