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

The hour simply means "the time", even in the literal sense. You must be selective in how you choose to define terms to come to your view. As a literal dispensationalist I see that text stating there is a time when everyone to be resurrected to stand before the Lord. You have to read into it that this is at the exact same time (which you do in your loose rendering of defining "the hour")

 

You are just as entitled to be wrong as every other dispensationalist.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
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.

Thayers' Greek Lexicon gives the usage of the Greek word for hour as follows:

wra hora ho'-rah

apparently a primary word; TDNT - 9:675,1355; n f

KJV - hour 89, time 11, season 3, misc 5; 108

1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year
1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter
2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day
3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)
4) any definite time, point of time, moment

Really it makes no difference whether you call it hour or "time" the passage gives the same message.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28. Marvel not at this: for the "ωρα" 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.

The phrase "in the which" clearly shows that Jesus Christ means the same time, hour, whatever makes you happy. The point is there is only one more resurrection of the dead. that occurs at the end of time as we know it when Jesus Christ returns in power and Glory when every eye shall behold Him.

Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Scripture. There are no Scripture that support the varied resurrections loved by dispensationalists.

 

And not to disappoint, you again resort to begging the question. You butchered that text.

 

Kids do say the funniest things don't they?

 

All due respect or not error is error or worse. Dispensational doctrine is nothing more than eisegesis perhaps designed to support Margaret MacDonald's supposed vision.

There are two serious implications of dispensationalism:

1, It has influenced this country's foreign policy toward Israel because of the dispensational belief that the Jews are still God's chosen people and no one must offend the Jews under threat of eternal punishment.

2. The atrocious dispensational doctrine that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom but the Jews rejected Him and He established the Church instead. This Bride of Jesus Christ is called a parenthesis by some dispensationalists [Walvoord] and an intercalation by others [Ryrie] and an interruption of God's program for Israel [Pentecost]. Following this line of thinking, particularly that of Pentecost , the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ, seems to be thought of as a stepchild???????

Of course dispensationalists are usually not very vocal on the accusation that Jesus Christ had to establish His Church or be considered a failure. They do get all excited about the pre-trib Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Millennial reign on earth, and especially the Jews as God's #1 chosen people.

Thankfully there is a movement away from classic dispensationalism called progressive dispensationalism. They are moving toward covenant or historical premillennialism and are particularlytaking a Scriptural view of the Church as does covenant premillennialism.

Of course classical dispensationalists like Ryrie look down their nose at hyper-0dispensationalists, extreme or just hyper.

 

Yes you do. I thought you were rather juvenile.

 

Webdog's supreme offense "You are begging the Question".

 

It's not my offense...I'm not the one employing the fallacy on an "oldregular" basis

 

Don't worry webdog. You start with the faulty doctrine of dispensationalism what can on expect.

 

...and you do it yet again proving my point.

 

Why don't we just cool it with the rude remarks. There are many people that disagree over this issue. Support your view with Scripture, leave out the personal comments.



as for the OP, I lean towards a dispensational view, but I'm still studying. I find flaws that are an issue for me. John MacArthur is dispensational and definitely a Calvinist.

 

:thumbs::wavey: Thanks for another solid and biblical post.....glad you are posting truth ...it makes the site more solid:thumbs:

 

OldRegular err in John

First, I am Calvinistic in thinking.

Second, I hold to much of the dispensation view because I find it the most consistent view in which the total of Scriptures are held in more literal and of higher consistency than other views I have explored.

Now about the Scripture that OldRegular is posting in opposition to a millennium reign of Christ.

OldRegular uses John 5:28, 29, but lets expand his selection so that the context can clearly be seen.

John 5: 18 – 30:

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things so ever he does, these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them; even so the Son quickens whom he will. For the Father judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which hath sent him."

(The underlined areas refer to the power over death, just who gives life, and an indication that "every knee shall bow.")

John continues:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

(NOTE: Here is an illusion by Christ of the BOTH his bride and the rapture - NOT God's great white throne judgment! He never spells it out plainly for remember the “mystery” church was not revealed as we now have until after the cross. Prophets of old saw the suffering Christ, the King Christ, and Israel returned - but not the church.)


John continues:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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."

