No covenanters allowed: A Question for Dispensationalists

Benefactor · Feb 17, 2009

SK,

I find that a lot of believers share your concern about the tribulation saints. If I understand you correctly you believe that Dispensatonalist teach that the Jews after the rapture revert back to OT Law.

It is true that dispensationalist believe that the state of Israel will be re established and that temple worship will again play a role in their daily lives. To what extent that happens is yet to play out. The orthodox Jews living in Israel and around the world already have all the temple furniture designed and some actually built waiting for the temple to be erected. I havent studied it lately but several years back I did do some reading on this very reality. All we can do is wait and see how it all plays out. We can all say that if at least one view that is held among us mortals is correct then all the rest will know in due time they were incorrect.

Now, the Jews that remain after the rapture who come to Christ at that time are separate form the Bride of Christ form our perspective. The same is true of Gentiles and Jews who are just as saved in Christ as we are but are what has been coined tribulations saints. As we understand it we, the bride of Christ are with Christ and all saved in the 70th week are tribulation saints. These saints are not forced to revert back to a legalistic system that mandates the keeping of some 600 plus laws of the OT. While unsaved Israel may practice them during the 70th the week they are not required to do so in light of their faith in Christ. If a Jewish believer in Christ during the 70th week of Daniel decides to practice the rituals as a memorial that is fine but dispensationalist do not teach what tribulation believers must revert to the OT system. That is not to say some who are dispensationalist have stated that but they would be uninformed as to the truth of the hermeneutic. We also recognize that with in the system there are smaller variances as this is true of all systems. This is healthy if views in the spirit of godliness respecting the individuality we all manage to display.

We do believe that the sacrificial system will be set up in the kingdom as a memorial similar to that of the lords supper, except that Christ will actually be present. There are a lot of difficult passages in the Bible and I am sure if we all confess we could name a hand full that gives up fits on what to think and how it will all play out in the end.

As to the idea of Progressive there are those that have taken a different approach from the normal dispensationalism held by Ryrie, include me in that camp. There are those that have been labeled as Progressive Dispensationalist They in my opinion are gravitating back toward covenant theology. I would prefer that they not use the dispensational tag because of the departure from the normative view of dispensationalist but I dont control how that happens and what others say or the labels they use.

Terral · Feb 17, 2009

Hi Skull:

skullkrusher said:
My point is not that I belive it is irrelevant. My point is that, within the dispensational framework, the practical relevance is highly limited; so much so that I think it is can be easily argued that the massive amounts of time Christians dedicate to the study of dispensationalism is poor stewardship; I'm posing an ethical dilemma easily inferred from the dispansational view.

The debate about which parts of Gods Living Word are relevant depends on exactly who you are talking about and the level of spiritual development they have achieved and the goals of that particular individual. Most of Gods Living Word is irrelevant to the fleshy babe (1Cor. 3:1-3) in Christ Jesus who cannot tell which end to hold on top and what the heck he is even doing. If the mature (1Cor. 2:6-8) member of Christs Body is the 30-year Journeyman Bricklayer adept at using all the tools in the toolbox, then the infant/babe in Christ is the apprentice, or even the first-year tender learning how to throw mortar properly onto the mud-board.

There is no such thing as practical relevance for the mature member of Christs Body, because his eyes are fixed on the things above where Christ is at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1-3) and not upon the things of this earth. Walking by faith and NOT by sight (2Cor. 5:7) means jumping out onto nothing and landing on that something that God Himself has placed there for the man of faith growing into the man of knowledge, so that eventually he can become that man of wisdom somewhere down the road. What in the heck is the the study of dispensationalism anyway? :0) The advanced member of Christs Body simply reads from the Pauline Epistles ("Holy Place" of God's Word = in red) every day to build up the new inner man (Rom 7:22, 2Cor. 4:16, Eph. 3:16 = Fig 2), until God Himself unveils the deeper things spanning Genesis to Revelation in conjunction with growing to maturity.

For example: Early in my learning process I believed the Book of Romans to be the most important book in the entire Bible. Our local Dispy group (Judy Baily, Kathy Smith and company) spend one and an half years studying the Book of Romans line by line, until eventually I began to understand that Ephesians was the most important book of Scripture. Then a few more years passed and Colossians was the most important book, because this is the area where Christ IN you (Col. 1:27) is taught and Christ IN me was growing ever larger; until God Himself was revealed IN Christ (2Cor. 5:19) IN me ( :0) <- "New Creature"). However, my work on Pauls The Mystery Explained (link) jumped light years ahead (early 1990's) in the days that I studied and struggled over the right interpretation of 1Jn 5:6-8, which happens to be the most mistranslated verses of Gods Living Word. The short of a very long story is that my early years saw just one book to be the most important of all. But after decades of study and careful consideration of all the facts, I now realize that all three witnesses (OT, Pauline Epistles, Kingdom Epistles) are as vital and necessary as your spirit, soul and physical body all working together as One.

The newly converted member of Christs Body should focus full attention upon reading the Thirteen Pauline Epistles time and time and time again and over and over and over again, which I did perhaps 100 times in my early years. When Christ IN you begins maturing to reveal God IN Christ, THEN the Holy Spirit in your mortal body (1Cor. 3:16, 6:19) will lead you into the areas that will produce the best results according to your specific goals. All of that being said: There is no substitute for selecting the best tutors IN Christ (1Cor. 4:15) by carefully examining the testimony of EVERYONE to see who is approved (1Cor. 11:19), by rightly dividing (cutting straight) the Word of truth. 2Tim. 2:15.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

skullkrusher · Feb 17, 2009

I won't be reading your posts, either, Terral.

TheScottsMen · Feb 17, 2009

LamorakDesGalis said:
Hey TheScottsMen! Yes, it has been a while, glad to see you back!

