Essential Differences Between Dispensational and Non-dispensational Futurism

[Jerryhuerta]

You shouldn't think that. I take seriously anything a brother says. I'm just saying the argument lacks merit, put more politely.

Please, I know sarcasm when I hear it. I find that those who cry about being Christian-like, really can't remove the beam from their eye.

As for a lack of merit, it does help to stay on point and hold the preaching please.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

while i do understand, I am disappointed, as this thread seems to keep going. Looks like I’ll be waiting awhile…..

If you want me to "share" my thoughts on preterism please hold on. I'll guarantee we will have a one-to-one on that one.

 

[claninja]

If you want me to "share" my thoughts on preterism please hold on. I'll guarantee we will have a one-to-one on that one.

While i do appreciate that, I’m not really interested in your thoughts on preterism, and more interested on an argument you made earlier in THIS thread: Matthew 10:36 substantiating the fulfillment of zechariah 11:14.

really curious how Christ’s first coming literally fulfilled the breaking of the brotherhood specifically between the descendants of the northern kingdom and those of the southern?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

While i do appreciate that, I’m not really interested in your thoughts on preterism, and more interested on an argument you made earlier in THIS thread: Matthew 10:36 substantiating the fulfillment of zechariah 11:14.

really curious how Christ’s first coming literally fulfilled the breaking of the brotherhood specifically between the descendants of the northern kingdom and those of the southern?

I understand, but what I'm saying is that our differing presuppositions will cause us to interpret scripture differently. I'm sure we'll end up dealing with our presuppositions too. And it looks like the traffic is abating.

 

[rwb]

I don’t agree with anachronisms. You’re taking a New Covenant perception into the Old Testament period. The spiritual seed in the OT times was overwhelmingly ethnic in nature. Need I say what ethnicity?

The New Covenant in Christ has always been the only way that man can be reconciled to God. Your problem is that you're confusing the temporary Covenant of land God gave to Israel of Old, with the Eternal Covenant of Redemption through the New Covenant in Christ that has existed from creation to all mankind.

That's why Scripture says that Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. According to promise God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son enacted a Covenant from eternity that would make a way for fallen man to be redeemed from sin and eternally saved. The spiritual Seed that is Christ according to the flesh came from an ethnic race through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Though Abraham is spoken of as the father of the faithful, he was not an Israelite. This shows that salvation has never been according to ethnicity, but has always been by grace through faith to whosoever believers, whether from the Old Covenant nation, or Gentiles from every nation of the earth.

It is true that those who were eternally saved according to grace through faith during Old Covenant times were mostly from the ethnic race called Israel. But according to Scripture, though their number was as many as the stars of heaven only the remnant of them will be saved from the Old Covenant as well as the New.

Now, in Christ there is no longer two people, separated according to ethnicity, but one people in Christ, Christians.

You said:
“the seed (as many natural descendants) never foreknown of God.”
I guess you’re trying to link Galatian 3:16 with Romans 11:1-2.
The problem still persists, you’re taking a New Covenant perception into the Old Testament period. The spiritual seed in the OT times was predominately ethnic in nature. Need I say what ethnicity?

I quote the Apostle Paul. Perhaps you believe Paul to be contradictory fool. I do not. Since Paul does not contradict himself, we must discern ALL that he has said, and not try to pull one statement here and another there in an attempt to prove our unbiblical doctrine. And I have never said those of faith from the Old Covenant times were not predominantly ethnic Jews.

So, what you’re attempting to do is to make ethnicity evil. How gnostic of you. That God never worked through the descendants of Abraham all the way up to Christ’s first advent!

As I’ve already stated, the Church is the vehicle to restore Jacob and be a light unto the Gentiles: 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.

It is not I that makes ethnicity of no value in Christ! This truth is found in the writings of Scripture. God protected and provided for the physical descendants of Abraham until the first advent of Christ. That was necessary because Christ would be born a Galilean Jew. You lack understanding of Scripture because you have locked yourself up with the unbiblical doctrine of Postmillennialism. In your attempt to prove there will be more time, ONE thousand literal years for ethnic Jews to get right with God after Christ comes again you must ignore many passages and verses of Scripture or twist them and take them out of context to prove what cannot be biblically supported.