(Note: This is a THIRD "verily, verily" Jesus uses. It is most important that one note that each time "verily, verily" is used that it indicates new point. That new point is not a restatement of the first and not a clarification of the other "verily, verily" statements. The third statement IS the great white throne judgment. There is judgment. This is not the same resurrection that he spoke just a sentence or two earlier.)

John continues:


"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”



Here is a list of errors that OldRegular is making and an answer for each from the Scriptures.

First, he errors in the use of the word “hour.” It does mean hour. It doesn’t mean day, month, minute, or year. It means the promise of judgment is sure and certain. I won't bother restating the breakdown of the word that others have posted. Read previous posts as to the word and how it is used in the Scripture.

Second, OldRegular errs because carefully reading and extrapolating fully his statement would place him in agreement with “soul sleep” advocates - which I would think he does not hold. However, this (soul sleep) is disproved by such Scriptures as presented in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 (absent from the body…present with the Lord.” The only condition in which believers are “resurrected” at the great white throne judgment is if there is in fact a tribulation and a millennium, and the resurrection judgment are those saved that have died during the tribulation and millennium. There is no dispute about those who are condemned.

Third, OldRegular (as already indicated) errs in the use of the word hour as referring to only the great white throne judgment resurrection. However, the dead did and do hear His voice, Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son, Lazarus, … were dead and yet heard His voice.



Because of the length of this pose, and because I have already dealt with the word "all" - it always means, all - I won't respond at this time to the off handed remark he gave about those who don't think all mean all.

This agedman does. All always means all.

 

The prophets did not see nor consider the church age. It was (as the Apostle indicated) a mystery not revealed to them. What the prophets saw cannot by the law of a true prophet be speaking about the church nor about a Israeli church.

I would disagree about dispensationalists considering Christ a failure in any measure or from any point in Scriptures.

"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" was no reference to the new heaven and new earth. And it certainly has not occurred from Adam to now. The ONLY place that part of the prayer can be fully realized is in the millennium.

 

Problem is you neglected to view your passage from the questions the Apostles asked.

Do not ever neglect to read "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

These are three different questions that Christ dealt with in the instructions he gave. Questions, that unless continually in the mind of the reader can leave one to a false conclusion.

 

agedman

Most confusing to say the least and that is the most I can say!

 

I won't restate what I stated already in answer to the John passage.

However, I do want to remark about your thinking of Israel.

The Prophets did not lie, and could only speak as they were given it by God. Therefore, if we accept that they indicated a suffering Christ, and a King Christ, why do you reject a suffering Israel and a restored Israel?

Either you accept as literal all that pertains to Christ and Israel, or you place Christ and Israel as figurative.

I prefer the most literal reading and rendering of the Scriptures as can be made. Certainly there is figurative and pictorial parts. But were it concerned Christ and Israel, they are very few and not to be spread around like hot butter on pancakes.

I don't know that I have ever considered nor heard anyone state that the pre-mil. view was based upon a "fall back position" based on Israel rejection. Messianic kingdom with Israel restored and acknowledging Christ, yes.

I agree with this statement. It is most certain and sure true.

 

What part or which post is confusing.

In the first post, I took the passage others posted from John and expanded it to the context and then broke it down into sections to show how, with EACH "verily, verily," Christ presented a new point to his overall theme.

If you would, please reread it and let me know what part is confusing or what format I should use in posting to make it more comprehensible.

I tend to get a bit long, but when trying to post Scriptures and extrapolate the points made, it can get overwhelming by shear number of words.

 

I must take exception to the dispensational use of only the term "pre-mil" to describe their doctrine. There is a world of difference between the doctrine of the dispensationalist and the historic/covenant premillennialist. The latter reject the dispensational claim that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, the pre-trib rapture, and the 7 year great tribulation. Actually the only similarity between the two is the millennial kingdom. However, the millennial kingdom of historic premillennialism is a kingdom in which the Church, not the restored Jewish nation, rules with the glorified Saviour.

 

aged man

The church was not a mystery....the mystery was that gentiles would come in on equal footing with the jew........

consider.....

In Acts 3 ..we are told that all the prophets foretold of these days......it is just they had a wrong view of it....the mystery was described in eph 2...one new man In Christ....