Discipling or Dispensing?

The Worldview Leadership Institute ^ | Joel McDurmon

[The Theophilus]

Never said anything even remotely like that.

When you say that Dispensationalism is the only correct view of the prophesies, then you call 1800 years of Christendom wrong because Darby's folly never has been held, in any form, by the Church. Wave of the hand dismissals of such simple logic doesn't work here; it may work fine among fellow Dispies, but not among the thinking, the rational and the saved.

Even without delving into interpreting all prophesy as future, your handlers like to divide up the Church, not only into two groups "Jews" and "Gentiles", but also into "Dispensations", where Noah is said, by the 4,7 and 8 Scheme Dispies to precede the "Law" Dispensation. But then we read:

Gen 7:1-2 Then the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean...

Clean? Unclean? Huh? Sounds like Law. (Like the 3 Scheme Dispies claim). We can go back even further to Cain and Abel, why were they making sacrifices at a "certain time" if they were under the Age of Conscience? (that which is taught by the 7/8 Scheme Dispies). For a group of self-proclaimed "literalists" you folks sure are ignorant about much of the Bible and the very literal narratives that are easily seen by everyone else.

The passages in Ezekiel 40+ (which we dispenstationalists interpret literally) which speak of making atonement?

I thank you for so quickly proving my point. Doctrinal inconsistencies regarding the shedding of Blood for the atonement of sins.

Ezek 40:42 "...with which they slaughtered the burnt offering and the sacrifice.

Now you say that the shedding of blood has nothing to do with it. In denying the point and purpose of the shedding of blood, you have our LORD slaughtering critters and spilling their blood on altars for a thousand years for no reason, then you have made our LORD a sadist and animal torturer worse than Michael Vick. Yet more sickness and moral depravity from the Dispy camp.

And in one post too! Thanks again for playing.

[GourmetDan]

I agree.

Dispensationalism is one of the worst methods ever used to study Scripture.

[dartuser]

Sweet ... thanks topcat ... we have the workings of a REAL exchange of ideas now. I think (at least you and I) have made a real break through. Again, like I said in my last post, neither of us is likely to change our minds based on a few point/counter-points, but we can better understand the other. I'm sure you recognize that this is going to take a while. And some of our questions to each other will certainly be biased by our own system and will take time to answer.

Don't have alot of time now so let me pick off the low hanging fruit ...

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.

I should have been more clear ... the "taken away into judgment" that is mentioned in Matt 24 is merely death. At the second coming Christ kills all unbelievers. Their final judgment awaits the GWT judgment after the MK. Sorry about that.

But there are no unbelievers going into the MK, correct? So where do they come from?

At the beginning of the MK there are no unbelievers. You have believing Jews and Gentiles only. But just like today, life will go on (albiet with some pretty radical changes as mentioned in the last post) ... and both Jews and Gentiles will still have children. This is mentioned in the Isaiah passage. And just like today, some of them may not believe, though there is variation in dispensational though as to whether there will be any unbelieving Jews. Some would say no based on the New Covenant passage in Jer. 31 ... "they will all know Me."

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?

Yes, I agree, there will be a degree of misery because of what you have said. But Im missing your point though. I think with the radical changes to the earth that much of the misery that exists today will be gone. What are the sources of misery that we experience today? Lots of them. Starvation on entire continents; that will be gone. Accidents, natural disasters; those will be gone. Infant mortality; gone. Down the list. There will be some to be sure ... but nothing like today. Total absence of it will happen in the eternal state ...

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? No, a rod of iron cannot deal totally with our misery. The rod of iron seems to be related to how Christ will rule the nations. Many of the sources of human misery will be done away with in the MK. For example, we will not have human trafficking, there will be no poverty or war or famine, no infant mortality, etc. etc. etc. Correct, sin and death will finally be dealt with in the eternal state ... after the loosing of Satan, his defeat, the GWT judgment ... then on to the eternal state.

But deception is only one kind of sin. Rev. 20 says nothing about all the other sins that cause folks to stumble.

