Dispy's chief error not eschatological but is Ecclisiological

That is a good question but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Sadly some dispensationalists teach that the Church actually fails in its mission, that more people will be converted during the 7 year trib than during the entire Church age. It is my opinion that most people who believe in the rapture/7 year trib/millennial reign have no idea of anything dispensationalism teaches other than dispensational eschatology.

 

Because we believe all of Scripture and don't confuse passages that talk about one thing with something else. Every verse you cite teaches that the church does not fail but accomplishes its mission.

No verse you cite suggests that God will not fulfill his promises to Israel. And that is the point. God will keep his promises.

I think you are right that the chief difference is not eschatological, but it is neither ecclesiological. It is actually hermeneutical. The question really centers on how we deal with the text and understand how God's word should be used.

Citing four passages like you did as if they answer the whole issue is an indication of just how shallow this type of approach is. You act like dispensationalists have never thought of that, and have no answer. The answer to this is easy. they deal with something else.

 

Larry,

Nowhere in the New Testament suggests that there will be physical nation of Israel again as "rebirth" that God did keep his promise to the 'Jews ONLY'.

Old Testament deals Israel as earthly nation.
New Testament deals Israel as heavenly nation.

In Gal. 4:24-26 describe about the two covenants.

vs. 24 - "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."

vs. 25 - "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bodnage with her children.

vs. 26 - "BUT Jerusalem which is ABOVE is free, which is the mother of US ALL."

Bible doesn't say that we will looking forward this present Modern Jerusalem will become world's capitol in coming millennial kingdom. Gal. 4:26 tells us, Jerusalem which is above is IN HEAVEN, that is "New Jerusalem" is our citizenship when we accepted Jesus Christ, and we are the child of God as membership.

By the way, this OLD Jerusalem which is currently located in modern Israel in the Middle East WILL BE DESTROYED by fire at His coming - 2 Peter 3:10-13. So, we do not need this old Jersualem in the future beyond Christ's coming. We are looking forward for new city which is above will be descend out of heaven, brought it down on new earth, and we shall dwell in it forever and ever........ !

Amen? AMEN! :applause:

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Except for the gospels, Acts, the epistles, and a few places in Revelation, you are correct.

No it doesn't.

But again, addressing things at this level just results in a back and forth that convinces no one. It doesn't address the real issue.

The real issue is how we treat the words of Scripture.

 

Larry,

Care to explain Gal. 4:24-26, what verse 26 mean to you?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Dispensationalists brag about their "literal" interpretation of Scripture but they will not interpret John 5:28, 29 properly.

28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

This passage is obviously talking about a general resurrection of all the dead. It is not a similie, a metaphor, hyperbole, and certainly not an allegory or parable yet dispensationalists deliberately misinterpret this passage ignoring that the hour means the hour. One rule for interpretation of Scripture, posted in another thread, is Obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones; the implicit is to be interpreted in light of the explicit. This passage is clearly explicit.

 

Steven, the first Christian Martyr (other than Christ Himself) says of Moses in
Act 7:38 (KJV1611 Edition):

This is he that was in ye Church in the wildernesse with the Angel, which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who receiued the liuely oracles, to giue vnto vs.

The church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38) consisted of the Children of Israel (Acts 7:37)

God has at least two non-local churches:
1. National Israel (AKA: Old Testament Church)
2. The largely gentile (but some Messianic Jews), New Testament Church

Seems the non-dispy's chief error is Ecclisiological not eschatological

 

Non-Dispensationalists brag about their "literal" interpretation of Scripture but they will not interpret John 5:28, 29 properly.

BTW, I disagree with lots of dispys also. Here is Ed's Dispy Doctrine. I will defend no other Dispy Doctrine.

---------------------------------------------------

Dispensation in the NT, KJV1769 family of editions (bolding by Ed):

1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward:
but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10 (KJV1769):
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might
gather together in one all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

The Holy Spirit hasn't shown me a lot more than is here. I do know the Greek word being translated here as 'dispensation' is the Greek word from which we get 'economy'.

I do know (IN SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE off the top of my head) that this is what the economy of God is like:

Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time
'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years
'½-week' = 3½-years
'1 day' = 'week' = 7 years
'month' = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time

Other 'economy of God facts':

the blind see
the dead live
the deaf hear
the lame leap like deer
the first is last
the last is first
Jesus Saves (totally!)
God Rules!!

Frequently the Bible discusses 'what is to be' is discussed in either present tense (is done) or past tense (done already done).

So a study of Greek tenses is generally frustrating. Us human type people can only do one day at a time. God can do everyday at a time - I think God may have invented all the days at the same time?
---------------------------------------------------

 

John 5:28-29 (un-specified source, quoted above)
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

OldRegular: // This passage is obviously talking about a general resurrection of all the dead. //

Amen, Brother OldRegular -- Preach it! :thumbs:
Be sure to avoid thinking that this passage reads:

28. Marvel not at this: for the
ONE AND ONLY, SINGULAR, UNIQUE, and 60-minute
hour is coming, in the which
(ONE AND ONLY, SINGULAR, UNIQUE, and 60-minute hour)
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation

In this passage 'hour' means the appropriate time (On God's calendar or watch. This verse talks about a general resurrection of all the dead, for indeed there will be a general resurrection for everybody - it won't happen all at the same time (unless one puts all time into one category).

// It is not a similie, a metaphor, hyperbole, and certainly not an allegory or parable ... //

Right-o, Amen, etc. It is a SUMMARY.

In the one TYPE of Resurrection (I.E. all resurrections)
1. "all that are in the graves shall hear his voice"
2. all "shall come forth" (in fact, this is the definition of 'resurrection'
3a - the good shall come out of the grave unto "the resurrection of life"
3b - they who have done evil unto "the resurrection of damnation".

