Featured Historic Premillennialism defended

mainly that there is an actual rapture, as Historical pre mil see Rapture is the Second Coming!

 

We hold that the Messianic Age will be where the Messaih actually rules and reigns over the earth, that satan is really bound, and that all peoples/nations on earth worship God and Christ alone!

Your view negate/deny all of that from ever happening!

 

Don't know who you are addressing but the Bible teaches in Revelation 21, 22 that all the redeemed will worship GOD in the New Heavens and New Earth. That is the message of Isaiah 66 also!

 

And before that happens, Jesus will rule over all of his enemies here on the earth, in the Messianic Age!

 

You simply refuse to believe Scripture rather than Darby's epiphany!

 

Perhaps the interpretation of Daniel's 70th seek destroys Amillenialism.

A totally irrelevant statement.

The scripture is clear that Christ is the first-fruits of them that rose again, i.e. believers or first resurrection. Thus, in a sense, he is part of the first resurrection--the first phase. He is the first-fruits.
Thus the first resurrection hasn't taken place yet. More commonly it is called the resurrection of the "just," or "the rapture." And it refers to more than just one person.

Every one has their own opinion and he is entitled to his. I am not sure in which context you quoted him, nor does it really matter to me. The first resurrection takes place before the tribulation, and the second resurrection takes place takes place after the Millennial kingdom. Those are the resurrections.
The first coming (rapture) takes place before the tribulation and the second coming takes place after the tribulation or at the end of it. Perhaps this is where you are confused.

 

Preeminent Dispensationalist John Walvoord on the Resurrections

The following view is by John F. Walvoord, a contemporary dispensational theologian, and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary. The information is excerpted from Major Bible Prophecies, page 376ff.

My comments follow in the nest post!

 

Note: The reader will note that Walvoord’s exposition of this passage is not consistent with the dispensational hermeneutic of literal interpretation of Scripture, or as Ryrie insists, taking Scripture at face value. He concedes that

Then he proceeds to make the ‘first resurrection of Revelation 20:6 the fifth resurrection and goes on to say that it is called the first resurrection, as follows: “Accordingly, the point of the term “the first resurrection” is that it is first, not in the sense of being number one or prior to all resurrections, but in the sense that it occurs before the final resurrection, the resurrection of the wicked.” Remarkably Walvord, after applying a non-literal interpretation of Revelation 20:6, has the arrogance to write: “It is amazing how scholars have ignored the plain statement of this passage and tried to make it a general resurrection of all the dead or even make it a reference to the new birth of the believer at the time of his faith in Christ.”

 

The dispensational "hermeneutic is simply that God works in different ways in various economies throughout history using different men to do so. That is it.
It will be also noted that although the average dispensationalist interprets the Bible literally so do many covenant theologians and others that are not dispensational.

There are many kinds of dispensationalists. They are not a homogenous group. There are just as many dispensationalists as there are Baptists. Therefore your quotes from Walvoord as "the authority" is irrelevant.

Let me use a better example that might work for you?
Your beliefs are Calvinistic in nature. Therefore you should believe exactly the same as Luke does correct?

 

There is trhe first resurrection, blessed are those who partake in that, and then 1000 yeras later is the second one, that is from the bible!

 

I would simply note that it has been almost 2000 years since the First Resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That cannot be truthfully denied!

 

MacArthur, Zuck and Walvoord (as joint commentators) both agree that the resurrection of Christ was the first-fruits, being the first phase, of the first resurrection. The first resurrection is yet to come. The first phase only has taken place.

 

I was really hoping to see more interaction from evangelist6589 in this thread. He starts this thread and then stops posting after the first page. That seems to be a consistent trend of his.

I was hoping at least for more than the expected debate between OR and DHK...

Speaking of OR, are you back for good this time?