LDG

How has life been going?

The last time I remember, you were a traditional Acts 2 premillennialist, and a grad from DTS. If my memory is right

LamorakDesGalis · Feb 19, 2009

TheScottsMen said:
How has life been going?

The last time I remember, you were a traditional Acts 2 premillennialist, and a grad from DTS. If my memory is right

Yes, you remember well!

God has been very kind to me. My 5 kids are not only growing up, they are also growing in the Lord. I'm involved with teaching an adult Sunday school class at church, and we start the book of James this next Sunday. In between the usual stuff I read a lot of books - I've been in a hermeneutics kick the past few months. And when I have a spare moment, I try to add content to Wikipedia. How have you been doing?

LDG

TheScottsMen · Feb 19, 2009

LamorakDesGalis said:
Yes, you remember well!

God has been very kind to me. My 5 kids are not only growing up, they are also growing in the Lord. I'm involved with teaching an adult Sunday school class at church, and we start the book of James this next Sunday. In between the usual stuff I read a lot of books - I've been in a hermeneutics kick the past few months. And when I have a spare moment, I try to add content to Wikipedia. How have you been doing?

LDG

Sounds like you are a very busy person!! Who have you been reading for hermeneutics? My life has also been busy. I got divorced about 1 1/2 years ago, and remarried in November, 2008. My family grew from one son, to three sons and two daughters! We have that in common, big families! I moved from Minnesota to take a position as the president of a college in Las Vegas, Nevada (lincolnedu.com). My theology is very much Presbyterian (PCA).
I see that Harold Hoehener died recently. Did you have him for any of your New Testament studies?

Iosias · Feb 20, 2009

TheScottsMen said:
My theology is very much Presbyterian (PCA).

Well I never!

TheScottsMen · Feb 20, 2009

Iosias said:
Well I never!

haha

I think I could say the same for you..Catholic?

Iosias · Feb 20, 2009

TheScottsMen said:
I think I could say the same for you..Catholic?

90% there.

Biblewriter · Feb 21, 2009

skullkrusher said:
Fair enough -- in terms of clarification, my statement stands in relation to practicality -- can you honestly say (not trying to be at all provocative here) that the majority of those you know who spend time studying dispensatioinal eschatology do NOT focus the majority of their time trying to decipher time lines, symbols and imgery, etc., that directly pertain to events that, according to most dispensational views, will not occur unitl after the supposed pre-trib rapture? That is the thrust of my question.

I deeply regret that you are correct that many people wast much energy trying to interpret the difficult parts of eschatology without ever bothering to study the expressly stated parts.

I tend to avoid discussions of interpretations of the deep symbols of Bible prophecy, preferring to concentrate on those parts that are expressly stated in plain words.

No one is truly prepared to attempt to interpret the apocalyptic symbols of the Bible until he/she has learned at least the basics of the expressly stated portions.

Knowing these portions would preserve many from countless hours of fruitless speculation.

Biblewriter · Feb 21, 2009

skullkrusher said:
Where dispensationalism begins to run into problems (in my view) is when we arrive at the Chruch Age/Age of Grace; dispensationa premillenialism essentially posits a future retrograde from grace back to Old Covenant forms when the Lord turns His redemptive focus back upon ethnic Israel -- it is this retrograde that (for me) is inherently problematic; granting that not all dispensationalists agree (which to me is indicative of the fact that dispensationalism is far from a simpe hermeneutic -- its theological implications are immensely complex, and I believe potentially destructive of the Gospel itself), the fact that a retrograde from the finished work of Christ back to the beggarly elements of the Old Covenant is a consistent implication of the system ought to cause anyone who loves and honors the Lord Christ to cringe, or at least to take a very studied pause in order to carefully and critically evaluate their theological assumptions.

This only confirms what I have observed in a number of your earlier posts. You have displayed a remarkable ignorance of what we believe for someone who professes to have been a dispensationalist for years. Just before I read this I said to myself that you had never been a real dispensationalist. You seem to have been a follower of someone who thought he was a dispensationalist. But you repeatedly reveal the fact that you do not understand the basics of what most dispensationalists believe.

I totally agree with you that anyone teaching that there will be a return to "the beggarly elements of the Old Covenant" is denying basic scripture. And most dispensationalists would also agree with you in this. We do not believe there will be a "retrograde from grace back to Old Covenant forms." If the teacher who tried to teach you dispensationalism taught anything resembling this, he did not understand the basic elements of dispensationalism. We absolutely believe in "progressive revelation," as you call it. That is indeed the very essence of dispensationalism.

We indeed believe that God will again take up Israel, because the scriptures expressly state this in many places. We indeed believe that there will be a future temple, and that the worship in that temple will include animal sacrifice, because the scriptures expressly say both. But we do not believe that there will ever be a time (or that there has ever been a time) when justification will (or ever did) come about through keeping the law. This was the mistake of the Pharisees. The Holy Spirit used the Apostle Paul to prove that the Old Testament taught justification through faith.

I have been told that John Hagee teaches that there is a dual approach to God, one for the Jews and a different one for the gentiles. I have never heard him say such a thing, but if he does, he is not a classical ddispensationalist. Such a doctrine would be directly contrary to many scriptures and would be flatly rejected by everyone who understands the scriptures, regardless of their doctrinal position.

Terral · Feb 21, 2009

Hi Benefactor and TheScottsMen:

Benefactor said:
I find that a lot of believers share your concern about the tribulation saints. If I understand you correctly you believe that Dispensatonalist teach that the Jews after the rapture revert back to OT Law.

What in the heck is a Tribulation Saint? :0) And, for your information, Israel (the Jews) have been under Mosaic Law from the days of Moses! Heaven and Earth are still the same as when Christ uttered these words:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until ALL is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19.