Which we are all susceptable to because of our sin nature. We don't need Satan to help us sin, we are capable of fouling things up all by ourselves. And I suppose that will be the great lesson of the MK ... that in spite of Jesus visible presence, perfect human environment to live in ... men still have the capacity to sin in and of themselves. Yes, I as a dispensationalist believe Calvin was correct in many things.

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.

Of course He is not powerless to do anything about it. The mere fact that He destroys them all attests to that. Why doesnt He destroy all unbelievers today and get on with the eternal state? Lots of reasons ... but the bottom line; thats not the plan.

Do you believe there will be a majority or minority of saved people with Jesus in the camp at this time?

Good question. I don't know. Seems like a priori that most people would be believers ... but as you have said, there are enough unbelievers from the nations to form a massive insurgency; which Christ deals with pretty much immediately.

I have to leave it at that for now ... more later ... thanks for the references.

[dartuser]

When you say that Dispensationalism is the only correct view of the prophesies, then you call 1800 years of Christendom wrong because Darby's folly never has been held, in any form, by the Church.

Again, by your undergraduate logic you should be Catholic.

Even without delving into interpreting all prophesy as future

Of course, we wouldn't want to begin a dialogue with the foundational issues; that would be silly. Lets just dismiss all the theology and move squarely to all the side issues.

Rather than continue this silly exchange ... I suggest you pick up the conversation that topcat and I started on this thread ... I suspect it could continue for several months. It is civil, contrite, and enjoyable. And we will get to the things you care about ... like literal sacrifices in the Millenium.

[The Theophilus]

Again, by your undergraduate logic you should be Catholic.

I am still waiting for you to say something that is more contemplative than a bumper-sticker. Face it, you can't defend the undefendable, you don't understand the doctrines, and my original assertion that Dispies are the least educated, and most ignorant of biblical doctrines is bolstered by your lack of substance.

Of course, we wouldn't want to begin a dialogue with the foundational issues; that would be silly.

Apparently you can't even handle "undergraduate logic" since you would prefer to hurl the elephant of assuming to be true what remains to be proven - that is, the futurist template applied to Biblical prophecy.

Lets just dismiss all the theology and move squarely to all the side issues.

Yes, the fundamental doctrines of the faith are "side issues" because we all know that identifying the anti-christ and who first pulls the trigger at Armageddon is far, far more important from the eternal perspective.

Rather than continue this silly exchange

It hasn't been an exchange, you have defended nothing, unable or unwilling to even work with foundational issues, and you even have the audacity of claiming that the doctrines of redemption and the atonement are "side issues". All you have been able to do is insult, denigrate and ignore.

I suggest you pick up the conversation that topcat and I started on this thread...It is civil, contrite, and enjoyable.

Unlike the bullying, rude and childish behavior you have exhibited here. Given what you have contributed so far, I don't think you have any interest or capability to participate in an honest discussion - especially about spiritual things.

But I do appreciate you demonstrating the accuracy of my statements.

[topcat54]

I should have been more clear ... the "taken away into judgment" that is mentioned in Matt 24 is merely death. At the second coming Christ kills all unbelievers. Their final judgment awaits the GWT judgment after the MK. Sorry about that.

So what coming and judgment is being pictured in Matt. 25:31ff?

31 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

It says “when He comes … then He will judge.”

[topcat54]

and both Jews and Gentiles will still have children. This is mentioned in the Isaiah passage.

But, as I pointed out, the Isaiah 65 passage is speaking “literally” of the new heavens and new earth. It seems to me you need to address that problem vis-à-vis dispensationalism before you can apply Isaiah 65 to your MK scenario.

[topcat54]

I think with the radical changes to the earth that much of the misery that exists today will be gone.

What radical changes in particular? Sinners will still be present, and sin ultimately is the source of our misery. Believers will, at some point, be producing unbelieving children (a true source of misery). Even with the resurrected Jesus personally hanging out in Jerusalem and available on big screen TV around the world, unbelief and sin will apparently flourish, at least at the end. Loved ones, both saved and unsaved, will still be dying.

