Eschatology Views

[thomas15]

Yes, and there are a few other verses that are likewise irrefutable. Riddlebarger is good for showing many of the blind spots of Dispensationalism. In that book you cite - my copy is well-marked - he does an especially in-depth investigation into Daniel 9 and Matt.24 that seemed to me - at the time - to be pretty thorough.

But he just does not give those time statements proper weight. None of the Amill authors do, as far as I can tell.

OK

I don't want to go off on a tangent or change the subject but I have to say a few things and please believe me when I say this I'm trying to be objective.

I have been reading this same book, my copy is likewise well marked. In fact most chapters I read twice or more before moving on. I'm reading the Bible verses and I have many of the books in the bibliography and I check the sources.

The general question on my mind is simply the dispensationalist view of the distinction between Israel and the Church. I'm going to put chapters 7 and 10, and especally chapter 10 of Riddlebarger under the microscope on X100 power. This issue goes right to the heart of the covanent/dispensational dispute and where the chips eventually fall will determine where I go on the whole eschatology package.

But I do want to make a few general critical observations about this particular book by Riddlebarger. First I feel that he hides behind terms like "reformed theology has always taught that....", or "Calvin wrote....". Ok, he also loves to quote George E. Ladd to support his case, which if he were in the same room with Ladd the perverbial feathers would by flying. He tries to make all dispensationalist sound like children because there is a best selling novel series that is authored by dispensationalist. He flat out states that dispensationalist believe that the modern state of Israel is the actual fufilment of prophecy and he totally ignores the work of DTS when it comes to putting an accurate working time line to the 1st through 69th week of Daniel ch 9.

But again, my interest is in two chapters of his book. Right in the first paragraph of ch 10 Riddlebarger writes that covanent theology teaches that when a person accepts Christ as Savior (not exactly his words), they are right then resurrected with Christ (spiritually) and this is the actual literal Rev ch 20:6 resurrection. In other words, the Rev ch 20:6 resurrection is not a single event, rather it is an ongoing event that takes place at an individuals salvation. Then the only other resurrection is the general white throne judgement Rev 20:12 where everyone, believer and non-belivers are raised physically and separated one to good, one to bad.

I'm not trying to debate this, all I want to know is do I have a correct understanding of what covanent Amills and Riddlebarger teach?

 

[asterisktom]

OK

I don't want to go off on a tangent or change the subject but I have to say a few things and please believe me when I say this I'm trying to be objective.

I believe you about the objectivity. The very fact that you added "trying" shows me that you are aware that it is harder than most realize.

I have been reading this same book, my copy is likewise well marked. In fact most chapters I read twice or more before moving on. I'm reading the Bible verses and I have many of the books in the bibliography and I check the sources.

The general question on my mind is simply the dispensationalist view of the distinction between Israel and the Church. I'm going to put chapters 7 and 10, and especally chapter 10 of Riddlebarger under the microscope on X100 power. This issue goes right to the heart of the covanent/dispensational dispute and where the chips eventually fall will determine where I go on the whole eschatology package.

The one people vs. two people issue is certainly a core issue - maybe the core issue - in this whole topic. Once I got past the two-people presupposition (for me, that is what it was) a great number of passages resolved happily, but surprisingly, in place. KR's chapter 7 was a real help for me, especially his investigations on the city of God. By seeing that, even in Abraham's time, God's believing people were seeking for a "city whose builder and maker was God" opened up a whole new study for me on that city. This led to reading up on the heavenly Jerusalem/spiritual Jerusalem as found in Isaiah 40 - 66. I wrote a series on this in my Xanga site:

I'm having internet connection problems, so I better send this now with fingers crossed. I hope to more later.

 

[thomas15]

...... Once I got past the two-people presupposition (for me, that is what it was) a great number of passages resolved happily, but surprisingly, in place. KR's chapter 7 was a real help for me, especially his investigations on the city of God. By seeing that, even in Abraham's time, God's believing people were seeking for a "city whose builder and maker was God" opened up a whole new study for me on that city. This led to reading up on the heavenly Jerusalem/spiritual Jerusalem as found in Isaiah 40 - 66....

So Tom, If I want to understand you correctly, would a good place for me to start would be KR's book page 70 (last paragraph beginning with the heading The Land of Canaan...) to middle of page 75?

Thanks,
Thomas

 

[asterisktom]

So Tom, If I want to understand you correctly, would a good place for me to start would be KR's book page 70 (last paragraph beginning with the heading The Land of Canaan...) to middle of page 75?

Thanks,
Thomas

As far as I can tell, yes. To be frank I had forgotten much of what I read in KR's book. I bet if I read it again I would see it in a different light, at least partly. So maybe I am not a good authority on how to approach his book. Now that I think of it, I was also soured against him for his writing on Riddleblog where he unfairly demeaned the view of those of us who do not believe in paedo-baptism. His weak defenses of PB, as demonstrated in several articles of his, made me lose much confidence in him as an exegete.

On reflection, I think the better thing to do, Tom, would be to do your own study on the Zion verses in the OT (NT too, for that matter). There are many - very many - that refer to spiritual, not geographical, Zion. As you study these I believe two things will happen:

1. You will see that God has one body of believers. No supposed parenthetical interims, from Jews to church back to Jews.
2. You will see, I believe, the present and spiritual nature of the heavenly Jerusalem as a present possession of Christians.