There is no such thing as Israel reverting back to Mosaic Law, because they have been under Mosaic Law for thousands of years ‘and’ shall continue under Mosaic Law until heaven and earth pass away. James is writing Kingdom Disciples obedient to the “Gospel of the Kingdom,” saying,

“But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as transgressors. For whoever keeps THE WHOLE LAW and yet stumbles in one point, HE HAS BECOME GUILTY OF ALL.” James 2:9-10.

Many of you FAIL to realize that Christ teaches ‘keeping the commandments’ for obtaining eternal life (Matt. 19:16-17), because Israel of the flesh remains very much under Mosaic Law. Period!

Benefactor said:
It is true that dispensationalist believe that the state of Israel will be re established and that temple worship will again play a role in their daily lives. To what extent that happens is yet to play out.

I am getting weary of you guys running off about what Dispy’s believe, when this sect of denominationalism believes all kinds of things (Wiki = ‘wide range of beliefs&#8217

. Elijah/Adam will return to begin the process of restoring ‘all things’ (Matt. 17:10-11) and he will have a rod in his hand for Israel; who should have rebuilt the “Tabernacle of Moses/Eve” (Fig 2) way back in 70 AD to keep the fire going in obedience to the ‘perpetual statute’ of Exodus 27:20-21. Read Malachi 3 again to realize that “the day of his coming” is a reference to the “prophet” of Acts 3:22-23, which is none other than “My messenger/angel” purifying the sons of Levi and refining “them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord (Christ in Heaven = Isa. 66:1 = my thread) offerings IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Malachi 3:3. Israel of the flesh has done these things in OT times in IGNORANCE, but Elijah will return and teach Israel to make these offerings in the Light and in the knowledge of heavenly things taught in earthly types and copies (Heb. 8:5-6).

Benefactor said:
The orthodox Jews living in Israel and around the world already have all the temple furniture designed and some actually built waiting for the temple to be erected. I haven’t studied it lately but several years back I did do some reading on this very reality. All we can do is wait and see how it all plays out. We can all say that if at least one view that is held among us mortals is correct then all the rest will know in due time they were incorrect.

Baaaaaaaaa!!!! Did Moses and the fathers wait for a Temple? NO!!! Israel of the flesh needs to rebuild the Tabernacle of Moses BEFORE Elijah/Adam returns to save themselves the wrath of his rod; or they might not sit down to eat for a month! :0)

Benefactor said:
Now, the Jews that remain after the rapture who come to Christ at that time are separate form the Bride of Christ form our perspective.

Holy Cows! Do you even know the difference between a Messianic Kingdom Jew (like Peter, John and James = Church #1 here) who obeyed the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gospel #1) ‘and’ a member of Christ’s Body (like Paul, Barnabas and Titus = Church #2) saved by Paul’s “Word of the Cross” (Gospel #2) in the world today? I would say “No way baby!” :0)

Benefactor said:
The same is true of Gentiles and Jews who are just as saved in Christ as we are but are what has been coined tribulations saints. As we understand it we, the bride of Christ are with Christ and all saved in the 70th week are tribulation saints.

I suppose that ‘we’ refers to Benefactor and that frog in your pocket, because again, professing Dispy’s believe ALL KINDS OF THINGS. I searched Wiki for a definition of ‘Tribulation Saint’ and nothing turned up there either. :0) I think you meant to say, the “mythological tribulation saints . . .,” because nothing like that exists in my Bible either.

Benefactor said:
These saints are not forced to revert back to a legalistic system that mandates the keeping of some 600 plus laws of the OT. While unsaved Israel may practice them during the 70th the week they are not required to do so in light of their faith in Christ.

You guys with under 100 posts and over a kabillion Reps could help the rest of us out by simply including Scripture (2Tim. 2:15) in your posts, unless you really think that your Reputation is equal to that of God Himself . . . Lordy . . . There is no such thing as Jew or Greek (Gentile) IN Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Scripture says that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26), so there will be no such thing as “unsaved Israel.” Your statement about Daniel’s Seventieth Week has no context to anything . . .

Benefactor said:
If a Jewish believer in Christ during the 70th week of Daniel decides to practice the rituals as a memorial that is fine but dispensationalist do not teach what tribulation believers must revert to the OT system.

That is fine? :0) First of all, NONE of the professing Bible experts have interpreted Daniel’s Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9:24+) correctly, so your attempts to regurgitate Dispy dogma here is nothing more than the chanting of mere MYTHS. The 1000 Year Day of the Lord (pic) begins with our mystery rapture (my thread), then Daniel’s 70 weeks decree represents the final 490 years of that 1000 Year Day of the Lord (show in blue). There is no such thing as a Tribulation Believer, which is a phrase based upon nothing but NONSENSE. A ‘believer’ is a person obedient to a given ‘gospel message,’ which can be a member of Christ’s Body (Church #2) obeying Paul’s Gospel (#2), OR a Kingdom Disciple from Peter’s Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1) obeying the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gospel #1). The disciples looking at the Great Tribulation at the END of the Age (Matt. 24:21) are all killed (see Matt. 24:9 again = "will kill you") to join Peter, John and James on the ‘sea of glass’ (Rev. 4:6, 15:2 = pic = at the Lamb's Right Hand) ‘before the throne’ (Rev. 7:14-16) and each one of them will be obedient to the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt 24:14) having NOTHING to do with our mystery “His Body” Church (Col. 1:24 = Church #2) at all.

Benefactor said:
That is not to say some who are dispensationalist have stated that but they would be uninformed as to the truth of the hermeneutic. We also recognize that with in the system there are smaller variances as this is true of all systems. This is healthy if views in the spirit of godliness respecting the individuality we all manage to display.

