Dispensationalism Refuted

[Time4Truth]

I'll remember I wrote that...as long as the context is kept in mind.

What I wrote, "Not one of us can be objective..." AND "That's why it is so maddening when someone comes along and pretends that only their view has validity in scripture."

To clarify:

I was speaking to the pompous, self-righteous individuals who claim any view that differs is completely crazy and outside of scripture and/or those who differ get their ideas from outside of scripture.

It's insulting to make such a claim.

Now, on to your question, "How do we know if a prophecy is fulfilled or not?"

Revelation, like the rest of scripture, is history prefigured in signs and symbols, just as the "sign of Jonah" was a type or symbol veiling the future historical events of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. We learn from scripture to look for historical signs of how prophecy is fulfilled.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Revelation is hardly the only unfulfilled prophecy in the bible, would you agree?


How did the Disciples know Christ was fulfilling prophecy?

Could it be they were observing the completion of them real time?


Like when Christ returns, we know that will verify his prophesied return, correct?

 

[JM]

It seems you want to teach according to the Socratic method of questioning so I'll play the game for a few posts as long as I get a turn at asking questions.

Revelation is hardly the only unfulfilled prophecy in the bible, would you agree?

Most of Revelation has been fulfilled.

How did the Disciples know Christ was fulfilling prophecy?

Christ repeatedly taught the Apostles to see the meaning of the old covenant type being fulfilled in Him and/or fulfilled spiritually (Kingdom is not of this world). Christ often taught with metaphors for this very reason. This method of biblical interpretation does not exclude the literal fulfillment of old prophecies, nor does the literal fulfillment of old prophecies exclude a typological fulfillment. Understanding scripture the way it was meant to be understood means we give way to the text and read it using different methods of interpretation.

To make sure we understand each other this short post might be helpful: Typical or Allegorical? | Feileadh Mor

Could it be they were observing the completion of them real time?

Yes. I believe the early church knew the destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 24. This is a torn for the Futurist who will never observe the completion of a prophecy in real time because most prophecy is jettisoned into the future.

Like when Christ returns, we know that will verify his prophesied return, correct?

Yes. We are told without qualification that Christ will return the way He left. (Acts 1) This is a problem for the Dispensationalist who claims Christ will return in a near miss to rapture His saints, return again for judgment at the beginning of the millennial reign and than for a 3rd time at the end of the millennial period. That would not be a literal reading of Acts 1.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Time4Truth]

It seems you want to teach according to the Socratic method of questioning so I'll play the game for a few posts as long as I get a turn at asking questions.



Most of Revelation has been fulfilled.

Christ repeatedly taught the Apostles to see the meaning of the old covenant type being fulfilled in Him and/or fulfilled spiritually (Kingdom is not of this world). Christ often taught with metaphors for this very reason. This method of biblical interpretation does not exclude the literal fulfillment of old prophecies, nor does the literal fulfillment of old prophecies exclude a typological fulfillment. Understanding scripture the way it was meant to be understood means we give way to the text and read it using different methods of interpretation.

To make sure we understand each other this short post might be helpful: Typical or Allegorical? | Feileadh Mor

Yes. I believe the early church knew the destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 24. This is a torn for the Futurist who will never observe the completion of a prophecy in real time because most prophecy is jettisoned into the future.

Yes. We are told without qualification that Christ will return the way He left. (Acts 1) This is a problem for the Dispensationalist who claims Christ will return in a near miss to rapture His saints, return again for judgment at the beginning of the millennial reign and than for a 3rd time at the end of the millennial period. That would not be a literal reading of Acts 1.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I do not believe Christ will "return for the the rapture" Im not sure that is even a dispensational teaching, Ive certainly never believed that. The rapture is not a "coming" of Christ.

Its a translation to heaven.


Mat 24:2 was fulfilled in 70ad, correct?

What chapters of Revelation were fulfilled, so I can cross examine for evidence on your part.

 

[JM]

I do not believe Christ will "return for the the rapture" Im not sure that is even a dispensational teaching, Ive certainly never believed that. The rapture is not a "coming" of Christ.

On what basis, keeping in mind you are using a literal hermeneutic, do you separate the coming of Christ into different parts? Are you saying Christ will return, Christ will come again, but it will not be the second coming? What will it be if not Christ's second coming and where do you find that literally stated in scripture?

Its a translation to heaven.

Like Star Trek? One minute everyone is chilling on earth and Christ beams them up without coming again? This is different from regular ol' Darbyite Dispensationalism.

Mat 24:2 was fulfilled in 70ad, correct?