Christ will come again when the last (seventh) trumpet begins to sound. When the seventh angel begins to sound there will be no more time given for men/women to be saved. Because the mystery of God will be finished; i.e. Gentiles too will be eternally saved through Christ. The only time left once the seventh angel begins to sound will be Satan's little season. The only one's Satan will be deceiving during that time are Gog and Magog, names for anti-christs, and antichristians.

 

[RandyPNW]

Please, I know sarcasm when I hear it. I find that those who cry about being Christian-like, really can't remove the beam from their eye.

As for a lack of merit, it does help to stay on point and hold the preaching please.

I wasn't apologizing. But the fact you can't take an olive branch speaks volumes about the state of your "Christianity."

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The New Covenant in Christ has always been the only way that man can be reconciled to God. Your problem is that you're confusing the temporary Covenant of land God gave to Israel of Old, with the Eternal Covenant of Redemption through the New Covenant in Christ that has existed from creation to all mankind.

That's why Scripture says that Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. According to promise God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son enacted a Covenant from eternity that would make a way for fallen man to be redeemed from sin and eternally saved. The spiritual Seed that is Christ according to the flesh came from an ethnic race through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Though Abraham is spoken of as the father of the faithful, he was not an Israelite. This shows that salvation has never been according to ethnicity, but has always been by grace through faith to whosoever believers, whether from the Old Covenant nation, or Gentiles from every nation of the earth.

It is true that those who were eternally saved according to grace through faith during Old Covenant times were mostly from the ethnic race called Israel. But according to Scripture, though their number was as many as the stars of heaven only the remnant of them will be saved from the Old Covenant as well as the New.

Now, in Christ there is no longer two people, separated according to ethnicity, but one people in Christ, Christians.


I quote the Apostle Paul. Perhaps you believe Paul to be contradictory fool. I do not. Since Paul does not contradict himself, we must discern ALL that he has said, and not try to pull one statement here and another there in an attempt to prove our unbiblical doctrine. And I have never said those of faith from the Old Covenant times were not predominantly ethnic Jews.



It is not I that makes ethnicity of no value in Christ! This truth is found in the writings of Scripture. God protected and provided for the physical descendants of Abraham until the first advent of Christ. That was necessary because Christ would be born a Galilean Jew. You lack understanding of Scripture because you have locked yourself up with the unbiblical doctrine of Postmillennialism. In your attempt to prove there will be more time, ONE thousand literal years for ethnic Jews to get right with God after Christ comes again you must ignore many passages and verses of Scripture or twist them and take them out of context to prove what cannot be biblically supported.

Christ will come again when the last (seventh) trumpet begins to sound. When the seventh angel begins to sound there will be no more time given for men/women to be saved. Because the mystery of God will be finished; i.e. Gentiles too will be eternally saved through Christ. The only time left once the seventh angel begins to sound will be Satan's little season. The only one's Satan will be deceiving during that time are Gog and Magog, names for anti-christs, and antichristians.

Your preaching is presumptuous. When did I ask you for a sermon? It’s probably because you can’t stick to the issues. Just stick to the issues and I won’t have to make such side comments.

As to your “eternal covenant of redemption” you’re making that up; there is no evidence for such a notion. God’s covenants were certainly planned, but they were planned for specific times, which precludes any “eternal” slants.

And your admissions are noted. You had to admit that God worked through ethnic people, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And those are the “people” Paul is addressing in Romans 11:1-2, you know the ones that God “foreknew” and had not cast off! God did not foreknow a mixed people from all nations in the context of Romans 11:1-2, which you’re trying to assert. Such an admission substantiates that Israel did not fail and the elect descendants of Jacob obtained what Israel sought (Romans 11:7), contrary to what Amill asserts.