This is nothing but utter NONSENSE. Period!

Benefactor said:
We do believe that the sacrificial system will be set up in the kingdom as a memorial similar to that of the lords supper, except that Christ will actually be present. There are a lot of difficult passages in the Bible and I am sure if we all confess we could name a hand full that gives up fits on what to think and how it will all play out in the end.

Lord-Have-Mercy! Now you are trying to prop up the MYTH that Jesus Christ is returning to this little earth to set up a temporary 1000 Year Kingdom. I do believe that this MYTH is taught from a misinterpretation of the fewest number of verses (Rev. 20:4-6) of ANY OTHER FALSE DOCTRINE on God’s Green Earth. For your information, Christ’s Heavenly Kingdom (2Tim. 4:18) is NOT of this world or even of this realm. John 18:36. Christ takes His seat “at the right hand of the throne of Majesty IN THE HEAVENS, a Minister in the Sanctuary and in the True Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, NOT MAN.” Heb. 8:1-2. How you people interpret this to mean “Jesus sits on an earthly throne” I have no clue! Scripture records that “David himself” (Eze. 34:23-25) sits on the earthly throne ‘and’ even in the New Earth of Revelation 21:1+ in Ezekiel 37:24-28 (see Jer. 30:7-9 again). Please go right ahead and try to prove that Jesus Christ returns to this earth to set up a temporary 1000 Year Kingdom using Scripture . . . Good Luck, because nothing like that appears in my Bible either . . .

Benefactor said:
As to the idea of “Progressive” there are those that have taken a different approach from the normal dispensationalism held by Ryrie, include me in that camp. There are those that have been labeled as “Progressive Dispensationalist” They in my opinion are gravitating back toward covenant theology. I would prefer that they not use the dispensational tag because of the departure from the normative view of dispensationalist but I don’t control how that happens and what others say or the labels they use.

This is more nonsense proving that people can assign themselves ‘tags’ that say just about ANYTHING. Everyone obeying 'our gospel' (#2) is a member of Christ's Body (1Cor. 12:27 = Church #2), whether they EVER wake the heck up to realize that simple truth or not . . .

TheScottsMen said:
How has life been going?

The last time I remember, you were a traditional Acts 2 premillennialist, and a grad from DTS. If my memory is right

Holy Cows! The thread is overrun with chat-monkeys! You guys need to think about using the Private Messaging System rather than filling these Dispy Forum threads with meaningless one-liner personal drivel, but of course everyone is at liberty to derail the thread and hijack the topic to EverywhereElseVille of that makes you happy . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

skullkrusher · Feb 21, 2009

Biblewriter:

I just drafted a rather long response, but somehow I lost it in cyberspace -- I don't have time to re-draft it, so... no offense taken, but you do misunderstand me. I'll have to explain later. Thanks for the post -- I look forward to more discussion on this issue.

LamorakDesGalis · Feb 21, 2009

TheScottsMen said:
Sounds like you are a very busy person!! Who have you been reading for hermeneutics?

Anthony Thiselton (New Horizons in Hermeneutics), Kevin Vanhoozer (Is There a Meaning in This Text? and editor for Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible), and Grant Osborne's revised The Hermeneutical Spiral.

TheScottsMen said:
My life has also been busy. I got divorced about 1 1/2 years ago, and remarried in November, 2008. My family grew from one son, to three sons and two daughters! We have that in common, big families! I moved from Minnesota to take a position as the president of a college in Las Vegas, Nevada (lincolnedu.com). My theology is very much Presbyterian (PCA).

Congrats on the new (big!) family and on your new job! Sounds like you have a lot of responsibilities. I've love to hear the details of your journey from Mid-Acts dispensationalist to Presbyterian...

TheScottsMen said:
I see that Harold Hoehener died recently. Did you have him for any of your New Testament studies?

Yes, I had him for one of my classes. He was humble, always making people smile with funny jokes, and just a nice person to be around. His death was sudden and unexpected.

LDG

LamorakDesGalis · Feb 21, 2009

skullkrusher said:
Benefactor:

Thank you for your response. I do not agree that dispensationalism does not force anything into scripture that is not there; however, I must clearly state my agreement with/acceptance of the staement that dispensationalist do not do intentional isogesis. But the question remains, "Is dispensationalism inherently isogetical?" I believe most of what you stated above regarding the various dispensations can more clearly, easily, and consistently be addressed in terms of progressive revelation.

You can't bifurcate progressive revelation out of dispensationalism and take whatever remains to be any kind of "dispensationalism."

Dispensationalists always start with the concept of progressive revelation when reading the Old Testament - everything is read "forward" in a historical sense. The Biblical covenants - and their promises - are interpreted through the lense of progressive revelation. The Biblical covenants are intricately tied to the dispensations. The dispensations themselves are a historical ordering of different periods of time. The emphasis on the original audience and meaning, the distinction between Israel and the church - these all have at their root the concept of progressive revelation.

LDG

Terral · Feb 21, 2009

Hi Biblewriter with Skull and Benefactor mentioned:

And I thought only people like Moses, Malachi, Peter and Paul were Bible writers. :0)

Biblewriter said:
Addressing Skull: This only confirms what I have observed in a number of your earlier posts. You have displayed a remarkable ignorance of what we believe for someone who professes to have been a dispensationalist for years.

Welcome to the party . . .

Biblewriter said:
Just before I read this I said to myself that you had never been a real dispensationalist*. You seem to have been a follower of someone who thought he was a dispensationalist*. But you repeatedly reveal the fact that you do not understand the basics of what most dispensationalists* believe.

If our readers will substitute your ‘dispensationalist*’ term for ‘black man,’ then perhaps we can begin addressing what appears to be a classic case of ‘stereotyping’ people using specific dogmatic criteria . . . Again, professing Dispy’s believe all kinds of things (Wiki = ‘wide range of beliefs&#8217

. . .

