Progressive Dispensationalism

[BABerean2]

DAVID'S THRONE - RESERVED FOR DAVID DURING AND AFTER THE MILLENNIUM

On the day of Pentecost, the Apostle Peter said that Christ will sit on David's throne.

Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

.

 

[Job8]

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

On the face of it this Scripture says that Christ will sit on David's throne. But we need to dig deeper. Christ is already on His throne as THE LAMB OF GOD in Heaven (Heb 1:3; Rev 22:3): Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;... And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Since Jesus is God, He will restore David's throne to David, yet rule over Him, and thus be "on David's throne" in the sense that all that David does must conform to the will of Christ in future (Ezekiel 37:24,25): And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Messiah would be King of Israel in two senses (1) as God and (2) as the legal descendant of David (Micah 5:2). Yet David prophesied regarding Christ and said: (A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps 110:1). So prophetically David saw Christ already on His throne in Heaven, but was not aware of the prophecy of Ezekiel (who came long after David).

 

[Danoh]

Interesting points, Job8

 

[BABerean2]

On the face of it this Scripture says that Christ will sit on David's throne. But we need to dig deeper. Christ is already on His throne as THE LAMB OF GOD in Heaven (Heb 1:3; Rev 22:3): Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;... And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Since Jesus is God, He will restore David's throne to David, yet rule over Him, and thus be "on David's throne" in the sense that all that David does must conform to the will of Christ in future (Ezekiel 37:24,25): And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Messiah would be King of Israel in two senses (1) as God and (2) as the legal descendant of David (Micah 5:2). Yet David prophesied regarding Christ and said: (A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps 110:1). So prophetically David saw Christ already on His throne in Heaven, but was not aware of the prophecy of Ezekiel (who came long after David).

We can interpret the Old Testament through the New or vice-versa.

Peter clearly stated on the day of Pentecost that Christ was on David's throne.

We also have to remember that David was a type of Christ.

However, David was also an adulterer and a murderer, by having Uriah killed in order to have his wife.

Therefore, it would be more probable that the text from Ezekiel is a reference to the coming Messiah, who was the seed of David.

David cannot reign in a position equal to Christ.

David also gains his salvation through the work of His seed, who is Christ, at Calvary.

The curse is ended in the New Heavens and the New Earth, when we become a part of the New Jerusalem.
This is the "forever" or eternal state.

This rotten, sin-cursed world will be burned up and dissolved, based on 2 Peter 3:10.
Therefore, no land promise on this world can be eternal.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
(Peter is speaking to the Church.)


We are looking for a heavenly Jerusalem, along with Abraham and David.

Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Paul said the same thing.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
.

 

[Biblewriter]

There have been many false claims put forth concerning the origins of dispensationalism and of the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation.

The actual facts are:

1. The central concepts of both of these doctrines can be found in the very oldest of all the surviving Christian commentaries on Bible prophecy. (That is, any such comment of a significant length.) This is the last twelve chapters of the famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," which is thought to have been written between the years 186 and 188 A.D.

Irenaeus used the word dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, well over eighty times. He explicitly named a few of these dispensations, namely “the dispensation of the law,” (book III, chapter XI, section 7, and again in book III, chapter XV, section 3) which he also called “the Levitical Dispensation,” (book IV, Title of chapter XVII.) “the Mosaic dispensation,” (book IV, chapter XXXVI, section 2.) and “the legal dispensation.” (book III, chapter X, section 2 and the title of book V, chapter VIII.) He used this last term a third time, contrasting it with “the new dispensation of liberty” in book III, chapter X, section 4. And he spoke of the present age as “our dispensation” in book IV, chapter XV, section 2. Finally, he referred to “the future dispensation of the human race.” (book III, chapter XXII, section 3.) We should also note that he used the term the “dispensations of God,” eight times. These eight times were in book I, chapter X, section 1, book I, chapter XVI, section 3, book II, chapter XXV, section 3, book III, chapter XI, section 9, book IV, chapter XX, section 10, book IV, chapter XXI, section 3, book IV, chapter XXIII, section 1, and book IV, chapter XXXIII, section 1.

This same Irenaeus wrote of the evil of the nations and then said, "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXIX, section 2.)

2. Other writers specifically mentioned this same catching away of the church before the great tribulation later in ancient times (Victorinus c. 270-303,) in both early and late medieval times (pseudo-Ephraim c. 373 - 637 and the historian of “Brother Dolcino” c. 1316) at the time of the great enlightenment (Joseph Mede in 1672), at the time of the industrial revolution (Dr. John Gill in 1748,) in the late 1700s (Morgan Edwards in 1788,) and in the 1800s before Darby or Irving ever taught such a thing (James H. Frere in 1815 and William Cuninghame in 1817.)

