Essential Differences Between Dispensational and Non-dispensational Futurism

[Jerryhuerta]

That reflects an unmistakable worldly position, in that you think Christians arguing points with other Christians represents "vanquishing" one another. We are arguing for God's truth, and not for our own truth against one another.



This is completely irrational. When the tribes of Israel stopped having boundaries and territories, they stopped investing in *tribes.* They rather invested in their descendants who were promised not 12 tribes but a united *nation!* How are you "winning" that argument? There are *no 12 tribes today!* You are living on the moon if you think 12 tribes still exist on earth!

What world do you live in and who are you calling irrational? What in the world are you talking about? What in the world does "investing" have anything to do with what we are talking about?

We are "descendants" of our ancestors, that's what we are talking about. Reuben, Gad, Naphtali and etc., all had descendants that were scattered after their dominions were taken. Those same descendants are still with us today. And that is what Revelation 7 relates.

You're trying your best to obfuscate the truth but I won't let you. Truth is not arrived at by meandering, ad hoc, and wild explanations, which is the bane of your posts.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

People should not be confused and holding to any special theory. Just rely on the Word.
The Israel that God foreknew, comprises the faithful peoples of the entire nation. Who still; mainly. remain scattered among the nations. Jews and those from the ten Northern tribes.

The 'Israel' that currently occupies a small part of the holy land, is not and cannot be the fulfilment of all the Prophesies about the restoration of all the tribes of Israel.
We await the Day, soon to happen; when the Lord will clear and cleanse all of the holy Land. Jeremiah 17:25, +

Agreed

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Depends on who holds what type of dispensation. If you deny Israel is not restored after the fulness of the Gentiles, you are as bad as those you claim are in the wrong.

The fulness of the Gentiles is a dispensation. Some may even call it an age. Amil claim there is only one age. Sin and eternal life. Those are not ages. Sin and eternal life is a condition. The age of eternal life started at the Cross. Amil just deny time after the Second Coming. Post mill don't even know when their millennium starts.

Paul's point was not that God rejected nor replaced Israel. Paul's point was Israel as a nation was placed on hold, until their King returned. Dispensation is just saying there was a change at the Cross marking a point in time that a dynamic changed between creation and God. Most don't even grasp what exactly changed at the Cross. Human theology has clouded how all view the Cross.

As I stated, dispensationalists maintain Israel was placed on hold, and God ceased interceding for them, which is uprooted by Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Ezekiel 34:2, 9-10, 23-26; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23, and Matthew 13:24-30.

Christ's parables are rooted in Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Ezekiel 34:2, 9-10, 23-26; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23 and vindicate that God did not put the kingdom of Israel on hold. Christ came to punish the shepherds and scatter the sheep (Zechariah 13:7).

 

[rwb]

Dispensationalism holds that Israel failed too, just like Amill, and that is where they derive the false notion that God ceased interceding for them until Christ returns

How does believing Amill mean Israel failed?

I am Amill and I don't believe Israel failed, quite the opposite. Israel has expanded exponentially as Gentiles are grafted into the same good olive tree. The mistake comes in thinking of Israel as an ethnic people rather than understanding "all Israel" are the spiritual people of God "Israel of God" made up of people from every nation of the earth.

 

[claninja]

It's more like the mending is consummated, sealed at the second.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (Matthew 10:34-36 ESV)​

Interesting. Would the mending, then mend the relationship of those mentioned in Matthew 10:34-36 at the 2nd advent? Or is the mending about a different group?

 

[RandyPNW]

What world do you live in and who are you calling irrational? What in the world are you talking about? What in the world does "investing" have anything to do with what we are talking about?

If you can't understand the English language, then there's no sense discussing it. When the 12 tribes "invested" themselves in God's promises, not all of them did so. Their "investment" consisted in those who cooperated with God, whether in obedience at that time or in repentance later.

But once the people no longer existed as tribes within defined boundaries, or lost cohesion as a people, there no longer existed any hope of being restored to *tribal status.* Their "investment" was actually intended by God to be in discernible descendants who maintained their cultural tradition and found fulfillment in a single nation, rather than in the perpetual continuation of tribal entities.