Biblewriter said:
I totally agree with you that anyone teaching that there will be a return to "the beggarly elements of the Old Covenant" is denying basic scripture.

This errant statement is the reason I chose to respond to your offering in Post #31, because this represents a common MYTH that is simply DEAD WRONG; whether pushed by Dispys, or Roman Catholics, or the man in the moon. As presented for Benefactor in Post #32: Israel of the flesh has ALWAYS been under Mosaic Law since the days of Moses ‘and’ shall continue under Mosaic Law until heaven and earth pass away (Matt. 5:17-19), which is until the Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 taking place at the Second Resurrection (diagram = far right). Israel stands OUTSIDE the will of the Lord God (Christ) right now by refusing to rebuild the Tabernacle of Moses, which was given in the wilderness as the ‘tent’ (using animal skins) version of the Temple. Ezekiel is prophesying about the coming Kingdom of God “on earth AS IT IS in heaven,” saying,

"All the people of the land shall give to this offering for the prince in Israel. It shall be the prince's part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the drink offerings, at the feasts, on the new moons and on the sabbaths, at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel . . . On that day the prince [David himself = Eze. 34:23-25] shall provide for himself and all the people of the land A BULL for a SIN OFFERING.” Ezekiel 45:16, 17, 22.

The biggest problem I have with professing Dispy’s is that they want to transfer the benefits of “Grace Doctrine” from the Pauline Epistles for the members of “Christ’s Body” (Church #2 = that’s us) to EVERYONE from Genesis to Revelation and to kingdom come and back again. Most of you should be very happy and feel very lucky to live inside the 2000 Year Mystery Time (in red = Find "Today") that is almost OVER, because when the Mystery (1Cor. 15:51-53) Rapture (1Thes. 4:17 = my thread) takes place to ‘start’ the 1000 Year Day of the Lord (in blue), then the time to obey Paul’s “Word of the Cross” (Gospel #2) gospel message will indeed be OVER too. Elijah will reveal himself and will be preaching the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gospel #1) like John the Baptist on steroids back in Matthew 3:1-6* and WOOOOO to the modern-day Pharisees (Matt. 3:7-8*) who intend on mixing in with Israel of the flesh, because Elijah will turn them all into dust; before leading Israel straight across the Jordan River (Josh 3:13-16, 2Kings 2:8) and into the Promised Land that will span all the way across to the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18 = pic). The Temple (Eze. 40) and Kingdom (Eze. 47-48) will be restored ‘and’ the Temple sacrifices and the keeping of the WHOLE LAW (James 2:10) will resume once again to the END of the Age (Matt 24) almost 1000 years later (far right).

Biblewriter said:
And most dispensationalists would also agree with you in this. We do not believe there will be a "retrograde from grace back to Old Covenant forms."

And you would be dead wrong about this too. Most professing Dispy’s FAIL to realize that our mystery rapture ‘starts’ the 1000 Year Day of the Lord (my thread again = click and point out my errors = IF you can) ‘and’ that we will see Elijah’s restoration of ‘all things’ from heaven and from “His Heavenly Kingdom” (2Tim. 4:18); until we return with Christ in glory (Matt. 24:30-31) at the END of the Age. Col. 3:4. You are trying to pretend that Grace Doctrine from the Pauline Epistles has application to Israel of the flesh, when Israel shall continue under Mosaic Law no matter what professing Dispy’s believe . . .

Biblewriter said:
If the teacher who tried to teach you dispensationalism taught anything resembling this, he did not understand the basic elements of dispensationalism. We absolutely believe in "progressive revelation," as you call it. That is indeed the very essence of dispensationalism.

Everybody believes in a form of progressive revelation, whether they admit the fact or not. Paul obviously has more knowledge about the ‘revelation of the mystery’ (Rom. 16:25) than Noah, Sarah, Moses, or Bathsheba who all came before him in the OT times.

Biblewriter said:
We indeed believe that God will again take up Israel, because the scriptures expressly state this in many places.

God is going to ‘take up’ Israel? What does that mean? :0) Israel of the flesh has been the Lord God’s chosen race (1Peter 2:9) from the beginning, even if He is dealing with them through a ‘spirit of STUPOR’ (Rom. 11:8) and ‘blindness’ (Rom. 11:25) during this 2000 Year Mystery Time (in red again) of today. Also, the fact that something is stated in Scripture somewhere does NOT mean you have things ‘rightly divided’ (2Tim. 2:15 = pic), which is a good reason to simply ‘quote God >>’ to offer us your version of thoughtful commentary that explains what “take up Israel” really means.

Biblewriter said:
We indeed believe that there will be a future temple, and that the worship in that temple will include animal sacrifice, because the scriptures expressly say both.

We agree. That was presented above in the Ezekiel quotes . . . But how does that fit with your "retrograde from grace back to Old Covenant forms" statement? Israel of the flesh is supposed to be butchering all kinds of animals using the Tabernacle of Moses, but the chosen race is blinded by the ‘spirit of stupor’ with such completeness that apparently the Jews have lost their way along with their collective minds. Somebody please offer up one reason or one excuse for why Israel of the flesh has refused to rebuilt the Tabernacle of Moses/Eve, as if the entire nation has insufficient resources to pitch a cotton-picking TENT and obey the commands of the Lord God!!!!

[Continued] :0)

Terral · Feb 21, 2009

Biblewriter said:
But we do not believe that there will ever be a time (or that there has ever been a time) when justification will (or ever did) come about through keeping the law.

Once again you would be DEAD WRONG on that account as well! Does anybody read Paul anymore?

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is NOT the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the DOERS OF THE LAW will be justified.” Romans 2:12-13.