3. A restoration of the Jews, both the land and to their Lord, was clearly taught by William Lowth, who was born in 1661. This was published in 1723, long before Lacunza wrote his now famous book.

4. A fully developed dispensationalism was taught by Lewis Way in 1826, before Irving published his translation of Lacunza's book.

And as a side note, the majority of dispensationalists rejece "Progressive Dispensationalism" as a covert return to Covenant Theology.

 

[BABerean2]

There have been many false claims put forth concerning the origins of dispensationalism and of the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation.

The actual facts are:

1. The central concepts of both of these doctrines can be found in the very oldest of all the surviving Christian commentaries on Bible prophecy. (That is, any such comment of a significant length.) This is the last twelve chapters of the famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," which is thought to have been written between the years 186 and 188 A.D.

Irenaeus used the word dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, well over eighty times. He explicitly named a few of these dispensations, namely “the dispensation of the law,” (book III, chapter XI, section 7, and again in book III, chapter XV, section 3) which he also called “the Levitical Dispensation,” (book IV, Title of chapter XVII.) “the Mosaic dispensation,” (book IV, chapter XXXVI, section 2.) and “the legal dispensation.” (book III, chapter X, section 2 and the title of book V, chapter VIII.) He used this last term a third time, contrasting it with “the new dispensation of liberty” in book III, chapter X, section 4. And he spoke of the present age as “our dispensation” in book IV, chapter XV, section 2. Finally, he referred to “the future dispensation of the human race.” (book III, chapter XXII, section 3.) We should also note that he used the term the “dispensations of God,” eight times. These eight times were in book I, chapter X, section 1, book I, chapter XVI, section 3, book II, chapter XXV, section 3, book III, chapter XI, section 9, book IV, chapter XX, section 10, book IV, chapter XXI, section 3, book IV, chapter XXIII, section 1, and book IV, chapter XXXIII, section 1.

This same Irenaeus wrote of the evil of the nations and then said, "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXIX, section 2.)

2. Other writers specifically mentioned this same catching away of the church before the great tribulation later in ancient times (Victorinus c. 270-303,) in both early and late medieval times (pseudo-Ephraim c. 373 - 637 and the historian of “Brother Dolcino” c. 1316) at the time of the great enlightenment (Joseph Mede in 1672), at the time of the industrial revolution (Dr. John Gill in 1748,) in the late 1700s (Morgan Edwards in 1788,) and in the 1800s before Darby or Irving ever taught such a thing (James H. Frere in 1815 and William Cuninghame in 1817.)

3. A restoration of the Jews, both the land and to their Lord, was clearly taught by William Lowth, who was born in 1661. This was published in 1723, long before Lacunza wrote his now famous book.

4. A fully developed dispensationalism was taught by Lewis Way in 1826, before Irving published his translation of Lacunza's book.

And as a side note, the majority of dispensationalists rejece "Progressive Dispensationalism" as a covert return to Covenant Theology.

Did any of these claim there would be a 7 year period before the Second Coming of Christ, when modern Jews would come to salvation outside of the New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ?


Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

.

 

[Jesus First]

There have been many false claims put forth concerning the origins of dispensationalism and of the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation.

The actual facts are:

1. The central concepts of both of these doctrines can be found in the very oldest of all the surviving Christian commentaries on Bible prophecy. (That is, any such comment of a significant length.) This is the last twelve chapters of the famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," which is thought to have been written between the years 186 and 188 A.D.

Irenaeus used the word dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, well over eighty times. He explicitly named a few of these dispensations, namely “the dispensation of the law,” (book III, chapter XI, section 7, and again in book III, chapter XV, section 3) which he also called “the Levitical Dispensation,” (book IV, Title of chapter XVII.) “the Mosaic dispensation,” (book IV, chapter XXXVI, section 2.) and “the legal dispensation.” (book III, chapter X, section 2 and the title of book V, chapter VIII.) He used this last term a third time, contrasting it with “the new dispensation of liberty” in book III, chapter X, section 4. And he spoke of the present age as “our dispensation” in book IV, chapter XV, section 2. Finally, he referred to “the future dispensation of the human race.” (book III, chapter XXII, section 3.) We should also note that he used the term the “dispensations of God,” eight times. These eight times were in book I, chapter X, section 1, book I, chapter XVI, section 3, book II, chapter XXV, section 3, book III, chapter XI, section 9, book IV, chapter XX, section 10, book IV, chapter XXI, section 3, book IV, chapter XXIII, section 1, and book IV, chapter XXXIII, section 1.