So no, there are no *discernible* descendants of the original 12 tribes today. The ability to be restored to tribal status passed when the tribes were merged in with either foreign nations or within their own nation.

Again, we define the "12 tribes of Israel" as populations within defined boundaries. They may be exiled and then return. But once they have merged into other nations and no longer have a culture to define them, they have ceased to be tribes either at present or in the future.

It is their culture that keeps them identified as a people. If they are no longer a people, one cannot just assemble a load of Europeans with ancient Jewish blood, return them to Israel and declare that God fulfilled their Hope!

 

[claninja]

In their scattered condition, Judah and Ephriam ceased to be nations with boundaries and territories but they did not cease being the descendants of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali and etc.,

It’s been several thousand years since the scattering of Judah and Ephraim. Wouldn’t that result in the dna of the 12 tribes being ubiquitous throughout the world? I mean all Europeans only need to go Back 1,000 years to find a common ancestor, so surely the scattering of the northern tribes during Assyria would result in a similar measure, no? (All Europeans are related if you go back just 1,000 years, scientists say)

 

[RandyPNW]

Not to God, they aren't. Amos 9:9
As for those few who did migrate South, they were assimilated into Judah and Judaism is not a religion of the Law that Moses gave.

Sure it is. Judaism is clearly based on the Law of Moses. It is not inspired, nor is the Law of Moses even relevant today. But it is in fact based on the Law.

Your blatant pushing of false beliefs like this, is upsetting for how so much plainly stated scripture is ignored. Read carefully Hosea 5:14-15 - Ephraim exiled until they repent. Then Hosea 6:1-3 and Hosea 7:8-18, but God will relent and Ephraim will be redeemed; Hosea 11:6-11 As Gods faithful Christian people. Galatians 6:14-16

Don't allow yourself to get upset with how others interpret the same passages you interpret. I see this completely different from the way you do. I see the fulfillment of Israel's hope in their meager participation in the S. Kingdom of Judah.

There were numbers from every tribe that went south to worship God in Jerusalem well before there were any captivities. This then is how Israel will be saved and find fulfillment in their promised Hope. Those who committed to idolatry completely abandoned God and their calling while in exile, and eventually merged in with their host nations.

The basic difficulty you have, is holding on to the widely taught theory of the 'rapture to heaven', with the essential adjunct of a final Jewish redemption. Both ideas are wrong, they contradict many scriptures and will n
ever happen.

How many years have I told you I don't believe in a Pretrib Rapture? But I do believe in a Rapture to Heaven. This has always been believed in by the Church. You are the odd one out.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

It’s been several thousand years since the scattering of Judah and Ephraim. Wouldn’t that result in the dna of the 12 tribes being ubiquitous throughout the world? I mean all Europeans only need to go Back 1,000 years to find a common ancestor, so surely the scattering of the northern tribes during Assyria would result in a similar measure, no? (All Europeans are related if you go back just 1,000 years, scientists say)

I cited Matthew 10:36 to substantiate that breaking the brotherhood between the descendants of the kingdom. It's mending proceeds through the elect that avow Christ in this age and consummated at the second advent.

As to heredity, Matthew 1 address the issue.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

How does believing Amill mean Israel failed?

I am Amill and I don't believe Israel failed, quite the opposite. Israel has expanded exponentially as Gentiles are grafted into the same good olive tree. The mistake comes in thinking of Israel as an ethnic people rather than understanding "all Israel" are the spiritual people of God "Israel of God" made up of people from every nation of the earth.

The quote below is from an Amillennialist, James A. Gunn:

Some, who hold to Amillennialism, e.g., Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, believe that vast numbers of Jews will be saved through the Gospel at the end of the age. I have no problem with vast numbers of Jews, or anyone else, being saved as individuals but I do have a problem with the idea that Jews will be saved because of their birth certificate.
The conclusion: The Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 21:43, says:
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
And the “kingdom of God is at hand”, not yet future. The Jews forfeited any and all claims to the kingdom because of unbelief. The “nation” that bears the fruit of the kingdom of God is the church, the Israel of God. (emphasis mine) amillennialism
​

Obviously, you are not aware of what Amillennialism maintains.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

If you can't understand the English language, then there's no sense discussing it. When the 12 tribes "invested" themselves in God's promises, not all of them did so. Their "investment" consisted in those who cooperated with God, whether in obedience at that time or in repentance later.