BTW, there are two types of resurrection also discussed here:

1 - the good shall come out of the grave unto "the resurrection of life"
2 - they who have done evil unto "the resurrection of damnation"

I find it weird that some who read these two verses that talk first about one type of resurrection (the generic kind) then talks about two kinds of folks at the one type of resurrection -- that those folks run off and teach THERE IS ONE AND ONLY ONE RESURRECTION (or even the more stupid) THERE IS TWO AND ONLY TWO RESURRECTIONS.

 

Really? I wasn't aware of that.

Again, I wasn't aware of any dispenstionalist who denied this. Do you have someone in mind we can look at what they say?

 

Ed,

You should know better.

'Hour' of John 5:25 means that the time is come for the general resurrection to occur, because Christ will come for to judge the world.

Good example of 'hour' find in Matthew chapter 26. When after the Lord's supper finished. Christ asked John, Peter, and James came with him and to watch Him prayer in the garden. Christ's first pray in a hour, then he looked at disciples, they were asleep, then Christ asked Peter, why not watch Him praying. Then Christ pray again for another hour. After his second prayer, He came and check on disciples, they were still sleep. Then, Christ praying again thrid time, and Christ said, ".....behold , the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betryed into the hands of sinners." - Matthew 26:45. 'The hour is at hand' does not mean literal exactly length time of six minutes. It means the TIME has arrived for Christ to be hang up, within next about 12 hours later, Christ died on the cross.

John 15:25 tells us, time will be arrive for BOTH unbelievers and believers to be risen from the grave on the DAY as Lord arrived(coming) same time.

Notice John 6:39,40,44, and 54 say: 'last day'. It doesn't saying about 1000 years gap nothing at all. It simples saying that the resurrection will come at follow Christ's coming same time.

Not difficult to understand what 'last day' means as what Christ said. You have to accept what Christ actual said.

I rather follow what Christ saying than what any man saying.

Nowhere in the four gospels that, Christ say anything about a thousand year. Because millennium doctrine was not yet exist till 19th Century.

Some argue that premillennial doctrine was exist during Early Church during in the First Century and Second Century, as what Early fathers said of chilist(thousand years). Probably they are right. Yet, not all Early Christians were premills. Because, there were flaws among Early Church on their belief on millennium. Whilst, there were numbered of Early Fathers were amills long before St. Augustine. There were plenty of early Christians were amills for many centuries. While there was no term word for millennial doctrine. Because all of believed in one future coming, even, most of them believed there will be one judgement day.

Millennial doctrine became revive up during late 19th century as "premillennial" doctrine developed. It caused churches into divisions. Then later in year around 1920, "amillennial" was named, because there are already divisions among churches on eschatology doctrine. That why, they have decided to identify which group what they actual believe in.

For me, I understand the Bible simple teaching us, Christ will come again at once on the last day of the humankind era or gospel era, then the general resurrection come at once follow Christ's coming same time. And Christ will judge all nations at once. Matthew 25:31-46 is probably the clearest passage in the Bible that teaching ONE coming, ONE judgment Day. I rather follow what Christ actual saying than men saying- Col. 2:8. I believe that Christ's teaching is much more simple and plain than all men's teachings. That why I follow Christ's words than men's words.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Just read Ed's response prior to yours. In fact Macarthur [whom I admire as a writer] in his commentery on this passage states there are two resurrections separated by [an implied 1007 years].

It is a fact that dispensationalists deny this passage of Scripture which teaches a general resurrection and general judgment, the great white throne judgment.

 

There are two resurrections. Interestingly enough, the Bible even calls them that.

Again, I must confess that I don't know any dispensationalist who denies this passage of Scripture. Most people consider me a dispensationalist and I don't deny this passage.

 

He said it in Revelation. The early church was chiliastic for a reason ... it is what they were taught by teh apostles.

 

Then can I assume you believe in a general resurrection and judgment as John 5:28, 29 teaches and as Baptists throughout history believed until Scofield came along?

 

Sure, if I can assume you believe that God will only be worshipped at one particular instant (John 4:23), and that the call of salvation all happens at one time (John 5:25), that all of Jesus passion took place at one instant of time (John 12:27; 13:1), and I could go on and on.

Obviously, these examples show that your reading of this text completely ignores both the usage of the word "hour" and the whole text of Scripture on this issue. You are a prime example of what happens when someone gets something in their head and fails to submit their head to Scripture. "Hour" does not mean all at one particular instant. The Bible plainly declares that there are two resurrections, and that the first resurrection takes place in at least several stages. To deny this is to deny the Scriptures.

Your simplistic approach that ignores the Bible is not adequate to deal with this topic.

While you don't like dispensationalism, and that is fine, dispensationalism is unequestionably consistent with Scripture. While it is not without its difficulties, It answers the tough questions far better and more consistently than the alternatives.

 

The hour is The hour, period.

The Bible does teach there are two resurrections: the First and only Resurrection to date was that of Jesus Christ, the second resurrection is the resurrection of all the dead in the hour as taught in John 5:28, 29.

You cannot show one passage of Scripture that teaches that what you call the first resurrection takes place in several stages. First means First and the First Resurrection was that of Jesus Christ.

 

Of course, but what does that mean? I gave you several passages that show "the hour" is used in ways describing more than one instant of time. Surely you can't deny that can you?

That's not what the Bible says.

Have you even read your Bible? I don't want to be offensive, but this kind of nonsense just needs to go away. Let's look at the Bible:

Revelation 20:4-5 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Nothing there about the resurrection of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:21-23 or since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,

Here we plainly see that the first resurrection has at least two stages: Christ's and then those who are Christ's at his coming.

So OR, your position is biblically untenable. It is explicitly refuted.