This same Irenaeus wrote of the evil of the nations and then said, "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." (Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXIX, section 2.)

2. Other writers specifically mentioned this same catching away of the church before the great tribulation later in ancient times (Victorinus c. 270-303,) in both early and late medieval times (pseudo-Ephraim c. 373 - 637 and the historian of “Brother Dolcino” c. 1316) at the time of the great enlightenment (Joseph Mede in 1672), at the time of the industrial revolution (Dr. John Gill in 1748,) in the late 1700s (Morgan Edwards in 1788,) and in the 1800s before Darby or Irving ever taught such a thing (James H. Frere in 1815 and William Cuninghame in 1817.)

3. A restoration of the Jews, both the land and to their Lord, was clearly taught by William Lowth, who was born in 1661. This was published in 1723, long before Lacunza wrote his now famous book.

4. A fully developed dispensationalism was taught by Lewis Way in 1826, before Irving published his translation of Lacunza's book.

And as a side note, the majority of dispensationalists rejece "Progressive Dispensationalism" as a covert return to Covenant Theology.

I have some disagreements from your post.

First, the word "dispensation" has been used in non biblical writings since the Apostolic Fathers. How does the use of this word prove dispensation theology? Submitting as evidence the use of this word for proof is a word fallacy, in my opinion.

The word "dispensation" is biblical. That's why it was used by the Apostolic Fathers. Even John Calvin used this word and he sure wasn't a dispensational! If dispensationalists limited the word "dispensation" to its biblical use only, we would not be having this discussion. But the word since the mid 1800's has been "hollowed out" and given a non inspired, theological meaning. The hard nose distinction between redeemed Israel and the church which Darby introduced has no relation to the biblical use of the word "dispensation".

Secondly, you submitted a quote by Irenaeus which has been discussed in Christianforums.com before, and found seriously lacking in support of a pre-tribulation rapture. So why bring it up again? Is this desperation to prove a theology that was non existent before Darby's generation (I say this respectfully)?

You quoted: "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." ---end of your quote---

Now to the rest of the story....

Problem #1: the last sentence quoted (from Irenaeus) is referring to a passage in Matthew during the tribulation: "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." (24:21). So what was the church doing in the tribulation? Anyone who reads the timeline in Matthew 24 up to this verse and is objective should be able to spot this problem, unless their dispensational presupposition drives the text.

There are further problems with your quote. You may have intentionally left off the next sentence by Irenaeus: "For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption". This "last contest" is contextually linked to the word "overcome" which is further evidence the church was in the tribulation. See book of Revelation. But there are more problems.

When the underlying Latin text is examined that was used for our English translation of Irenaeus's writing, it doesn't appear to support the English translation of: "when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this". According to this page: http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/july2014/marilyna76-2.htm a more accurate translation from Latin is the following: "And therefore, when the end is suddenly here, the Church will be taken away."

Finally, on a previous thread, another English quote is provided by Irenaeus that has the church in the tribulation:

"In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings." It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord." ---end of quote---

For further information about the quote from Irenaeus above, please see: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...id-and-post-trib-are-all-wrong.7625498/page-2 (see post #37).

I find no evidence from the Apostolic Fathers that the early church believed in a pre-tribulation rapture and a hard nose distinction between redeemed Israel and the church that traditional dispensationalists hold. This alone does not determine one's salvation. While this topic is important, I don't believe it is a core doctrine of the faith that should divide us.

Above all else, keep the faith in Jesus Christ.

In Christ!

 

[Biblewriter]

I have some disagreements from your post.

First, the word "dispensation" has been used in non biblical writings since the Apostolic Fathers. How does the use of this word prove dispensation theology? Submitting as evidence the use of this word for proof is a word fallacy, in my opinion.

The word "dispensation" is biblical. That's why it was used by the Apostolic Fathers. Even John Calvin used this word and he sure wasn't a dispensational! If dispensationalists limited the word "dispensation" to its biblical use only, we would not be having this discussion. But the word since the mid 1800's has been "hollowed out" and given a non inspired, theological meaning. The hard nose distinction between redeemed Israel and the church which Darby introduced has no relation to the biblical use of the word "dispensation".

Secondly, you submitted a quote by Irenaeus which has been discussed in Christianforums.com before, and found seriously lacking in support of a pre-tribulation rapture. So why bring it up again? Is this desperation to prove a theology that was non existent before Darby's generation (I say this respectfully)?

You quoted: "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." ---end of your quote---

Now to the rest of the story....