 

[thomas15]

......On reflection, I think the better thing to do, Tom, would be to do your own study on the Zion verses in the OT (NT too, for that matter). There are many - very many - that refer to spiritual, not geographical, Zion. As you study these I believe two things will happen....

Tom,

This is what I'm attempting to do. The above question that I asked you is my clumsy way of trying to understand where you are coming from in your studies. I see myself in some of what you are writing, that is with respect to the questions you are asking yourself.

At this point I'm beginning to anticipate the classic covanent amil retorts to dispensational arguements as I encounter them. This I think means I'm beginning to understand both sides of the question. Riddlebarger, in my opinion is writing to the person who is already amil and wants a pep talk. He is not a bad writer but he isn't the genius some make him out to be either. Sometimes he wastes space by restating what he has already said. Other times he is vague to the point of being a destraction.

Prior to starting his (Riddlebarger's) book, I read a book titled Israel and the Church by Ronald Diprose. This is a study on replacement theology. Diprose would be a hard act to follow by anyone, this man never wastes a single word, yet writes clear as a bell. And yet Riddlebarger could in places go in the opposite direction by expounding in much more detail as he tends to build on previous arguements that to me he didn't make convincingly in the first place. He will inform the reader that he laid the groundwork for additional instruction when in fact he hasn't done so to at least my satisfaction. And although it may sound prideful for me to say this, I consider myself to be at least average in ability to comprehend basic theological concepts.

My interest in the covanent/dispensational discussion is to 1. prove to my satisfaction that I understand the basic tenants of each side and 2. I'm on a larger quest to understand the doctrines of the 1st century church and it's development into the middle ages. If I can learn somethig useful along the way that may influence my theology, a bonus. But, I don't really want to dogmatically say that my theology is a settled matter, because it isn't. This is why I appreciate what you have to say Tom.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom,

This is what I'm attempting to do. The above question that I asked you is my clumsy way of trying to understand where you are coming from in your studies. I see myself in some of what you are writing, that is with respect to the questions you are asking yourself.

At this point I'm beginning to anticipate the classic covanent amil retorts to dispensational arguements as I encounter them. This I think means I'm beginning to understand both sides of the question. Riddlebarger, in my opinion is writing to the person who is already amil and wants a pep talk. He is not a bad writer but he isn't the genius some make him out to be either. Sometimes he wastes space by restating what he has already said. Other times he is vague to the point of being a destraction.

Prior to starting his (Riddlebarger's) book, I read a book titled Israel and the Church by Ronald Diprose. This is a study on replacement theology. Diprose would be a hard act to follow by anyone, this man never wastes a single word, yet writes clear as a bell. And yet Riddlebarger could in places go in the opposite direction by expounding in much more detail as he tends to build on previous arguements that to me he didn't make convincingly in the first place. He will inform the reader that he laid the groundwork for additional instruction when in fact he hasn't done so to at least my satisfaction. And although it may sound prideful for me to say this, I consider myself to be at least average in ability to comprehend basic theological concepts.

My interest in the covanent/dispensational discussion is to 1. prove to my satisfaction that I understand the basic tenants of each side and 2. I'm on a larger quest to understand the doctrines of the 1st century church and it's development into the middle ages. If I can learn somethig useful along the way that may influence my theology, a bonus. But, I don't really want to dogmatically say that my theology is a settled matter, because it isn't. This is why I appreciate what you have to say Tom.

Thanks for the response.

I cannot say that my theology is entirely settled either. And I am quite OK with that. This is not a timed event : ). Actually, it is timed by the amount of years we have left. For that reason, I find a greater urgency in myself to just know the truth of these things, on one hand, and not to waste my time with issues (and people) that get in the way of finding this truth.

As far as your comment about the doctrines of the 1st c. church and into the middle ages: There has been IMO an astounding drop-off immediately after the last inspired word was written. The very earliest of ecclesiastical writers (Clement, Ignatius et al) give hints of what is to come. Ignatius & his "Do nothing without your bishop", Clement's credulity concerning the Phoenix, etc.

I suspect I am rambling from your main point. About that covenant/dispensational issue: I believe it has more than two sides - especially if we consider KR as the spokesman for the former. That is why I am Reformed Baptist and not Presbyterian.

One reason why I really have come to appreciate the Preterist position is that it - IMO more than any other position - best accounts for the Bible text in the spirit in which it was inspired and written, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. The more I am now studying in the Bible along these lines the more I am finding confirmation and spiritual resonance.

 

[thomas15]

.......
As far as your comment about the doctrines of the 1st c. church and into the middle ages: There has been IMO an astounding drop-off immediately after the last inspired word was written. The very earliest of ecclesiastical writers (Clement, Ignatius et al) give hints of what is to come. Ignatius & his "Do nothing without your bishop", Clement's credulity concerning the Phoenix, etc.

Tom, On the above statement, we are in 100% agreement. If there is any chance that I could differ with you, it would be in the timing. It is possible that the drop-off started before the last inspired word.

Our discussion ie: are we a-mill, pre-mill, post-mill, classic reformed/convanent or dispensational or what ever is minor when compared to the dominant church force in much of church history.

thanks
Thomas