Pre-millenial dispensationalism - Baptist?

I let you know, I am not a anit-Semitism. I do LOVE Jews! Last summer I visited my old deaf Christian friend's house in New York State. He is a Jew. I stayed at his house for 4 days. His parent both are Jews. I respect them very well. I love him, he is my brother in Messiah.

You misunderstanding what my real belief about Israel-Church.

I never saying that God ignore Jews, God does not cast Jews away - Romans 11:1. God just removed unbelieving Jews away from the Olive tree. But, believing Jews are still remain stay in the same Olive Tree. God added believing Gentiles to join with believing Jews together to share together on the same Olive Tree through Jesus Christ.

Gentiles are now share with Jews together with the same covenant, that God gave it to Abraham. I urge you read whole Galatians chapter 3 is very clear talking about both Jews and Gentiles are together into ONE through Jesus Christ by the faith only.

Both Jews and Gentiles are the same in God's sight. - Romans 10:12.

Amillennialism is not a anti-Semitism.

Hal Linsdey labels Amillennialism - anti-Semtitism is not true. Because he does not understand what amillennialism really believe.

While I was a premill for a long time. I know nothing on amillennialism till I studied on it only a year ago. Finally, I understand what they really believe.. I have been misunderstand what they really believe.

But, the more important thing that we should understand what the doctrines are: we have to study the God's word- study rightly divide(anylaze or digging deeper) the word of truth - 2 Tim 2:15.

I urge you to study the Bible more carefully more often as you will get understand better what the Bible teaching us all things.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DeafPost,

Oh I understand alright, but some of your interpretation slaughters the text.

The parable deals with VIRGINS...not PERSONS.

The text clearly states they are Virgins who missed the marriage. He does NOT say they became goats and He does not say they are flung into everlasting hellfire. The text says what it says..they missed the marriage because they did not know the Bridegroom.

If anything I see this text as speaking to having knowledge of Jesus as your personal saviour and developing a personal relationship with Him. I also see this as "christians" in name only being left behind at the Rapture event. The letters to 7 churches in Rev. 2 & 3 do hint at this as well.

Israel and the Church are two separate entities. The woman in Revelation 12 clothed in the sun, moon and stars is clearly Israel from Joseph's dream in Genesis. She's not a Virgin. She's not the bride of Christ, she gave birth to Christ.

Jesus(Yeshua) is the King of the Jews. Pilate proclaimed it on the cross. For the King to never take up his Kingdom and forever forsake His own people is ridiculous. He never sat on the Throne of David, he never ruled from Jerusalem and he never ruled as King and Priest. There's around 800 prophetic items left on his list of "things to do".

God is clearly dealing with Israel now and has been along with every other nation, tongue and tribe. The Apple of his eye will be avenged. (Zech. 2:8)

 

Dude...I am studying it.

I could say the same thing to you. Obviously we have different teachers.

I also look at history and see the effects of replacement theology always leading to the death of Jews.

When the church was the supreme authority from Rome, crusaders would stack Jewish babies on their lances for sport. There was a time as a Jew if you did not convert to Christianity under the authority of Rome then you were tortured and/or burned. The noncompliance of England to honor their agreement to establish a Jewish homeland, the refusal of the United States to accept Jewish refugees and the silence of the Pulpits of Europe led to 6 million gassed and burned.

That's where Replacement theology goes.

 

Steven,

We went through this amil isn't antisemetic thing in depth about a month ago. Sorry you missed it. Most people who believe that amil=antisemetic get their info about amils from dispensational prophecy-zealots and Messianic writers with an ax to grind. Their fund-raising depends upon demonizing those whose words would expose them as irrelevant.

God took the believing Jews of the first century and confirmed His covenant with them through Christ. They became the church. Those Jews who rejected Christ were judged when Jerusalem was destroyed. The accounts are thus settled.

Modern day Jews are simply not a part of the equation--they are neither blessed nor cursed based upon their ethnicity. Like everyone else--the issue is what they do with Christ. The Old Covenant was of race, the New Covenant is of faith. There is "no difference" today between Jew and Gentile, only between believer and unbeliever.

Anyone who persecuted Jews in times past did not do so with any understanding of Israel and the Church, but rather was motivated by racism, and political advantage. Neither I nor any of the amils on this Board support those actions in any way. Additionally, I would propose that the primary theological problem underlying those past sins was not so-called "replacement theology", but rather a failure to recognize the spiritual nature of the kingdom, instead attempting to bring it about by physical force--an Old Covenant idea.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Watchman,

The confusion about the issue (Premil vs. Disp. Premil.) is understandable. Many Disp. writers have muddied the issue by claiming their roots go back to the first century and citing early premil.s like Justin Martyr. But Justin Martyr wrote very clearly that the Church was God's chosen people, rather than merely all ethnic Jews under the New Covenant--not a dispensational belief!

