The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

[David Kent]

I am not expert in such things so it's best to ask someone else if these verses actually apply ...


9 "Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. (Matthew 6:9-13, NRSV)

15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever." 16 Then the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 singing, "We give you thanks, Lord God Almighty, who are and who were, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. 18 The nations raged, but your wrath has come, and the time for judging the dead, for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints and all who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying those who destroy the earth." 19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation, 11:15-19, NRSV)

I have no doubt that God's kingdom will come to earth, but that is not the point that it was not offered to the Jews.

Daniels visions show that Christ's Kingdom with break the Kingdom in Daniel 2, and The Saints would take the Kingdom in Daniel 7.

 

[HardHead]

I have no doubt that God's kingdom will come to earth, but that is not the point that it was not offered to the Jews.

See Post #49 and #57, etc.

Can you explain a bit about the not offered part? In what way was it offered or not offered?

 

[His student]

There is no earthly kingdom. "My kingdom is not of this world." To insist upon an earthly, physical kingdom, is to argue with the king himself.

That's an excellent point and verse and one that is often used to support no literal kingdom on earth.

However Jesus goes on to say that "now" my kingdom is not of this world. Most dispensationalists would be quick to point that out to you.

But my intent here was not to defend or present the dispensational position. It was and is only to point out the disingenuous nature of the way the OP phrased "only a parenthesis".

I think I made my point on that subject for all to see.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

However Jesus goes on to say that "now" my kingdom is not of this world. Most dispensationalists would be quick to point that out to you.

\
IF SO, then please , at least one, >>
QUOTE ONE PRESENT . (on the forum) (IF there are any dispensationalists on the forum?)

 

[His student]

I have never heard any that mentioned the Kingdom of God is within you.

Like the one that says that His kingdom is not of this world - iIt's a very prominent verse and one that a dispensationalist would not choose to ignore or fail to comment on. Nor do many do so.

"When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

edit:

I added the word not to the second to the last sentence of the first paragraph. My bad.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Like the one that says that His kingdom is not of this world - iIt's a very prominent verse and one that a dispensationalist would choose to ignore or fail to comment on.

I don't think this is true. Also, it seems biased. However, if it is true, please quote some living dispensationalist that illustrates this point.

 

[His student]

\
IF SO, then please , at least one, >>
QUOTE ONE PRESENT . (on the forum) (IF there are any dispensationalists on the forum?)

I have never claimed to be a dispensationalist. Nor is it my job to comb the archives to find quotes from them.

Any dispensationalists care to comment?

 

[His student]

I don't think this is true. Also, it seems biased. However, if it is true, please quote some living dispensationalist that illustrates this point.

Notice that I added the word "not" to my statement in post number 85. Perhaps it cause confusion the way it was written.

Be that as it may - please read my last post number 87 and apply that reply to this post as well.

Thanks.

P.S.
Whether any quotes are provided for you by dispensationalists in this forum or not - does anyone really think that, in all their studies, writings and thousands of hours of college lectures, the likes of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost or John Walvrood never noticed or commented on the scriptures that were recently referred to here in this thread concerning the present kingdom?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Notice that I added the word "not" to my statement in post number 85. Perhaps it cause confusion the way it was written.

Be that as it may - please read my last post number 87 and apply that reply to this post as well.

Thanks.

THe "not"makes all the difference - total reversal, good. Thanks !

I have never claimed to be a dispensationalist. Nor is it my job to comb the archives to find quotes from them.

Without the "not", it looked like you knew what they thought or said or believed in a negative way to them.
Now it is positive for them, which is better, and probably still needs confirmed by 2 or more witnesses ... but it can rest for now... relieved.

 

[Guojing]

I have never claimed to be a dispensationalist. Nor is it my job to comb the archives to find quotes from them.

Any dispensationalists care to comment?

Matthew gives a very clear timeline:

1. Jesus came to offer a physical kingdom to the Jews.
2. The Jews rejected it.
3. From then on, about the time of the halfway mark of Matthew, Jesus stop preaching that to the public. He started for the first time, to preach in parables.
4. Privately to the 12, he started to reveal that he will be put to death but will rise from the dead at the 3rd day.
5. None of the 12 understood it and Peter even rebuked Jesus for saying that.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus came to offer a physical kingdom to the Jews.

Please quote Scripture for this.

 

[Guojing]

Please quote Scripture for this.

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.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The Scripture is never contradictory , true.

But to try to 'harmonize them' , is a human method, isn't it? i.e. fleshly concept, not spiritual as Revealed By the Father from Heaven ....

I suppose that could be an unfortunate way of putting it. They are already in harmony. if we think they're aren't, then we need to reconsider.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

As I read the op the fatal flaw is the belief God planned to institute a physical kingdom on the physical planet with Jesus as the physical king.

From the OP:

"This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).

'This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized.'"​

I have never heard that one. But it fits right into their general hypothesis. He will come back later and do that, according to them.

 

[Josheb]

That's what all of this end-times nonsense is about. "God's coming back and he's going to give us a front row seat view of your torture!"

A good book I recommend though I think in some places he goes to far, is https://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Madness-Obsession-Modern/dp/0915815354

ie; not every passage of New Testament prophecy points at ad70 (though many do).

Great book! A little (unnecessarily) harsh but must read. Are you a reconstructionist, Al?

 

[HardHead]

Whether any quotes are provided for you by dispensationalists in this forum or not - does anyone really think that, in all their studies, writings and thousands of hours of college lectures, the likes of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost or John Walvrood never noticed or commented on the scriptures that were recently referred to here in this thread concerning the present kingdom?

I don't get this. Is it a double reverse negative?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Great book! A little (unnecessarily) harsh but must read. Are you a reconstructionist, Al?

Not sure if it is good to read or not. I think it was written by a preterist. I'm not going to read it to find out though.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

P.S.
Whether any quotes are provided for you by dispensationalists in this forum or not - does anyone really think that, in all their studies, writings and thousands of hours of college lectures, the likes of Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost or John Walvrood never noticed or commented on the scriptures that were recently referred to here in this thread concerning the present kingdom?

So ?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Great book! A little (unnecessarily) harsh but must read. Are you a reconstructionist, Al?

I don't like all that labels might suggest but I can live with that one.

 

[Josheb]

I'm assuming this is a mistake as to what you think I was talking about.

It may be that a parenthesis is...………...

Did you understand what Dale posted regarding the "only" in the op?