But once the people no longer existed as tribes within defined boundaries, or lost cohesion as a people, there no longer existed any hope of being restored to *tribal status.* Their "investment" was actually intended by God to be in discernible descendants who maintained their cultural tradition and found fulfillment in a single nation, rather than in the perpetual continuation of tribal entities.

So no, there are no *discernible* descendants of the original 12 tribes today. The ability to be restored to tribal status passed when the tribes were merged in with either foreign nations or within their own nation.

Again, we define the "12 tribes of Israel" as populations within defined boundaries. They may be exiled and then return. But once they have merged into other nations and no longer have a culture to define them, they have ceased to be tribes either at present or in the future.

It is their culture that keeps them identified as a people. If they are no longer a people, one cannot just assemble a load of Europeans with ancient Jewish blood, return them to Israel and declare that God fulfilled their Hope!

It's not that I can't understand the English language, it's that you can't understand heredity. The issue is heredity not such silliness as your attempt to distract from the subject with "investment." I'm not deterred by your distractions.

The people of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali and etc. did not stop having descendants that God sealed in Revelation 7.

Matthew takes Christ's heredity all the way back to Abraham, and I would add to Shem. Obviously, you fail to acknowledge this is possible since Zechariah could not distinguish Judah and Ephraim in 11:14.

You are in complete confusion without a doubt to those with sound reasoning.
I'll keep holding that up to your face as long as necessary.

 

[rwb]

The quote below is from an Amillennialist, James A. Gunn:

Some, who hold to Amillennialism, e.g., Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, believe that vast numbers of Jews will be saved through the Gospel at the end of the age. I have no problem with vast numbers of Jews, or anyone else, being saved as individuals but I do have a problem with the idea that Jews will be saved because of their birth certificate.
The conclusion: The Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 21:43, says:
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
And the “kingdom of God is at hand”, not yet future. The Jews forfeited any and all claims to the kingdom because of unbelief. The “nation” that bears the fruit of the kingdom of God is the church, the Israel of God. (emphasis mine) amillennialism
​

Obviously, you are not aware of what Amillennialism maintains.

I didn't come to be Amill through the teaching of others. When I first came to understand Amill through Scripture, I didn't even know it was called Amill. It was only later that I learned the doctrine I believe the Bible supports is called Amillennialism.

I don't agree with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Unless of course his view of end times is inclusive of the whole Gospel era that began at Pentecost, or some say began with the first advent of Christ. But even in that belief people of faith are not eternally saved by race, never have been. So when Paul tells us "there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile)" but one people in Christ we shouldn't try to divide the body of Christ into ethnic groups. (Gal 3:28)

I agree the Jews as an ethnic nation called Israel forfeited any and all claims to the kingdom because of unbelief. But Christ did not come to save any ethnic nation, He came to save both individual Jews and individual Gentiles alike by grace through faith. I agree it is the Church that bears the fruit of the Kingdom of God, and they are from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue, both Messianic Jews of faith, and Gentiles of faith alike who are the Israel of God, and the body of Christ.

The Kingdom of God has been at hand, or near to whosoever shall call upon Him, since Christ came to earth with His Kingdom.

 

[keras]

Sure it is. Judaism is clearly based on the Law of Moses. It is not inspired, nor is the Law of Moses even relevant today. But it is in fact based on the Law.

I am no expert on Judaism, but I have attended a Jewish synagogue. Just a rote, traditional service, with nothing spiritual. The Jews rely on the Talmud and the Mishna, not the Bible.

Don't allow yourself to get upset with how others interpret the same passages you interpret

Hosea is plainly Prophesying about a real, viable tribe of Ephraim.

But I do believe in a Rapture to Heaven. This has always been believed in by the Church. You are the odd one ou

Jesus Himself was very clear: No one goes to heaven, except the One who came from heaven. John 3:14
We humans never leave the earth and eventually God and heaven comes to us. Rev 21:1-7

I don't mind being the odd one out, as long as I stick to the truths of scripture.

