The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The very first words that Jesus preached, was simply

Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

oops. Not a physical kingdom... Thus, not what you said.

 

[Guojing]

oops. Not a physical kingdom... Thus, not what you said.

That is your particular interpretation. I understand if you won't change your mind.

I have already elaborated what I meant in an earlier post

The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

Anyway, if your particular interpretation is the correct one, then Jesus made no sense when he taught them the Lord's Prayer to pray for his kingdom to come and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is your particular interpretation. I understand if you won't change your mind.

I have already elaborated what I meant in an earlier post

The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

Anyway, if your particular interpretation is the correct one, then Jesus made no sense when he taught them the Lord's Prayer to pray for his kingdom to come and his will be done, on earth as it is in heaven

Nothing you posted, quoted, or tried to use,

not one iota, shows a physical kingdom yet.

p.s. Are you a dispensationalist !? Are your errors just yours or theirs too !?

 

[Dale]

Can you show us in the quotes of Chafer or some other dispensationalists where they say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that has followed is "ONLY" a parenthesis, (as you tell us they say)?

I don't see it any of the quotes you provided.

When you purposefully use the word "only", it makes their view of Christ and His sacrifice and the building of His Body seem of little importance to them. Unless you can provide statements where they do so minimize their importance - I will consider your charges as rather disingenuous and, excuse the expression, you are up to no good as you are misrepresenting their view of Christ and His centrality in history and in God's plan.

Please show me that that isn't so and I am mistaken about you. Please provide a quote where Chafer minimizes the importance of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary.

I'm not sure why you are making a big deal about my use of "only." The sentence in the OP where I introduce "parenthesis" means the same thing if that word is crossed out. In writing, the only reason for putting something in parenthesis is if it is of doubtful importance, or if it is off the subject.

World Book Dictionary defines a parenthesis as an "interval," "digression" or "hiatus." The New Oxford Dictionary says that a parenthesis can be used to set aside an "afterthought." The Sage defines it as an "aside," a "digression," or "a message that departs from the main subject."

That's why I am so surprised that Dispensationalists describe the Crucifixion and the church age which follows it as a "parenthesis." They said it themselves, the Crucifixion etc. is a digression or a detour from the plan which God announced in the OT.

 

[Dale]

Can you show us in the quotes of Chafer or some other dispensationalists where they say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that has followed is "ONLY" a parenthesis, (as you tell us they say)?

I don't see it any of the quotes you provided.

When you purposefully use the word "only", it makes their view of Christ and His sacrifice and the building of His Body seem of little importance to them. Unless you can provide statements where they do so minimize their importance - I will consider your charges as rather disingenuous and, excuse the expression, you are up to no good as you are misrepresenting their view of Christ and His centrality in history and in God's plan.

Please show me that that isn't so and I am mistaken about you. Please provide a quote where Chafer minimizes the importance of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary.

His Student: "Please show me that that isn't so and I am mistaken about you. Please provide a quote where Chafer minimizes the importance of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary."

In the seven book anthology of Chafer's works that I have, "kingdom" appears over 500 times. I can't tell exactly because Kindle stops counting at 500. At the same time, "Calvary" appears only five times and two of those are specifically as an event that ends a Dispensation. The word "cross" appears 274 times.

It looks like Chafer refers to "kingdom" about twice as many times as he uses "cross" or "Calvary."

When Chafer says "kingdom," he means a religious theocracy.

 

[Guojing]

Nothing you posted, quoted, or tried to use,

not one iota, shows a physical kingdom yet.

p.s. Are you a dispensationalist !? Are your errors just yours or theirs too !?

Luke 1 NLT 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

If you don't want to interpret verses literally, that is a choice you make. Of course you would disagree with me.

To me, when Gabriel said the "throne of his ancestor David", the literal interpretation would be, just as David was King reigning over from Jerusalem, so was the promise of Jesus as the King of the Jews, if only they accepted him.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

re 104. Did that quote appear somewhere ? I don't think that was done.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Luke 1 NLT 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”
< ... ... ... (the rest) ... ... ... >

THis UNDERLINED part is true anyway.

The rest, not so sure - seems biased , not proper..... not in line with God's Word.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

To me, when Gabriel said the "throne of his ancestor David", the literal interpretation would be, just as David was King reigning over from Jerusalem, so was the promise of Jesus as the King of the Jews, if only they accepted him.

So? Again, this will happen when Yahuweh has planned it to happen, not before. It is not yet, obviously!

 

[Guojing]

So? Again, this will happen when Yahuweh has planned it to happen, not before. It is not yet, obviously!

If the Jewish nation accepted Jesus during his first coming, it would have happened there and then.

Just like Adam, they must be given a legitimate choice to accept or reject him. The fact that God foreknew that choice does not mean they had no free will to make it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If the Jewish nation accepted Jesus during his first coming, it would have happened there and then.

Not possible.

And no physical kingdom yet.

 

[Al Touthentop]

There's no mention of the Gentiles in the passages you quoted, true. Selective quotations though are not proof of anything.

Isaiah 11:10 “And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious.”

Isaiah 49:6
Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

Amos 9:12
That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.