Problem #1: the last sentence quoted (from Irenaeus) is referring to a passage in Matthew during the tribulation: "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." (24:21). So what was the church doing in the tribulation? Anyone who reads the timeline in Matthew 24 up to this verse and is objective should be able to spot this problem, unless their dispensational presupposition drives the text.

There are further problems with your quote. You may have intentionally left off the next sentence by Irenaeus: "For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption". This "last contest" is contextually linked to the word "overcome" which is further evidence the church was in the tribulation. See book of Revelation. But there are more problems.

When the underlying Latin text is examined that was used for our English translation of Irenaeus's writing, it doesn't appear to support the English translation of: "when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this". According to this page: http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/july2014/marilyna76-2.htm a more accurate translation from Latin is the following: "And therefore, when the end is suddenly here, the Church will be taken away."

Finally, on a previous thread, another English quote is provided by Irenaeus that has the church in the tribulation:

"In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings." It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord." ---end of quote---

For further information about the quote from Irenaeus above, please see: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...id-and-post-trib-are-all-wrong.7625498/page-2 (see post #37).

I find no evidence from the Apostolic Fathers that the early church believed in a pre-tribulation rapture and a hard nose distinction between redeemed Israel and the church that traditional dispensationalists hold. This alone does not determine one's salvation. While this topic is important, I don't believe it is a core doctrine of the faith that should divide us.

Above all else, keep the faith in Jesus Christ.

In Christ!

I am quite aware of the claims made by some that Irenaeus was not actually teaching a rapture before the great tribulation. And I have answered all of them except the new claim that you have presented in this post, that the commonly used translation is faulty. As I do not have the Latin text, I cannot answer that particular claim.

But a carerful analysis of the entire twelve chapters on eschatology by Irenaeus, with particular attention to a marked change in the nouns and pronouns he used, makes it clear that he was indeed saying what this quotation appears to mean.

Irenaeus put the rapture (although he did not use that word) after the Antichrist had risen to power, but before the "half week," (and he did use that term) that he saw the Antichrist as desolating the entire world.

Up to that time in his scenario, he consistently either said "the church" or used words like "we" or "us." But after that time he never, even once, used any of these terms. Instead, after that time he always used words like "they," them," or "those."

This clearly demonstrates that he actually meant what he appeared to have been saying, that the church would be removed from the scene before the last half week, which is the only time of tribulation that he foresaw.

As to the sentence following the one I quoted, I omitted it as inconsequential to the discussion. For although this seems significant to post tribbers, it is in perfect keeping with standard modern pre-trib doctrine. For most pre-trib teachers hols that there will be a righteous remnant of Israel that will be tested during the tribulation period.

 

[BABerean2]

h

This clearly demonstrates that he actually meant what he appeared to have been saying, that the church would be removed from the scene before the last half week, which is the only time of tribulation that he foresaw.

2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Since there is no last half of the week, Irenaeus would have been correct on this point.
.

 

[Biblewriter]

h
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.


Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Since there is no last half of the week, Irenaeus would have been correct on this point.
.

The post you were trying to answer was not about whether or not Irenaeus was right. It was about what he taught.

 

[BABerean2]

The post you were trying to answer was not about whether or not Irenaeus was right. It was about what he taught.

What he taught was right.
.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I'm writing an article on Dispensational theology. My question is concerning progressive Dispensationalism. Is it true that most Christians who consider themselves dispensationalists, are now progressive dispensationalists?

By progressive, I mean that most would consider themselves premillennial, and that the church partakes in both the Abrahamic and New Covenant ("already but not yet"). Further, most would believe that Jesus currently sits on David's throne.

Hi JF,
No in the sense of identity with the label "progressive dispensationalist" - however yes in the sense of embracing certain options raised by progressive dispensationalists.

Dispensationalism is not a static tradition. It has a heavy emphasis on progressive revelation along with a distinction between Israel and the church. Within this framework there are a wide variety of options that dispensationalists have taken over its history.

Earlier classical dispensationalists held to both a historical-grammatical interpretation for the earthly people and a spiritual/figurative application for the heavenly people. Later in the 1950s, traditional dispensationalists placed an emphasis on the historical-grammatical method and dropped the spiritual/figurative interpretations. This created tension with the "points of contact" in Scripture between Israel and the church.

For example, some understood that there was one new covenant for both Israel and the church, others argued for two new covenants. Ryrie at one point argued that two new covenants were crucial for distinguishing Israel from the church. However he later changed his mind and dropped the two new covenants idea in favor of one new covenant. Also as seen in Galatians and elsewhere, the church participates in the Abrahamic covenant. Dispensationalists hold to that as well as other statements concerning the church's participation in the promises made to Israel. However it wasn't developed more fully.