What? :0) Did Paul just say that the “doers of the Law WILL BE JUSTIFIED.”?! How does that fit with your statement that “. . . we DO NOT believe that there will EVER be a time when justification will come about through keeping the law.”???? The problem with common Dispy theology (trying to be kind without stereotyping) is that you really think “Grace Doctrine” from the Pauline Epistles supersedes EVERYTHING, when that is simply not true at all. Another big problem with professing Dispy’s is they FAIL to understand the differences between a ‘dispensation’ (Vine’s = ‘a mode of dealing&#8217

and a ‘time, epoch, or age’ representing a period of time. In a nutshell: Paul is teaching “Grace Doctrine” to the members of “Christ’s BODY” (1Cor. 12:27 = Church #2 here) having NOTHING to do with Israel of the flesh and NOTHING to do with Peter’s Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (John 3:29 = Church #1) and especially NOTHING to do with Gentiles in general (Rom. 2:14-15).

Try to educate yourself on the MASSIVE differences between “Dispensational Truth” for one particular ‘dispensation/administration/household’ AND “Eternal Truth” with application to EVERYONE. There is big difference between simply ‘going to heaven’ (like the Elect of Matt. 24:30-31 obeying the 'eternal gospel') AND becoming a member of the “Body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12) by obeying ‘our gospel’ (#2) with a destiny that includes judging the world ‘and’ the angels (1Cor. 6:2+3). Many people will obtain a heavenly inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven through works, but NOBODY will ever obtain a seat in the heavenly places that are IN Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6 = Fig 2) even by a myriad of the same works over the span of endless ages. For example, Paul writes:

“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law (Israel = Rom. 9:1-4], so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law NO FLESH will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets . . .”. Romans 3:19-21.

I do believe that one source for your statement above is found somewhere in the proximity of Romans 3 and the verses cited above. So, did Paul just contradict himself concerning ‘doers of the Law’ being justified, or what? :0) No! Paul is writing in two totally separate ‘contexts’ and is ‘now’ writing about those of us called to God via ‘our gospel’ having NOTHING to do with keeping the Law at all. While men ‘can’ keep the whole Law for justification before God ‘and’ even enter heaven, there is NO justification for anyone attempting to acquire the ‘righteousness OF GOD’ by works (see Rom. 10:1-4) like ‘we’ receive through the power of God at work in THE GOSPEL (Rom. 1:16-17).

Biblewriter said:
This was the mistake of the Pharisees. The Holy Spirit used the Apostle Paul to prove that the Old Testament taught justification through faith.

The Old Testament teaches justification through faith FOR WHOM? :0) Perhaps you are referring to Abraham and David from Romans 4:1-6, but that does NOT mean anyone in the OT obtained the ‘righteousness OF GOD’ that we receive by obeying the Gospel today.

Biblewriter said:
I have been told that John Hagee teaches that there is a dual approach to God, one for the Jews and a different one for the gentiles. I have never heard him say such a thing, but if he does, he is not a classical ddispensationalist. Such a doctrine would be directly contrary to many scriptures and would be flatly rejected by everyone who understands the scriptures, regardless of their doctrinal position.

God calls disciples to the Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (Church #1) through the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gospel #1 here) ‘and’ He calls brethren to the Mystery “Body of Christ” (Church #2) through Paul’s “Word of the Cross” (Gospel #2) gospel message for today. The Kingdom ‘Bride’ is Jewish-dominant and very much under Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:17-19, James 2:10), while the Mystery “Body of Christ” is Gentile-dominant and not under Law. Romans 6:14, Col. 2:16-17. Luke describes the ‘twofold’ purpose of God through Paul in Acts 20:24-27 where the “gospel of the grace of God” is Gospel #2 and “preaching the Kingdom” is a reference to Gospel #1, but ONLY if you have eyes from God ('mystery' = ". . . time appointed by God . . .") to see what the heck He is talking about,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

skullkrusher · Feb 21, 2009

LamorakDesGalis said:
You can't bifurcate progressive revelation out of dispensationalism and take whatever remains to be any kind of "dispensationalism."

Dispensationalists always start with the concept of progressive revelation when reading the Old Testament - everything is read "forward" in a historical sense. The Biblical covenants - and their promises - are interpreted through the lense of progressive revelation. The Biblical covenants are intricately tied to the dispensations. The dispensations themselves are a historical ordering of different periods of time. The emphasis on the original audience and meaning, the distinction between Israel and the church - these all have at their root the concept of progressive revelation.

LDG

I agree that you cannot extract progressive revelation from dispensationalism and still have dispensationalism; but you can speak of progressive revelation apart from Dispensationalism's distinctives and still have progressive revelation -- the point of my prior post was exactly that.

It is the dispensational view of the distinction between Israel and the Church that is unique to dispensationalism, and I appreciate your pointing it out. That single issue is one of the primary grounds of difference between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology; and that distinction is essentially rooted in the divergent hermeneutics of the two systems.

skullkrusher · Feb 21, 2009

This only confirms what I have observed in a number of your earlier posts. You have displayed a remarkable ignorance of what we believe for someone who professes to have been a dispensationalist for years. Just before I read this I said to myself that you had never been a real dispensationalist.