Yes. I do not see how you'll weave this into Revelation if you read Revelation and Matthew literally, but go on...

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Time4Truth]

On what basis, keeping in mind you are using a literal hermeneutic, do you separate the coming of Christ into different parts? Are you saying Christ will return, Christ will come again, but it will not be the second coming? What will it be if not Christ's second coming and where do you find that literally stated in scripture?

The rapture is a translation, not the return of Christ, there is only one second coming.

Heb_11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.


Rev 12:5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.



What chapters in Revelation are fulfilled so I can cross examine, if you would be so kind good sir.

 

[JM]

The rapture is a translation, not the return of Christ, there is only one second coming.

I understand that's what you believe, but see no reason from scripture anyone else should believe that.

Heb_11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

I'm not trying to be offensive and I pray you'll see the humour in it...but this is what I like to call a "shoe horn" hermeneutic. The passage just doesn't fit your believe so you pull out a shoe horn and force it into a text that is unrelated. Show me how the translation of Enoch is the same as the rapture of the church but not the second coming.

Rev 12:5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

How does this prove the rapture of the Saints are not the second coming? How does this random passage you quoted prove the rapture of the saints period?

What chapters in Revelation are fulfilled so I can cross examine, if you would be so kind good sir.

You are simply trying to create a rabbit trail away from the original post but I cannot allow that. Let's deal with the subjects you have already brought up before changing to another.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Time4Truth]

How does this prove the rapture of the Saints are not the second coming? How does this random passage you quoted prove the rapture of the saints period?

This is dispensational theology, true dispy theology on Revelation 12.

If you need references, I have plenty.

Rev 12:5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

Do you believe that Christians will rule the nations with a rod of iron and be caught up to Gods throne?

Rev 12:6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. (First half of Daniels 70th week)

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. (Second half)




The manchild are Christians who overcome.

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


By the Word of the Lord, this is true, in Jesus Christs name.

May the Lord take my life from me if I lie.

Amen

 

[JM]

Time4Truth,

If the church is raptured somewhere around Rev. 4, how is the promise to those who overcome prior to the rapture, still in force after the rapture? Especially since Dispensationalism teaches the prophetic timetable is kick-started for Israel after the rapture?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Time4Truth]

Time4Truth,

If the church is raptured somewhere around Rev. 4, how is the promise to those who overcome prior to the rapture, still in force after the rapture? Especially since Dispensationalism teaches the prophetic timetable is kick-started for Israel after the rapture?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Who said the Church is raptured in Revelation 4?

That is a false teaching.

I proclaim this from the Lord himself, our God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

 

[JM]

I proclaim this from the Lord himself, our God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

Time4Truth,

Do you receive direct revelations from Jesus Christ?

 

[Time4Truth]

Time4Truth,

Do you receive direct revelations from Jesus Christ?

I hold the office of prophet.

Anything you ask in his name is revealed to you.

He is faithful, and true, he is our Lord, Jesus Christ.


I received my understanding from the Lord, yes.



If you are looking for prescient declarations, that is not going to happen, it was already given.

I can tell you what is going to happen, but the fulfillment is always dependent on the event.

Amen


I have to prepare for tomorrow, God bless you.

 

[ebedmelech]

I have yet to read or hear an argument against ANY form of Dispensationalism that does NOT distort Dispensationalism. You would know that if you are truly objective.

Note I did not say you would agree with Dispensationslism, as this is another matter. I'm talking about the distortions those who oppose it resort to.

Here, read the book yourself... hah, BABS'll love me for this link, lol

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/stanford/Wrongly Dividing.pdf

Trust me...I DON'T HAVE TO. My life as a believer started in a STAUNCH DISPENSATIONAL CHURCH...I KNOW what they teach because I ATTEND ONE NOW. I don't break fellowship with other believers because we don't see eye to eye on eschatology.

I started having doubts about dispensational eschatology by simply reading the bible chronologically from Genesis to Revelation. That's where one can really see the problems.

 

[Danoh]

Trust me...I DON'T HAVE TO. My life as a believer started in a STAUNCH DISPENSATIONAL CHURCH...I KNOW what they teach because I ATTEND ONE NOW. I don't break fellowship with other believers because we don't see eye to eye on eschatology.

I started having doubts about dispensational eschatology by simply reading the bible chronologically from Genesis to Revelation. That's where one can really see the problems.

Yours is a Matt. 16/Acts 2 Dispensational assembly - lots of holes in it due to their use of reasoning over Scripture whenever their view results in one of its clear holes the more astute cannot but see.