Seems to me the most radical changes happen during the new heavens and new earth, in the dispensational system.

BTW, where are the resurrected/immortal rapture saints during this time and what are they doing?

[topcat54]

Of course He is not powerless to do anything about it. The mere fact that He destroys them all attests to that.

In this section:

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.
9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

“whose number is as the sand of the sea” – if we take that statement literally, doesn’t that indicate a very large number of unbelievers?

Where is Jesus residing during this event? If the fire comes down from God out of heaven, where does it say that Jesus destroys them? Unless, perhaps, Jesus is in heaven at this time.

How much of your views would you say is based on inference and how much is based on a literal reading of the text?

[dartuser]

But, as I pointed out, the Isaiah 65 passage is speaking “literally” of the new heavens and new earth.

I suspect our difference here lies in whether we equate Rev 21 new heaven and earth with the Isaiah 65 new heaven and earth.

Most dispensationalists see the Isaiah passage and the Rev passage as containing too many differences to equate them. Just the mere mention of infants excludes the Isaiah passage from being equated with the eternal state in Rev 21.

[dartuser]

What radical changes in particular?

All those things I mentioned before.

BTW, where are the resurrected/immortal rapture saints during this time and what are they doing?

Ruling and reigning with Him ... assisting in the adminstration of his messianic rule ... what that will entail I really cannot say; there is very little exegetical data to form an opinion. Just one of those things I have to shrug my shoulders and say "I dunno"

[dartuser]

Where is Jesus residing during this event?

He is executing His Messianic rule from Jerusalem.

If the fire comes down from God out of heaven, where does it say that Jesus destroys them?

I'll give you that ... it doesn't explicitly say Jesus calls down the fire for destruction. It could certainly be God the Father that just does it. The highlight is that this is the last hurrah for Satan, his hordes, and unbelievers ... the GWT judgment follows ... then the eternal state.

I will try to be more precise in my posts. I'm rather hurried to try to keep up with all of it lol ...

Grace to you

[dartuser]

How much of your views would you say is based on inference and how much is based on a literal reading of the text?

I would like to think that ALL of it is based on a literal reading ... with some carefully tempered inference.

[topcat54]

I'll give you that ... it doesn't explicitly say Jesus calls down the fire for destruction.

OK, let’s try another. It does not say anywhere in Rev. 20 that Jesus is on the earth during the thousand years. Perhaps that fact help clarify the previous issue with fire from heaven.

Would you say that it’s possible the notion of Jesus reigning on the earth is an inference rather than a literal interpretation of the text?

[topcat54]

Most dispensationalists see the Isaiah passage and the Rev passage as containing too many differences to equate them. Just the mere mention of infants excludes the Isaiah passage from being equated with the eternal state in Rev 21.

So when dispensationalists talk about the new heavens and new earth, what are they talking about?

Here’s the problem as I see it. Isaiah 65 says this:

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

I would think that a literalist might have a bit of trouble with this passage. If it’s talking about the future millennial kingdom, then, according to dispensationalism, God remembers all sorts of things from the old covenant (old heavens and earth) during that time. Dispensationalism teaches that there are animal sacrifices during the MK. Some dispensationalists even teach that they are what Ezekiel 43 and 45 says they are, for atonement of sin. (That is the literal reading of the text.) Dispensationalism constructs a literal earthly temple according to a pattern given in the old covenant.

Do you see a problem?

[topcat54]

Ruling and reigning with Him ... assisting in the adminstration of his messianic rule

I admit we do not know much about the activities of the resurrection saints after the second coming. Of course, from my perspective we are occupying the new heavens and new earth. Everyone living there has their resurrected body, since the unrighteous have been judged and cast into the lake of fire.

Since not everyone in the dispensational MK is saved, will there be evangelism?

Do you see any issue with immortals living among the mortals? Will the immortals be affected by the sin and misery around them?

13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?"
14 And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.
16 They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat;
17 for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." (Rev. 7)

Who are these people, and what, if anything, is this text saying wrt the inhabitants of the MK?