Micah 5:8
And the remnant of Jacob Shall be among the Gentiles, In the midst of many peoples, Like a lion among the beasts of the forest, Like a young lion among flocks of sheep, Who, if he passes through, Both treads down and tears in pieces, And none can deliver.

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the Lord of hosts.

Acts 2:38,39
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [a]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

"all who are afar off" = Gentiles.

Peter was the first apostle to preach to Gentiles and it took a bit of convincing by the Holy Spirit and a vision before he understood that it was always intended to be so but as Paul said the prophecies foretold and Jesus hinted, "to the Jew first and then the Greek."

Matt. 16:19
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The keys here are the keys to unlock the kingdom. Jesus was talking to Peter specifically and it is Peter who preached the first sermon to Jews and then to Gentiles. He opened the kingdom first to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, then the Gentiles when he preached to Cornelius. After that Paul preached to the Gentiles exclusively but only after Peter had opened the gates.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Luke 1 NLT 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[c] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

If you don't want to interpret verses literally, that is a choice you make. Of course you would disagree with me.

To me, when Gabriel said the "throne of his ancestor David", the literal interpretation would be, just as David was King reigning over from Jerusalem, so was the promise of Jesus as the King of the Jews, if only they accepted him.

That would be the literal interpretation if Jesus had not on multiple occasions disavowed the physical kingdom in place of the spiritual one he came to establish and teach.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Luke 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Then of course you have dozens of parables where Jesus tries to explain the kingdom, comparing it with a sower, ten virgins, a bridegroom, a vineyard owner, etc etc etc, all of which if you decide to interpret literally would still have little to explain about a physical kingdom.

A kingdom that lasts forever cannot be physical on earth, especially when it is explained that the earth is itself not going to last forever.

 

[Guojing]

Not possible.

And no physical kingdom yet.

If you lean more towards predestination instead of free will, that belief of yours is understandable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you lean more towards predestination instead of free will, that belief of yours is understandable.

Stick with Scripture as Revealed by the Father to little children.

 

[Guojing]

That would be the literal interpretation if Jesus had not on multiple occasions disavowed the physical kingdom in place of the spiritual one he came to establish and teach.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Luke 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Then of course you have dozens of parables where Jesus tries to explain the kingdom, comparing it with a sower, ten virgins, a bridegroom, a vineyard owner, etc etc etc, all of which if you decide to interpret literally would still have little to explain about a physical kingdom.

A kingdom that lasts forever cannot be physical on earth, especially when it is explained that the earth is itself not going to last forever.

There are various ways to explain why Jesus, in the middle of his ministry cease preaching about the physical kingdom to the public.

The most reasonable one to me was to allow the Jews a second chance. By preaching only in parables after that, the Jews can be legitimately forgiven, under the Law of Moses, for rejecting God, due to ignorance.

Thus, when the 12 picked up the mantle again after Jesus resurrected and went back to heaven, the final offer of a Kingdom can still be made to them (Acts 3:17-20)

17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

 

[Guojing]

Stick with Scripture as Revealed by the Father to little children.

All of us interpret Scripture based on our beliefs.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

All of us interpret Scripture based on our beliefs.

Not those who obey the Father. He says Scripture is NOT OPEN to private interpretation, ever.

 

[Guojing]

Not those who obey the Father. He says Scripture is NOT OPEN to private interpretation, ever.

Naturally, you would think your interpretation is the correct one.

 

[Al Touthentop]

There are various ways to explain why Jesus, in the middle of his ministry cease preaching about the physical kingdom to the public.

The most reasonable one to me was to allow the Jews a second chance. By preaching only in parables after that, the Jews can be legitimately forgiven, under the Law of Moses, for rejecting God, due to ignorance.

He never preached about an earthly kingdom. He uses the terms, "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" exclusively, indicating that the realm of the kingdom was NEVER intended to be earthly. And then there is of course the matter of him explicitly saying that it was not of this earth. There is no evidence that he made any change at all in his teaching on this. In fact, after he was raised from the dead, he mocked two of his disciples for thinking that there was ever any doubt as to what was to take place.

Luke 24:25,26
Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Thus, when the 12 picked up the mantle again after Jesus resurrected and went back to heaven, the final offer of a Kingdom can still be made to them (Acts 3:17-20)

17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

This is a stretching of the text to attempt meeting a pre-conceived narrative.

The problem with interpreting Acts 3:17-20 as being some sort of attempt to extend an olive branch and establish an earthly kingdom is that there was never any mention or promise of an earthly kingdom by Jesus or the prophecies. Also, you have the problem of the the sermon on the Day of Pentecost where Peter explains that it was foretold that Jesus would sit on the throne, not on earth but in heaven. He's preaching to Jews, the same Jews who crucified Christ and he doesn't offer them membership in an earthly kingdom but a heavenly one. He's explaining why it is they were wrong in their own interpretation of the scriptures and this explanation causes thousands to repent, obey and become Christians.

Jesus pointed out that scripture was not speaking of earthly things before he was crucified. As he points out at the end of Luke's gospel, it was always known that many Jews would reject his kingdom. Not a surprise, not unplanned for. They were given 33 years to submit and then God destroyed their earthly kingdom. Modern Israel is not any sort of re-establishment of God's people. That cow left the barn.

Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’

37 Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

It was never going to be a physical kingdom and it never will be.