 

[Interplanner]

2P2P is not a distortion. It is Ryrie, who was tenured at DTS when he wrote it.

 

[Time4Truth]

Trust me...I DON'T HAVE TO. My life as a believer started in a STAUNCH DISPENSATIONAL CHURCH....

What is a dispensational Church??

Dispensationalism is a theological view.

 

[ebedmelech]

Yours is a Matt. 16/Acts 2 Dispensational assembly - lots of holes in it due to their use of reasoning over Scripture whenever their view results in one of its clear holes the more astute cannot but see.

Nope...not AT ALL. You cannot "nutshell" scripture over a few passages like that. That's what's fundamentally wrong with your so called "Mid-Acts perspective.

When we read the apostles quoting scripture from the OT and giving the revelation of their quotes in terms of the NT, you do well to ALWAYS go back and read the passage. Especially in light of the fact that Paul, who wrote most of the NT, was a Pharisee.

That in itself should alert you that the literal approach to scripture is very dangerous...ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that scripture establishes it's own literature within it's text. No one quote the OT more than Paul.

Or take John point you to Zechariah 4 to understand the two witnesses. The book of Revelation is LOADED with OT references that if one uses a literal approach to that book, they will never get where it goes.

No Danoh, I use the WHOLE of scripture, and I allow it to interpret itself. It takes much reading and comparing of scripture to get it right...and NO ONE I know has full understanding.

It's like Paul says in Romans 11:33:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

One must CONSTANTLY read being open to the Holy Spirit, who was left as our teacher!

 

[Danoh]

Ebed, the "yours" I was referring to was to your assembly, which you related is "Dispensational," but boy did you read into my words, and boy did you then run with said reading into as you did.

Yeah, right; "the Holy Spirit led" you.

But I am Cessasonist - approaching Scripture objectively is what remains of said "leading" this side of "that which is perfect."

But you go right ahead; read what you will into things, and then believe "the Spirit led" you.

Looks like claiming to hold "the office of a prophet" does not end at those who make such claims alone - there are more Charismatics on here in this "led" notion than most are awate of.

 

[Danoh]

2P2P is not a distortion. It is Ryrie, who was tenured at DTS when he wrote it.

Like I said "Dispensationalists" like Ryrie applying reasoning, in contrast to a bit more time in Scripture...

 

[ebedmelech]

Ebed, the "yours" I was referring to was to your assembly, which you related is "Dispensational," but boy did you read into my words, and boy did you then run with said reading into as you did.

Yeah, right; "the Holy Spirit led" you.

But I am Cessasonist - approaching Scripture objectively is what remains of said "leading" this side of "that which is perfect."

But you go right ahead; read what you will into things, and then believe "the Spirit led" you.

Looks like claiming to hold "the office of a prophet" does not end at those who make such claims alone - there are more Charismatics on here in this "led" notion than most are awate of.

Put the misunderstanding on yourself because you didn't make clear how you meant the term "yours" or "theirs". It's quite open ended

Nonetheless, I *ran* from nothing. I stand on what I said...so I'lll say it again..and please read it carefully:

You cannot "nutshell" scripture over a few passages like that. That's what's fundamentally wrong with your so called "Mid-Acts perspective.

To try and boil dispensationalism down to Matthew 16 and Acts 2...even if I did ascribe to it what you're doing is nothing but over-simplification of dispensationalism.

Secondly...how can it be mine, when you clearly know I hold an amillennial view? So it's not mine at all...but it is "theirs" to those who ascribe to it, where I fellowship.

Thirdly you call your approach a "Mid-Acts" perspective"...so what are you a "cessationist" of???

Lastly...who leads you Danoh? In our imperfection...we're always being led of the Spirit. Whether we listen is another issue. When you see Jesus ascending and still correcting the apostles about how they view scripture...that should clue you in, to be open to the Holy Spirit's correction of whatever we believe.

 

[Danoh]

Oh, never mind, Ebed, you are just to set in your ways to see what I was asserting no matter how I write it...

Must be "the Spirit leading" you, yeah, okay, continue in your Charismatic self-delusion. Was there once myself.

"Let me see, now where did I put my car keys..."

"No, wait, that's not me talking to me - why - why - it's the Spirit!"

Yeah, okay, feel "in touch" through that, if you must.

Me, I'll just allow "that still small voice" to "still" not know "where I put my car keys" til I get up, get objective about things, and go and search them out from that.

Bet I've lost you now, haven't I, lol

I'm sure you must mean well, a little bit... but you are confused...