This Disp. disinformation is the reason that it must be clarified that Disp. is a 19th century developement.

The honestman's explanation of this late developement is "progressive doctrine", i.e.--that we understand the scripture better as time goes along. My problem with this view is twofold:
1. That adds legitimacy to the Charismatic Movement as the latest development.
2. It is inconsistent with the way Disp. theologians view the O.T./N.T.. Basically they put the two revelations of Scripture on an equal basis as they read prophecy--projecting it all into our future. Instead, I would claim that the N.T. is the ultimate manifestation of "progressive doctrine"--revealing the types, shadows and figures of the O.T.. The N.T. thus clarifies the Old(a view which we as amils hold very consistently IMHO).

In Christ,

Tim

 

Whoa there big fella ... Back up the truck. Dispensational theology has first century roots in the NT, whether you agree with it or not. There is other evidence of earlier dispensationalism. There are many reasons why dispensationalism was not developed until later, just as there are reasons why amill and postmill were not developed until later. When you complain about the late date of dispensationalism, you must also complain about the late date of amillennialism and postmillennialism.

The term is generally progressive revelation. Doctrine doesn't progress. It is fixed. We do understand things better as we go along. However, that is in terms of Scripture, not post scriptural developments or systematizations of doctrine. I have never heard any dispensationalism make the claim that you accuse of here.

The bottom line is that only in recent times has eschatology been a focus of thought. That is why only in recent times have these things been systematized in such a way. Amill and post mill, and even hist premill to a large degree, have a whole lot of loose ends that they have never put together satisfactorily. Unfortunately, like dispesnationalism, they are all too often accepted without critical review and consideration.

Not at all. There is no basis whatsoever for this claim.

This is simply a misrepresentation. Dispensationalism does not project all prophecy onto the future. A great portion of OT prophecy has already been fulfilled. What we refuse to do is distort the language to make it fit something it does not refer to. We feel no compulsion to support a system so we can be true to the meaning of the text. We do not have to pretend like things already happened because there is no room for them in the future. We do not have to reassign the definitions of words simply because of a system. We can let the text speak what it says.

The amills do not hold to much consistently. Their hermeneutic is a jumble of competing ideas, all centered on making the system work. That is why a literally fulfilled text is believed while the text right beside it is spiritualized. It is not about the text as much as it is about the system. It is a wonderful system, as systems go. But it simply cannot stand the text of exegesis, as has been shown time and time again. But all of its adherents in here simply run off when it comes time to talk about the text.

But Tim and I have been through this before. I doubt there will be any resolution now. I just hate for these things to be said without any appropriate response to them.

 

silliness.


Dispensationalism...throughout every page of the bible.

Would you know more about God having read only the first page of Genesis...or having read the entire Tanakh?

Who had more knowledge of God...Isaac...or Daniel?

Who had more knowledge about the church...Daniel ..or Paul?

Who had more knowledge about the end times...Paul...or John?

When an Army goes into battle...how much information does a general give out to the enemy? How much to his own troops?

Just like any Army ...christians operate on a "need to know" basis.

This wall of misunderstanding about Israel that is between us will never be resolved because our hermeneutics are totally different.

If you cannot appreciate the fact that the Bible states exactly when the Jews would return to the land TO THE DAY...and when they would regain control of Jerusalem TO THE DAY, 2500 years in advance then there is no way you are ever going to believe anything the Bible says about Israel.

So ends my education with the amill view.

 

Steven,

Who's side are you on? For the first half of that post I thought you were arguing my position against Pastor Larry.

First a technical point for Pastor Larry, I would call historical development of teaching in the church "progressive doctrine", whereas I would use the term "progressive revelation" in reference to God's revelation through the scripture. So maybe we're using different terms for the same thing. The bottom line: God isn't revealing new truths as history goes by, but our understanding of those truths changes (maybe for the better, or maybe for the worse).

My point about the charismatics is that they have launched from a dispensational eschatology into modern ramifications of that eschatology. They would certainly claim that they are on the cutting edge of undersatnding what God has for us today, much as dispensationalists were claiming before them.

When we stick within the scriptural record of the Old and New Testament, the amil position is much more prone to give greater weight to the New Testament, because it is a later and clearer revelation. Dispensationalists tend to weigh them more on the same level. This is straight from the the horse's mouth (Darrell Bock--a prof. at Dallas says so).

As far as your "literal" hermenuetics go, of course we won't elaborate again on such words as "this generation", or "no difference", or "coming soon", "will not tarry", etc. etc. You have your technical explanations around the plain meaning of those terms--no need to go into those texts again. Thank goodness you aren't loyal to any sysytem like us pointy-headed amils!

God bless you Brother Larry! And Steven, welcome to the debate.

In Christ,

Tim

 

I agree with this. Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, my apologies. I did not want to see the term progressive revelation confused.

But their bad theology does not spring from dispensationalism. There are many dispensationalists who reject charismatic theology.