As for Paul, my critique concerned your attempt to use Galatians 3:16 to eliminate Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the “seed” through which the Gentiles are blessed. Paul affirms that the seed can be interpreted as “singular” for Christ, and “plural” for the descendants of Abraham, which we see in verse 29. If we are Christ’s then we are Abraham’s seed (plural). Clearly, Isaac and Jacob were the seed through which Christ came, and their descendants were the people God foreknew. You need to read Matthew chapter 1 again.

Again, what presumption; I am not a postmill. I would say you have more in common with a postmill, seeing that you too believe Israel failed. That bogus belief has permeated Amill, and postmil. It’s called replacement theology and you are guilty of it.

I’m a premillennialist that abides by the scriptures that maintain Israel did not fail, and that Christ came to punish the shepherds and scatter the sheep. He sowed the good seed of Israel in accordance with 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]

I wasn't apologizing. But the fact you can't take an olive branch speaks volumes about the state of your "Christianity."

As I said, I find those who cry about being Christian-like, really can't see the beam in their eye.

 

[RandyPNW]

As I said, I find those who cry about being Christian-like, really can't see the beam in their eye.

It isn't a "beam" to say negative things if they are true and designed to get us back on track. You're not interested in that--only attacks. So be it.

 

[rwb]

Your preaching is presumptuous. When did I ask you for a sermon? It’s probably because you can’t stick to the issues. Just stick to the issues and I won’t have to make such side comments.

As to your “eternal covenant of redemption” you’re making that up; there is no evidence for such a notion. God’s covenants were certainly planned, but they were planned for specific times, which precludes any “eternal” slants.

And your admissions are noted. You had to admit that God worked through ethnic people, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And those are the “people” Paul is addressing in Romans 11:1-2, you know the ones that God “foreknew” and had not cast off! God did not foreknow a mixed people from all nations in the context of Romans 11:1-2, which you’re trying to assert. Such an admission substantiates that Israel did not fail and the elect descendants of Jacob obtained what Israel sought (Romans 11:7), contrary to what Amill asserts.

Then it is your opinion that the majority of the Old Covenant ethnic race who died in unbelief were foreknown of God and therefore were the image of Christ, but died in unbelief anyway??? That's preposterous! According to Paul God did not cast off the people whom He foreknew. Also, according to Paul God did save the remnant of them and cast the rest from the Old Covenant nation away. Paul was quite clear only those of the root (Christ) were foreknown of God and holy, the rest, who were not among those whom God foreknew died in unbelief. There is only Judgment Day left for the man who dies in unbelief.

Hebrews 9:27 (KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

As for Paul, my critique concerned your attempt to use Galatians 3:16 to eliminate Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the “seed” through which the Gentiles are blessed. Paul affirms that the seed can be interpreted as “singular” for Christ, and “plural” for the descendants of Abraham, which we see in verse 29. If we are Christ’s then we are Abraham’s seed (plural). Clearly, Isaac and Jacob were the seed through which Christ came, and their descendants were the people God foreknew. You need to read Matthew chapter 1 again.

You clearly have no understanding of what the foreknowledge of God means. I'm disappointed in you Jerry, I thought you had better understanding of Scripture then what you are demonstrating in this discussion. Do you really believe Old Covenant Israelites who died in unbelief were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, of the called, justified and glorified in Him? Only in your imagination!

Romans 8:29-30 (KJV) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Scripture is very clear whosoever dies in unbelief will stand before God in Judgment and hear, "Depart from Me, I never knew you"!

Again, what presumption; I am not a postmill. I would say you have more in common with a postmill, seeing that you too believe Israel failed. That bogus belief has permeated Amill, and postmil. It’s called replacement theology and you are guilty of it.