As to my supposed ignorance of Dispensationalism, I would simply ask you to consider the possibility, however remote it may seem, that I (and other Covenantalists) see something you do not. I am not trying to sound arrogant; I am only asking that you grant a charitable judgment until an argument has been at least moderately fleshed out. Most of the posting I do is during my breaks at work; I have very little time, but believe it is important for all of us to be in dialog about the issues that continue to be sources of division in the Church. My choices are to not engage via internet forums, to post excessively long comments on threads (as do some, regardless of the needs or wishes of other users), or to post comparatively brief comments in the hope of finding a few people with whom I can build a significant dialog. I choose the latter, knowing full well that some will not be gracious, but rather assail me before taking the time or making any reall effort at understanding where I am coming from --e.g., I am aware that Terral has accused me of being a boasting coward (even though the post he inked to as 'evidence' was on no way boastful, and the cowardice to which he refers is simply my refusal to have my very limited time on CF consumed solely by him and his voluminous 'thread-within-a-thread' style of posting.) While l am on that topic -- I am content in the knowledge that many, maybe most, readers of these threads will recognize his overwhelming lack of the fruit of the Spirit, which is the most prominent aspect of everything he writes.

You seem to have been a follower of someone who thought he was a dispensationalist. But you repeatedly reveal the fact that you do not understand the basics of what most dispensationalists believe.

As to my 'teachers' -- I didn't have any one teacher. I was raised in a dispensational home, and grew up hearing and being taught pretty much everything you, et al (with the exception of Terral and his ilk), describe on this and other threads. My 'teachers' were Hal Lindsay & Dave Hunt when I was much younger; during and after college, I read fairly copious amounts of Pentecost & Walvoord, House & Ice's critique of Dominion Theology, and many others I don't recall at present (I really wish I had kept a journal during that phase of my life).

Pentecost (a classical Dispensationlist) was my primary source; I poured over Things to Come for months, reading and re-reading it. My copy is dog-eared and hi-lited like few other books I own. It was through this very lengthy and emotionally painful process that I began to see some of the gaping holes in the Dispensaional hermeneutic. I do not expect (or desire) Dispensationalists to quickly or easily cave in on their views; I do hope to engage some in productive discussions.

I totally agree with you that anyone teaching that there will be a return to "the beggarly elements of the Old Covenant" is denying basic scripture. And most dispensationalists would also agree with you in this.

Yes, most (or at least many) -- but it is my contention that this fact argues much in favor of a Covenantal view rather than a dispensaional one.

We do not believe there will be a "retrograde from grace back to Old Covenant forms." If the teacher who tried to teach you dispensationalism taught anything resembling this, he did not understand the basic elements of Dispensationalism. We absolutely believe in "progressive revelation," as you call it. That is indeed the very essence of Dispensationalism.

I understand that you don't believe there will be a 'retrogression'. That is the term I (and others) apply to the essence of Dispensationalism -- and I believe it is remains implicit even in forms of Dispensationalism that explicitly reject the notion. I don't want to draw this out right now, as it is a fairly involved discussion, but I believe it is inconsistent with the basic Dispensational hermeneutic; your comment below regarding the fact that animal sacrifices will again be offered pertains to this aspect of the discussion. It is in reference to this that I (and others) refer to the Dispensational millenial view as at least implying a retrogression to the 'beggarly elements' of the OT ceremonial law -- this is a very complex topic if both sides are to be heard.

We indeed believe that God will again take up Israel, because the scriptures expressly state this in many places. We indeed believe that there will be a future temple, and that the worship in that temple will include animal sacrifice, because the scriptures expressly say both.

Pentecost says the same. At this point we disagree as to hermeneutics -- and it is this issue that seems beyond the grasp of so many (not necessarily you). My experience both as a Dispensaionalist, and in dialog with them over many years shows a radical inability to get out of their own hermeneutical box and objectively consider opposing views. I am not directing that at you in particular, nor do I intend to imply that Dispensationalists never do so, or are incapable of doing so. Yet, the reality remains that significant personal dialog on this issue is greatly lacking at the popular lelvel; these discussions tend to play out in the academies of learning and in professional journals. It is far past time for these issues to be brought home to the average man (or woman) in the pew, IMO.

Many (if not most) of my posts are simply directed to that end and nothing more -- to promote discussion on the issue of the different hermeneutical approaches used by Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians.

This 'getting out of the box' is the most valuable (and disturbing) theological lesson I learned through my slow departure from Dispensationalism -- it was well over a year after I had stopped holding to dispensational views before I ever bothered to read a single piece of work by a Covenantalist, regardless of their millenial view. All along I had taken it for granted that the critical assessments I read in Pentecost, Walvoord, et al, were accurate portrayals of Covenantal A-, Post- and Pre-mil eschatologies. In that I was greatly mistaken. O.T. Allis, O. Palmer Robertson, Charles Hodge, and many others have been consistently and repeatedly misrepresented in some of the most scholarly of Dispensational writing. It is my disappiontment and frustration over this that, at times, leads me to post more provocative or incendiary statements rather than more carefully crafted and edifying ones; for that I apologize to you and all other readers of this thread and forum. I will strive to do better in the future, but do ask all to be patient. Not everything can be said in one post, no matter how much one may try.

But we do not believe that there will ever be a time (or that there has ever been a time) when justification will (or ever did) come about through keeping the law.

I beg to differ -- unfortunately, I don't have the time to research the issue again right now, but it is most certainly a fact that some Dispensationalists have taught exactly this. I know this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is all I have time for right now.

This was the mistake of the Pharisees. The Holy Spirit used the Apostle Paul to prove that the Old Testament taught justification through faith.

On this we agree! Amen, and amen.

This post is already far too long, so I'll end it here.

Grace & Peace,
SK

Biblewriter · Feb 22, 2009

skullkrusher said:
As to my supposed ignorance of Dispensationalism, I would simply ask you to consider the possibility, however remote it may seem, that I (and other Covenantalists) see something you do not. I am not trying to sound arrogant; I am only asking that you grant a charitable judgment until an argument has been at least moderately fleshed out. Most of the posting I do is during my breaks at work; I have very little time, but believe it is important for all of us to be in dialog about the issues that continue to be sources of division in the Church.