 

[claninja]

I cited Matthew 10:36 to substantiate that breaking the brotherhood between the descendants of the kingdom.

which would also substantiate that the house of Israel in the first century consisted of tribally intact northern and southern descendants, no?

I would also be interested in how you would explain Matthew 10:36 in light of the historical context and literal understanding of zechariah 11:14.

Matthew 10:36 is obviously about the fracturing relationship amongst the House of Israel because of Gospel. So why would the gospel fracture the bond specifically between the biological descendants of Judah (southern kingdom) and Israel (northern kingdom) in a literal sense, starting in the first century?

As to heredity, Matthew 1 address the issue.

sorry, you’ll have to clarify this one for me. Not following how the genealogy of Jesus relates to the 10 northern tribes genealogy being ubiquitous after 2800 years of mixing with the nations?

 

[claninja]

The 144,000 is a vision. As such, it is symbolic

It certainly is a vision, and definitely symbolic. But can we use any NT passages to help us understand this?


Revelation defines those from the 12 tribes as “first fruits”. And, In the first century, James confirmed the believers of the 12 tribes of Israel were the first fruits.

Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They have been redeemed from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

James 1:1, 18 To the twelve tribes of the Dispersion. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I didn't come to be Amill through the teaching of others. When I first came to understand Amill through Scripture, I didn't even know it was called Amill. It was only later that I learned the doctrine I believe the Bible supports is called Amillennialism.

I don't agree with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Unless of course his view of end times is inclusive of the whole Gospel era that began at Pentecost, or some say began with the first advent of Christ. But even in that belief people of faith are not eternally saved by race, never have been. So when Paul tells us "there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile)" but one people in Christ we shouldn't try to divide the body of Christ into ethnic groups. (Gal 3:28)

I agree the Jews as an ethnic nation called Israel forfeited any and all claims to the kingdom because of unbelief. But Christ did not come to save any ethnic nation, He came to save both individual Jews and individual Gentiles alike by grace through faith. I agree it is the Church that bears the fruit of the Kingdom of God, and they are from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue, both Messianic Jews of faith, and Gentiles of faith alike who are the Israel of God, and the body of Christ.

The Kingdom of God has been at hand, or near to whosoever shall call upon Him, since Christ came to earth with His Kingdom.

I didn't come to be Amill through the teaching of others. When I first came to understand Amill through Scripture, I didn't even know it was called Amill. It was only later that I learned the doctrine I believe the Bible supports is called Amillennialism.

I don't agree with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Unless of course his view of end times is inclusive of the whole Gospel era that began at Pentecost, or some say began with the first advent of Christ. But even in that belief people of faith are not eternally saved by race, never have been. So when Paul tells us "there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile)" but one people in Christ we shouldn't try to divide the body of Christ into ethnic groups. (Gal 3:28)

I agree the Jews as an ethnic nation called Israel forfeited any and all claims to the kingdom because of unbelief. But Christ did not come to save any ethnic nation, He came to save both individual Jews and individual Gentiles alike by grace through faith. I agree it is the Church that bears the fruit of the Kingdom of God, and they are from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue, both Messianic Jews of faith, and Gentiles of faith alike who are the Israel of God, and the body of Christ.

The Kingdom of God has been at hand, or near to whosoever shall call upon Him, since Christ came to earth with His Kingdom.

So, Israel failed according to your own ideology. So why all the fuss when I said that Amills hold Israel failed, just like dispensationalists? You stated, “the Jews as an ethnic nation called Israel forfeited any and all claims to the kingdom because of unbelief,” which is tantamount to saying “Israel failed.” So how do you live with:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means… God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. (Romans 11:1-2 ESV)​

Doesn’t that get under your skin? If you cared about the truth, it should.

As to Galatians 3:28, Jews don’t stop being Jews and women don’t stop being women in Christ. Want to try again?


