Historic Premillennialism

The statement has been revised. They still maintain 'distinction' but it is a watered down version of the older statement in my estimation - and again - what is DTS producing both in research and in theologians - precious little - their focus has changed. Their president is an indication of that I suspect.

The problem you are dealing with is that as long as you can divide covenants, kingdoms, resurrections, etc, based on "rightly dividing the word of truth" you will get whatever they want to sell you because they can claim "rightly dividing" as a process they are slowly perfecting.

How about "A house [Bible] divided against itself cannot stand?"
God has ONE purpose for man. And He had ONE plan to enact it.
"It is finished."

Amen.
They will never see, as the Jews could not, the spiritual LITERAL realities of a New COvenant we are now, and forever will be in. God must remove the blinders or they will never know the spiritual truth.

1 Cor 2:6 However, among the mature we do speak a wisdom, but not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 On the contrary, we speak God's hidden wisdom in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age knew it, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. 10 Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the concerns of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the concerns of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. 14 But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. 16 For: who has known the Lord's mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Compare the "rulers of this age passages to:
Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. 10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

All this present tense makes it seem like something, that age of the Old Covenant, then, was passing away!!

By the way, the President of Dallas Seminary is not Chuck Swindoll, it is Mark Bailey.

What revisions were made that water down the old version?

I don't disagree that Swindoll brought a pastoral focus to the seminary. A needed emphasis, in my opinion. I also agree that eschatology is not the primary focus of the seminary, which again gives me no problem.

I know both the chairmen of the historical theology department, Dr. Hannah (ours was the first wedding he performed 27 years ago) and the chairman of the systematic theology department, Lanier Burns (who has served as a teacher and elder in the church where I served from 1980-1990). Both men are top notch academically. Hannah is the best synthesizer of history and theology I have studied under including my studies at Dallas Seminary, Westminster Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. And I think highly of Westminster and Southwestern.

Lanier is outstanding as well. There are a number of professors at Dallas I do not know but the ones I do know are solid. PresbyRev, Dallas Seminary's mission statement is not simply to produce "research and theologians."

So are you a post-mil Christian Reconstructionist?

What is your opinion of James Jordan, who was a fellow doctoral student at Westminster with me?

Did Gary North's Y2K mania disturb you?

I am a preterist and an optimistic amill. I am optimistic about what God will do through God's people in the years, decades and centuries to come. Being a Reformed Christian I believe in the three uses of the law (as do many preterists - there are several articles on the topic at http://www.preteristarchive.com/) Preterists, both partial and full, make up many in the ranks of Christian Reconstructionists and the like. I do not align myself with every particular of Christian Reconstructionism and Theonomy, largely because I am a mainline Presbyterian, believe in the egalitarianism of Gal. 3:28, etc. I am an evangelical more of the Evangelicals for Social Action school than that of Chalcedon.

I have no particular opinion about James Jordan.

North did a great deal to discredit himself and his message with his Y2K hysteria, yes. It would be unfair, though, to ignore his scholarship (witness his almost 1000 page 'Crossed Fingers: How Liberals Captured the PCUSA'). Further, the larger truths of his postmill. eschatology remains intact.In this (his Y2K thing) though, he was not positing an eschatological apocalypse, but a technological fiasco. But, in retrospect, I do think he overdid it (at least from what I heard regarding some of his appearances on Art Bell, etc.).

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that North is a accomplished scholar. I was quite surprised by his fixation with Y2K having read several of his other books.

His best to you.

And do you know what the kingdom of God is? It is a spiritual kingdom(Rom.14:17) while the Kingdom of Heaven (only mentioned in the book of Matthew) is a literal, physical Kingdom (Daniel 2:37,44) Oh yea. I forgot Christ made the distinguishment between the two? It couldn't possibly be that Matthews audience (Hebrews) understood "Kingdom of God" as being the "Kingdom of heaven."

I have no doubt that the Jews confused the two (as you do) but the reason that no other Gospel has it but Matthew is to show the Christian that there is a difference.

Nope, there must be a difference even though the SCRIPTURE does not declare one!!!

Ofcourse it does, it defines Kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom and the Kingdom of Heaven is a literal physical one as depicted in Daniel.

But for someone who thinks Satan is bound today, (but not really), I know this is a little too deep.

Your dispensationalism has you holding to physical hopes which will disappoint.

My Dispensationlism is what makes sense of Scripture which you twist out of recognition with your context dropping and spiritualizing (2Pet.3:16)

The Jews could not see the spiritual applications and truth of their messiah, and you cannot see them of His promises. When you die disappointed, ask Him why He did not come back before you died. He will tell you He did!

First, If I die before He returns I will not die disappointed because the event will happen (Rev.19).

And when we are standing at the Judgement seat of Christ (1Cor.3:13) you can explain to Him why you rejected clear scripture for illusions and delusions.

Nope, there must be a difference even though the SCRIPTURE does not declare one!!!

Ofcourse it does, it defines Kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom and the Kingdom of Heaven is a literal physical one as depicted in Daniel.

Amen!

Maranatha!

Bump #68)...................BTTT