I would be interested to see Bock's citation. Bock is a progressive, which admittedly is designed to form a middle ground of sorts. Therefore, they have given up some things to make peace. I think they have given to much up in some cases. The problem with the amill position with regards to the testaments is that the amil position uses the NT to contradict some very plain teaching from teh OT.

Yeah thank goodness ... ... actually, those questions do not serve any real issues for dispensationalism. First of all, the term is normal hermeneutics and I think there are cogent answers. But it is interesting to hear you complain about how we treat some of these words, while you make mincemeat out of the OT words and prophecies. That is why this concern rings hollow to me. I have explained all of those. You have never explained how you get around the OT clarity.

And to you as well ...

 

BTW, the word is "normal." We interpret Scripture using its normal meaning and understanding.

 

Pastor Larry,

I think the problem with the two of us is that we both like to have the last word!

So here's my "last": I would include figurative langauge in the O.T. as a part of "normal" usage, that's why I refer to Dispensationalists' view of O.T. prophecy as "literal interpretation".

Tim

 

Tim,

Would that be the same "Literal Interpretation" that Daniel, Matthew, Phillip, Jesus and that dispensationalist Paul adhered to?


Steve

 

If you are a student of history then you wil know that in one century the majority of belivers believed in postmillenialism in the early twentieth century to amillenialism in the middle of the century to premillenialism more toward the end.

I just wonder what people will think when they look back on our discussions.

Some say they are pan-millenialists (whatever pans out).

All I can say is where I am at in my journey with God.

I find that interseting about the UK and dispensationalism. It started there why has it not continued? Any ideas?

 

Hello everyone,

Just wanted to dropp a note and let you all know that I find this thread very interesting. Specially when I am about to finish a summer course entitled Eschatology at SEBTS. I love it. However, we have our last day today and I still can not make up my mind as to which millennial view would be more scriptural. As of right now I find more weaknesses in the Premill view than in the amill.

Yours in Christ

Felix

 

And here's my last (for now). I would also include figurative language in the OT as part of normal usage. The problem is that you want to treat the literal language of the OT as figurative becuase your system will not allow the literal usage of it. We believe that the Scriptures should determine their own interpretation rather than the system we impose on them. Obviously, clearer passages should determine the interpretation of more obscure passages. That is why we believe the clarity of the New covenant passages in Jer and Ezek determine what the NC really means and that NT references to it should be interpreted in light of that. Remember, the clear should interpret the unclear.

 

Felix,

Before you make up your mind as to which view is weakest (Pre-Mill -- Amill) consider the instruction of
your Seminary professors. Most ARE Amill.

You've heard the Computer Engineering term "GIGO"? Meaning: Garbage In Garbage Out

I think we probably all are guilty of searching out info that supports our own pre-conceived ideas.
I'm just as guilty.

That being said, allow me to point you to a discussion that WILL give you something to at least think
about. Check out this radio program link and listen to Day 3. A Messianic Jew discussed Matthew 13
and the Millenium period.

here's the link:
http://www.khouse.org/6640/prophetic/CDA08.html

Steve

 

If the Thessalonican church was upset because they thought they had missed the Rapture (that's how I read it), does that mean they were Pre-Mill...or Amill?

If they were Amill...were they expecting Jesus to be reigning in Jerusalem at that moment?

Steve

 

Steven,

Of course the O.T. is often to be interpreted literally, but many times N.T. writers (and Christ himself) interpreted it figuratively.

I'm leaving that option open. Most dispensationalists do not, even though we have N.T. precedent for it.

Tim

 

Tim,

I may be fairly young in my scholarship of the bible...but your assertion of figurative interpretation is just wrong.

Now if you want to assert that Jesus is not REALLY a "rock"...and not REALLY a "branch" then I can understand that. Yes there are terms which are figurative and idioms, but EVERY SINGLE PLACE where you find a New Testament person reading the O.T. ...they are taking it seriously and respected the intent of the text.

The entire definition of "Gospel" is given by Paul in:

The Old Testament is full of types, models, laws, and prophecy pointing to Jesus. Leviticus and Numbers only become clear when you put Jesus as the focus of the Levitical laws.

Steve

 

Steven,

I don't think we disagree much on the issue of the seriousness of the O.T. and it's use of types and shadows. But that is NOT literalism. Types and shadows are figures.

Consider Paul's allegorical interpretation of Gen. 21 in Galatians 4:21-31. It does not deny the historicity of the account, but finds a more significant spiritual allegory within it.

Similar thing with James in Acts 15 as he refers to Amos 9. He sees it as fulfilled typologically in his time, and so with Peter in Acts 2 as he quotes Joel 2. He sees a typological fulfillment in the spiritual events he is experiencing.

To recognize the spiritual aspects of an O.T. prophecy is certainly taking it seriously.

In Christ,

Tim