And as for Matthew 21:43, your comment epitomizes the Amill narration that “Israel failed” and the Church replaced them as the “nation” (singular) that bears the fruit. The problem is the “church” is not a “nation” (singular) but is made up of people from all nations (plural). And the vineyard represents the people of Israel, not the husbandmen. Just like the olive tree represents Israel. The husbandmen represented the builders that rejected the cornerstone.


There is a narrative of what happened at the first advent that doesn’t have all the problems with scripture that Amill does. And that narrative does not sidestep Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Ezekiel 34:2, 9-10, 23-26; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23, and Matthew 13:24-30.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

which would also substantiate that the house of Israel in the first century consisted of tribally intact northern and southern descendants, no?

I would also be interested in how you would explain Matthew 10:36 in light of the historical context and literal understanding of zechariah 11:14.

Matthew 10:36 is obviously about the fracturing relationship amongst the House of Israel because of Gospel. So why would the gospel fracture the bond specifically between the biological descendants of Judah (southern kingdom) and Israel (northern kingdom) in a literal sense, starting in the first century?




sorry, you’ll have to clarify this one for me. Not following how the genealogy of Jesus relates to the 10 northern tribes genealogy being ubiquitous after 2800 years of mixing with the nations?

As I stated previously, I have a thread intended and titled, Christ Came to Punish the Shepherds and Scatter the Sheep, in which I'll be addressing all your queries.

 

[RandyPNW]

It certainly is a vision, and definitely symbolic. But can we use any NT passages to help us understand this?


Revelation defines those from the 12 tribes as “first fruits”. And, In the first century, James confirmed the believers of the 12 tribes of Israel were the first fruits.

Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They have been redeemed from among men as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

James 1:1, 18 To the twelve tribes of the Dispersion. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation.

Yes, this is why I say they are representative of the initial Christian remnant of Israel, leading the way to a new Christian Israel. For their sake, the Hope of Israel is preserved until Christ returns to restore the nation, as promised to Abraham.

They cannot, however, be actual tribes, since they ceased to exist as such well before Jesus even came. What is essential, as we can see in this vision, is that what the 12 tribes hoped for, a united Israel, would come about. And this vision seems to indicate that it is the Christian remnant that would spear head this effort.

 

[RandyPNW]

It's not that I can't understand the English language, it's that you can't understand heredity. The issue is heredity not such silliness as your attempt to distract from the subject with "investment." I'm not deterred by your distractions.

"Investment" is the word I chose to use because the original 12 tribes had an object to "invest" in, namely the promise of God to create a united Israel. In other words, the object was not "investing" in the endless continuation of 12 tribal territories. Rather, the object was to pursue God's wish and plan to create a single nation.

Your concern about my use of the word "investment" is strange indeed. That's why I mentioned your need to face up to what English words mean, based on how the user wishes to use his terms.

This is not an investment in wealth, but rather, an investment in time and energy in God's Kingdom. The fact you wish to make an issue out of this speaks horribly of your side of the debate, and it is hardly "victorious." You're cheerleading for yourself, or relying on people who may follow you, and not necessarily God. I wouldn't be proud of that!

I have no trouble understanding what descendants are, nor what heredity is. But inheriting genes means nothing without actual recognizable descendants. I mean, you could have great, great, great grandchildren with your genes in them. But unless they carry your name or cultural tradition, the fact they inherit your genes is meaningless.

That's how it is with Israel. Jewish genes may be widespread. But it is meaningless if those genes are not carried by those who remain connected to the cultural traditions of the Jewish People.

 

[RandyPNW]

I am no expert on Judaism, but I have attended a Jewish synagogue. Just a rote, traditional service, with nothing spiritual. The Jews rely on the Talmud and the Mishna, not the Bible.

I didn't say Judaism was "spiritual." I said it was based on the Law of Moses. It is. Have you heard of kosher foods? Of course you have. Have you seen the Ultra-Orthodox? Of course you have.

Hosea is plainly Prophesying about a real, viable tribe of Ephraim.

Of course he was, because at that time the Northern Kingdom still existed!

I don't mind being the odd one out, as long as I stick to the truths of scripture.

I mean you're the odd one out in believing the Scriptures do not speak of a Rapture to Heaven. There are not many Christians I know who believe the Rapture will not be into the sky.