Yes, Postmillennialism and Amillennialism do have a common understanding of Scripture regarding the Old Covenant nation of Israel. We can read what is plainly recorded in Scripture of how God chose the nation to bring forth the Savior/Messiah of the world. And how God repeatedly warned them that without obedience to Him they would not have eternal life. The failed miserably through pride and unbelief! It has always been, from the beginning of creation, God's plan to begin His Church with a small elect, foreknown remnant from the Old Covenant people that would expand exponentially under the New Covenant through Christ. They would be the True Church, the true people whom God foreknew, and become the "Israel of God" that is no longer but a small remnant, but a great innumerable multitude of people of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.

I’m a premillennialist that abides by the scriptures that maintain Israel did not fail, and that Christ came to punish the shepherds and scatter the sheep. He sowed the good seed of Israel in accordance with 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.

Whatever you identify yourself to be makes little difference! It has become quite apparent that you have no real understanding of so much Scripture. This discussion has been disappointing and also enlightening. Thanks for the discussion, have a blessed day.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Then it is your opinion that the majority of the Old Covenant ethnic race who died in unbelief were foreknown of God and therefore were the image of Christ, but died in unbelief anyway??? That's preposterous! According to Paul God did not cast off the people whom He foreknew. Also, according to Paul God did save the remnant of them and cast the rest from the Old Covenant nation away. Paul was quite clear only those of the root (Christ) were foreknown of God and holy, the rest, who were not among those whom God foreknew died in unbelief. There is only Judgment Day left for the man who dies in unbelief.

Hebrews 9:27 (KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:



You clearly have no understanding of what the foreknowledge of God means. I'm disappointed in you Jerry, I thought you had better understanding of Scripture then what you are demonstrating in this discussion. Do you really believe Old Covenant Israelites who died in unbelief were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, of the called, justified and glorified in Him? Only in your imagination!

Romans 8:29-30 (KJV) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Scripture is very clear whosoever dies in unbelief will stand before God in Judgment and hear, "Depart from Me, I never knew you"!



Yes, Postmillennialism and Amillennialism do have a common understanding of Scripture regarding the Old Covenant nation of Israel. We can read what is plainly recorded in Scripture of how God chose the nation to bring forth the Savior/Messiah of the world. And how God repeatedly warned them that without obedience to Him they would not have eternal life. The failed miserably through pride and unbelief! It has always been, from the beginning of creation, God's plan to begin His Church with a small elect, foreknown remnant from the Old Covenant people that would expand exponentially under the New Covenant through Christ. They would be the True Church, the true people whom God foreknew, and become the "Israel of God" that is no longer but a small remnant, but a great innumerable multitude of people of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.



Whatever you identify yourself to be makes little difference! It has become quite apparent that you have no real understanding of so much Scripture. This discussion has been disappointing and also enlightening. Thanks for the discussion, have a blessed day.

Like every Amill you like to make things up. Again, the good seed that God foreknew prior to Paul’s citation was overwhelmingly the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I’m merely making straight what Amill made crooked. Sorry, you’ve already admitted that the people that God was working with before Paul wrote were overwhelmingly the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That’s the “people” God foreknew.

And the term “people” must be interpreted the same way that Abraham’s “seed” blesses the Gentiles. Both terms refer to the good seed, the same good seed that is sown in the world in fulfillment of 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.

Again, as for Israel’s so-called failure, you use the pronoun “they” as if God had not planned what happened at the first advent. As the Parable of the Tenants affirms, God had ordained the builders to reject the cornerstone and the management of the vineyard (Israel) changed. It’s still the elect of Israel who bears the fruit (whatever your name is)! God planned to change the management and sow the "good" seed of Israel in accordance with 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]

It isn't a "beam" to say negative things if they are true and designed to get us back on track. You're not interested in that--only attacks. So be it.

But the negative things aren't true, they are mere attacks.

 

[RandyPNW]

But the negative things aren't true, they are mere attacks.

I know you perceive things as attacks. That often happens when someone speaks out, crosses someone's doctrine, or appears to be taking a superior position over somebody else. I wouldn't fault you for speaking out if you thought you were being attacked.

But I have no desire to attack you--just to express my beliefs so that if it is true it will help someone. I didn't have a lot of help when I was a young Christian, so I'm putting my beliefs out there to be accepted or to be rejected, to hopefully save someone some of the struggles I had with little help.