In the 1980s progressive dispensationalists came along and further developed these statements from within the tradition. All dispensationalists see the dispensations as successive. However progressive dispensationalists see the dispensations as both successive and progressive. The idea is that God is expanding upon the promises of earlier covenants. So the connection was more fully developed between the church's participation in the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant, while at the same time acknowledging tension with the unfulfilled aspect of these covenants with Israel. Hence the already-not yet aspect.

Today most traditional dispensationalists hold to a lot of the same basic building block ideas that progressives have used to further develop their ideas. It is just that most dispensationalists do not choose to develop these ideas along the same lines as progressives have done.

 

[Danoh]

The post you were trying to answer was not about whether or not Irenaeus was right. It was about what he taught.

And never mind that 2 Tim. 4:1 is referring to the Judgement Seat of Christ (wherein He then judges the doctrine of both - those who died in Christ and those who are alive at His coming - as to what sort said doctrine is, in connection with His then assigning each their earned portion, not of the inheritance, but of the reward of the inheritance, 2 Cor. 5; 1 Cor. 3).

In those chapters to Timothy, the Apostle Paul is addressing doctrinal issues.

The incompetence of some as to Scripture continues to amaze.

 

[BABerean2]

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

.

 

[Biblewriter]

It is just another blatant lie to claim that dispensationalists do not believe anything the Bible says. The very basis of dispensationalism is believing everything the Bible says, not just parts of it.

 

[ac28]

Non-dispensationalists are blinded to the truth. They instead stubbornly attach themselves to non-Biblical things like Open Theism or Covenant Theology. Biblewriter is right. Only dispensationalists utilize the entire Bible (but some more than others).

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

BABarean2,
The speaker in the video you posted is telling all progressive dispensationalists that they don't know their own beliefs, and that they MUST conform with what the speaker says and thinks is dispensationalism.

 

[Danoh]

BABarean2,
The speaker in the video you posted is telling all progressive dispensationalists that they don't know their own beliefs, and that they MUST conform with what the speaker says and thinks is dispensationalism.

Keep in mind that the sensationalism that Acts 2 Dispensationalism (A2D) has had to suffer at the hands of some sensationalists within A2D is not theirs to suffer alone - the Preterists, the Post Tribulationists, and all the rest also have their fair share of sensationalists to have to bear.

The number one fan of that kind of thing on here being obvious.

 

[Job8]

We can interpret the Old Testament through the New or vice-versa.

Since the New Testament is God's later and more complete revelation, there is no vice versa. Revelation is progressive, therefore the OT must be understood in the light of the NT.

Peter clearly stated on the day of Pentecost that Christ was on David's throne.

And proper Hermeneutics demands that we understand that statement in the light of all Scripture, not as an isolated statement. Since David's throne is not in Heaven, it should be evident that we must dig deeper.

We also have to remember that David was a type of Christ.

We can accept that without violating plain Scripture. Ezekiel is just as plain as Peter.

However, David was also an adulterer and a murderer, by having Uriah killed in order to have his wife.

And we are all sinners saved by grace, and justified by faith. Not relevant.

Therefore, it would be more probable that the text from Ezekiel is a reference to the coming Messiah, who was the seed of David.

Ezekiel is very plain, and he repeats himself so that there is no misunderstanding. Just as the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, David will sit on his restored throne under Christ.

David cannot reign in a position equal to Christ.

Who said anything about David being equal to Christ? That is absurd, since David calls Him "my Lord" in Scripture, and Christ used that statement to prove that David's "son" is actually David's Lord.

David also gains his salvation through the work of His seed, who is Christ, at Calvary.

Yes, and redeemed and restored Israel under Christ is also saved only through the finished work of Christ on the Cross. So David owes his salvation to Christ. But that does not prevent Christ from giving David a position over Israel but under Him.

The curse is ended in the New Heavens and the New Earth, when we become a part of the New Jerusalem. This is the "forever" or eternal state.

True. But that does not mean that there will be no Jerusalem on earth, or a Temple in Jerusalem as described in Ezekiel. The New Jerusalem is the eternal home of the Church, restored Israel on earth is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

This rotten, sin-cursed world will be burned up and dissolved, based on 2 Peter 3:10. Therefore, no land promise on this world can be eternal.

We know that this earth will be burned up, but we are not told how Israel will continue on earth after the Millennium. Not everything has been revealed. But there is no question that many nations (with Israel in the lead) will be on earth after the New Earth comes into existence.

 

[BABerean2]

restored Israel on earth is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


.