ANy others here hold To Tulip, yet Still remained a Dispensationalist?

Luke 17:21, KJV
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


Colossians 1:12-19, KJV
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

 

Someone asked for this passage: RE:The Millennium.

Seeing the path this thread has taken I skimmed by most of the debate to the present end post:

Here it is with context:

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.​

HankD

 

If by Jesus stating in Luke that the kingdom is internal to the believer then one could conclude that the kingdom was in force before the cross. Even so, I would like to know at what point in human history the kingdom began? You know, the Bible teaches that there is going to be a kingdom like that of David's where the second person of the triune God will rule. You might have missed this.

It is absurd to make the claim that the kingdom is now in full effect within the church. True, there are aspects of the kingdom in the church but many details are not found there. If the kingdom is in the church we are in deep trouble, unless you think in your wildiest dreams that the terms of the new covenant spelled out in Jer 31:31-40 are realized in the church.

It really comes down to your belief if the Bible is reliable or not. I say it is and thus wait for Jehovah to to bring in the kingdom as detailed in the Bible. You apparently are satisfied that a group of flawed but redeemed are living in the promised kingdom of David, which we are not because the times of the gentiles are not concluded.

 

I'm coming late to this thread, and I may be covering something already dealt with. but I'm too lazy to go back and read all of the posts.

I was a dispensationalist before I became a DoG. But nobody ever told me that you can't be both at the same time.

Now, I have become a historical pre-mil, but I'm still a Calvinist. Am I missing something here? What does your eschatology have to do with being a Calvinist?

 

Yes, one event at the end of the tribulation.

Explain to me then, what it is the ALL of Calvinism that Reformed folks say we have to take?

Does this mean that all Reformed are Calvinist or all Calvinists are not Reformed?

 

Exactly how is begin a dispensationalist vs. Calvinist either one exclusive of being "God dependent when studying scripture"? I would hope and pray that all who call themselves Christian (regardless of if they admit to being Calvinistic or dispensationalist) would approach God's Word with the "God-dependent" attitude! Anything less is to take our presuppositions and mangle the Word.

 

Correct....b4c:applause::applause::thumbsup:

 

I used to be, moderately.

I am quickly shedding it as I have to deal with hyperdispensationalism regularly (the Acts 9+ 12 out type that sees baptism as only a Jewish/Israel requirement for salvation and virtually forbidden for today). Hyperdispensationalism is ultimately consistent dispensationalism, and any attempt to defend elements of it leads to self-contradictions and leaves one wide open to the slippery slope of "Paul-onlyism."

I consider myself more like a "New Covenant Theologian," although I have never seriously read any of their works.

Like the dispensationalists, I believe there is a drastic difference between what we are under now and what the Old Testament saints were under concerning the Law (outward ordinances). I do not believe we have ANY outward ordinances (except for baptism and the Lord's supper) and that all the ones in the Law (including the Sabbath days) were types and shadows fulfilled in Jesus Christ in the blood of the New Covenant. Yes, unlike the dispensationalists, I believe we ARE in the New Covenant.

Like the covenant theologians, I believe there is only one people of God in all ages. There is no distinction between believing "Israel" and the church unless the context is addressing the Jewish remnant of Israel. I differ from covenant theologians in that I do not try to force things that are different to be too much the same (Old and New covenants).

 

If anyone is keeping track,

I am both a holder of much of the dispensation view, and also one who might be considered tulip in thinking.

Perhaps this thread could have done with a pole so my little head could keep up with who is where in this.

Perhaps someone can post a list of views, and who holds which view and tulip and those that don't.

 

The problem is that I have to face and debate hypers in person. These are the type who believe that:
1. The church started with Paul's conversion, with him as the first member.
2. The church is not under ANY "covenant" (despite 1 Cor 11:25 and 2 Cor 3:6).
3. Paul taught an entirely separate "gospel" than did Jesus or "the Twelve."
4. The Twelve continued to preach the former "kingdom gospel" at the same time as Paul taught the "grace gospel" until God put Israel on hold in Acts 28.
5. The non-Pauline epistles were written for the Israelite "kingdom" recipients of their time and for future millennium believers, but not at all for the church of today.
6. Only in the Pauline "dispensation of grace" are people saved "by grace alone through faith alone;" at all other times people had to earn their salvation through works.
7. The New Covenant is not in effect today. It started at Pentecost, but was postponed until the millennium. The New Covenant is very much Law-oriented and is very close to the Old Covenant except that it is absent animal sacrifices and that the writing of the Law in the hearts is God giving these believers knowledge and memory of the Law so that they could follow it under persecution.
8. Believers in the millennium will need to be circumcised and follow the Law.
9. There is no eternal security outside today's antinomian "dispensation of grace." People in other dispensations had to work for their salvation and they could lose it.

These hypers are also ardent open theists who believe that God does not know the future contingent choices people will make. When you think about it, dispensationalism (especially the hyper variety) logically leads to open theism if God prophesies something and then changes His plans based on how people respond.

Any attempt to defend dispensational premillenialism and a pretribulational rapture would leave me vulnerable to the logic of the hypers. In fact, after studying the issue, I cannot see any way to be consistent and accept these ideas without getting stuck in "the mystery" as taught by the hypers. I am now seeing that, since Jesus, the Twelve, and Paul all referenced "the kingdom" in different contexts, that "the kingdom" covers an "already, but not yet" concept of Christ's reign. Christ is now reigning and we are in "the kingdom" as citizens, but the physical manifestation will happen when Christ comes back "to deliver up the kingdom to the Father" and destroy His adversaries and death. I am finding it difficult to accept a "literal" earthly millenial reign. It could be that the "church age" is the millennium, the "tribulation" (the time of Jacob's trouble) happened during the first century (although we still face tribulations), and that Christ will return to culminate all things. He will come visibly, but it may not be in this manifestation for 1000 years.