We are on the same side. But it's sometimes hard to see that when we're discussing doctrine and hold to different positions. Have a nice day.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I know you perceive things as attacks. That often happens when someone speaks out, crosses someone's doctrine, or appears to be taking a superior position over somebody else. I wouldn't fault you for speaking out if you thought you were being attacked.

But I have no desire to attack you--just to express my beliefs so that if it is true it will help someone. I didn't have a lot of help when I was a young Christian, so I'm putting my beliefs out there to be accepted or to be rejected, to hopefully save someone some of the struggles I had with little help.

We are on the same side. But it's sometimes hard to see that when we're discussing doctrine and hold to different positions. Have a nice day.

I don’t think you understand that if one stands for the truth, they “are going to be attacked.” The servant isn’t greater than the master. I don’t “stand” with dispensationalist, preterists, amills, postmills, and a lot of historicists, which is tantamount to provoking an attack. That’s OK because I accept that role in life because I’m good at it. And I recognize when I’m being attacked, so don’t act as if you’re not into that. I think you get off on it.

I forgive you, but you’ll have to show me more grace before you see my geniality.

 

[RandyPNW]

I don’t think you understand that if one stands for the truth, they “are going to be attacked.” The servant isn’t greater than the master. I don’t “stand” with dispensationalist, preterists, amills, postmills, and a lot of historicists, which is tantamount to provoking an attack. That’s OK because I accept that role in life because I’m good at it. And I recognize when I’m being attacked, so don’t act as if you’re not into that. I think you get off on it.

I forgive you, but you’ll have to show me more grace before you see my geniality.

You owe it to God to be congenial--not to me, brother. If you haven't learned that yet, you still have a lot to learn.

All of the doctrinal groups you mentioned aren't your enemies. They just hold to different opinions. The fundamental doctrines matter more, and they were established in the historic creeds.

Don't make yourself into a warrior for God, or a martyr for the truth. If you do so among Christians, you begin with a sectarian spirit and will help nobody. Focus on the essentials, and discuss the rest.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

You owe it to God to be congenial--not to me, brother. If you haven't learned that yet, you still have a lot to learn.

All of the doctrinal groups you mentioned aren't your enemies. They just hold to different opinions. The fundamental doctrines matter more, and they were established in the historic creeds.

Don't make yourself into a warrior for God, or a martyr for the truth. If you do so among Christians, you begin with a sectarian spirit and will help nobody. Focus on the essentials, and discuss the rest.

I don’t bear ill will but God doesn’t require me to be congenial to any opinion. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.

Your response to my doctrine was certainly not congenial.

Again, I don’t bear ill will but I simply don’t have to agree that your opinion is as good as mine. That is a non sequitur when it comes to the truth.

 

[RandyPNW]

I don’t bear ill will but God doesn’t require me to be congenial to any opinion. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.

Your response to my doctrine was certainly not congenial.

Again, I don’t bear ill will but I simply don’t have to agree that your opinion is as good as mine. That is a non sequitur when it comes to the truth.

I've been battling what may be COVID the last 4 days, and I'm not at my best. I've never said you have to agree with me. But God does require brothers and sisters to try to get along. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I've been battling what may be COVID the last 4 days, and I'm not at my best. I've never said you have to agree with me. But God does require brothers and sisters to try to get along. That's all I'm saying.

As I stated, I don’t bare ill will, which means I’m not being intolerant just because don’t agree with your opinions. And you’re entitled to feel the same way. Hope you feel better.

 

[RandyPNW]

As I stated, I don’t bare ill will, which means I’m not being intolerant just because don’t agree with your opinions. And you’re entitled to feel the same way. Hope you feel better.

I've been on several forums lately, and I discovered people were getting angry with me for various things. So I had to do some soul-searching--maybe I'm saying things with a little "acid" mixed in without being aware of it, due to the very distressing flu condition I'm experiencing?

Thank you for the well wishes!