I accept that and admire that spirit. I am all for dialog. I try to be respectful in disagreeing, but sometimes fail.

My choices are to not engage via internet forums, to post excessively long comments on threads (as do some, regardless of the needs or wishes of other users), or to post comparatively brief comments in the hope of finding a few people with whom I can build a significant dialog. I choose the latter, knowing full well that some will not be gracious, but rather assail me before taking the time or making any reall effort at understanding where I am coming from --e.g., I am aware that Terral has accused me of being a boasting coward (even though the post he inked to as 'evidence' was on no way boastful, and the cowardice to which he refers is simply my refusal to have my very limited time on CF consumed solely by him and his voluminous 'thread-within-a-thread' style of posting.) While l am on that topic -- I am content in the knowledge that many, maybe most, readers of these threads will recognize his overwhelming lack of the fruit of the Spirit, which is the most prominent aspect of everything he writes.

I think very few even read his posts anymore. They are always long and complicated, and show a very bad attitude. When I do read an occasional one, I am amused by his continual references to dispensationalism as a "denomination."

As to my 'teachers' -- I didn't have any one teacher. I was raised in a dispensational home, and grew up hearing and being taught pretty much everything you, et al (with the exception of Terral and his ilk), describe on this and other threads. My 'teachers' were Hal Lindsay & Dave Hunt when I was much younger; during and after college, I read fairly copious amounts of Pentecost & Walvoord, House & Ice's critique of Dominion Theology, and many others I don't recall at present (I really wish I had kept a journal during that phase of my life).

Pentecost (a classical Dispensationlist) was my primary source; I poured over Things to Come for months, reading and re-reading it. My copy is dog-eared and hi-lited like few other books I own. It was through this very lengthy and emotionally painful process that I began to see some of the gaping holes in the Dispensaional hermeneutic. I do not expect (or desire) Dispensationalists to quickly or easily cave in on their views; I do hope to engage some in productive discussions.

I do not agree that Pentecost was a classical dispensationalist. The classical dispensationalists were John Nelson Darby and his close associate, William Kelly. Pentecost followed them in a very general sort of a way, but made one basic "correction," which was not a correction but the introduction of an error. This "correction" was an assumption that the individual called "the beast" in the revelation will become the ruler of the entire world. The KJV seems to say this, but a close examination of the Greek shows that this cannot be sustained. This error caused him to misread a great number of Old Testament prophecies and to completely miss the Assyrian as an end time prophetic individual, even though he occupies more space in the Bible that any other prophetic character. The classical dispensationalists had much to say about him, but no well known teacher in the last hundred years has even noticed him. Unfortunately, all those that followed Pentecost have copied his errors. This includes Walvord, Ice, and Hal Lindsey. I have never seen any prophetic works by Dave Hunt, but am troubled by the spirit of most of what he writes.

Yes, most (or at least many) -- but it is my contention that this fact argues much in favor of a Covenantal view rather than a dispensaional one.

I understand that you don't believe there will be a 'retrogression'. That is the term I (and others) apply to the essence of Dispensationalism -- and I believe it is remains implicit even in forms of Dispensationalism that explicitly reject the notion. I don't want to draw this out right now, as it is a fairly involved discussion, but I believe it is inconsistent with the basic Dispensational hermeneutic; your comment below regarding the fact that animal sacrifices will again be offered pertains to this aspect of the discussion. It is in reference to this that I (and others) refer to the Dispensational millenial view as at least implying a retrogression to the 'beggarly elements' of the OT ceremonial law -- this is a very complex topic if both sides are to be heard.

Pentecost says the same. At this point we disagree as to hermeneutics -- and it is this issue that seems beyond the grasp of so many (not necessarily you). My experience both as a Dispensaionalist, and in dialog with them over many years shows a radical inability to get out of their own hermeneutical box and objectively consider opposing views. I am not directing that at you in particular, nor do I intend to imply that Dispensationalists never do so, or are incapable of doing so. Yet, the reality remains that significant personal dialog on this issue is greatly lacking at the popular lelvel; these discussions tend to play out in the academies of learning and in professional journals. It is far past time for these issues to be brought home to the average man (or woman) in the pew, IMO.

Many (if not most) of my posts are simply directed to that end and nothing more -- to promote discussion on the issue of the different hermeneutical approaches used by Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians.

This 'getting out of the box' is the most valuable (and disturbing) theological lesson I learned through my slow departure from Dispensationalism -- it was well over a year after I had stopped holding to dispensational views before I ever bothered to read a single piece of work by a Covenantalist, regardless of their millenial view. All along I had taken it for granted that the critical assessments I read in Pentecost, Walvoord, et al, were accurate portrayals of Covenantal A-, Post- and Pre-mil eschatologies. In that I was greatly mistaken. O.T. Allis, O. Palmer Robertson, Charles Hodge, and many others have been consistently and repeatedly misrepresented in some of the most scholarly of Dispensational writing.

It is a common lot of those that attempt to teach the truth from the word of God to be misrepresented by their opponents.

It is my disappiontment and frustration over this that, at times, leads me to post more provocative or incendiary statements rather than more carefully crafted and edifying ones; for that I apologize to you and all other readers of this thread and forum. I will strive to do better in the future, but do ask all to be patient. Not everything can be said in one post, no matter how much one may try.

I beg to differ -- unfortunately, I don't have the time to research the issue again right now, but it is most certainly a fact that some Dispensationalists have taught exactly this. I know this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is all I have time for right now.

I know that some dispensationalists hold such nonsense, but none that I know or have read.

On this we agree! Amen, and amen.

This post is already far too long, so I'll end it here.

Grace & Peace,
SK

No covenanters allowed: A Question for Dispensationalists

Benefactor

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Contributor

Veteran

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Similar threads