Featured Eschatology...

I agree that Ladd's movement is important. Particularly as he was ensconced in fundamentalism of the middle of last century, his discussion is important. His biography A Place at the Table is a good discussion of this, and other important issues.

Well if we use progressive dispensationalism for its contributions to our prolegomena (that is methodology) then it certainly does drive things. In general both kinds of dispensationalism should help understand how we approach Scripture and theology. Eschatology, of course, is different from your take on dispensationalism. Maybe I didn't articulate it well, but it is eschatology, not dispensationalism, which is taking a different seat on my proverbial theological bus.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: AMEN! YAHOO!

Few there are that think outside of the box.

 

Yes, best laugh in the past decade.

 

Translation: leave your old indoctrination and take up my indoctrination and I will praise you for being a free thinking scholar. And maybe, just maybe, I will even send you a free puppy!

 

That wasn't my point, and for the record, just adding a "but" after "no offense intended" doesn't negate the offensive quality of the post. There isn't one person here who gleans their theology from CNN / Fox, and to even insinuate as such IS offensive.

My point is to ignore the things happening in the world today, or merely spiritualize them and brush them under the rug is foolish.

 

One quick point, I'm not a dispensationalist, I'm a progressive dispensationalist. There is a rather wide difference on some key points between the two positions.

As for the second point, I don't accept a tribulation period of any specific length. So I'm not post-tribulationalist. I'm simply saying that, as we understand eschatology, Christ will return before the millennium for His Church. Though there might be events which proceed this occurrence, it will likely not be for a set time like seven years.

Though classical dispensationalism almost necessitates a pre-trib/pre-mil view, progressive dispensationalism does not require this. Of course if one moves over to Covenant Theology you almost need to support an amillennial view. I would encourage you to check out some goodly resources on progressive dispensationalism that are available out there.

 

That about sums up my thoughts concerning 'Progressive Sensationalism'.

 

My story is similar to preachinjesus, I was raised in a strong fundamental SB dispy church; BUT, at that time dispensationalism had not yet morphed into the sensationalistic warmongering Christian Zionism that it has become today. That was before the likes of Lindsey and Haggee and others who have made bookoo filthy lucre from the sensationalistic speculation of it all. I don't know what you'd call me, probably partial preterist idealist historicist would describe it as well as anything. I actually see some merit in all four views.

 

JUst a thought..

Brother...or is it Sister?....I never can tell with these non-proper name screennames most of the time. I don't disagree with your "take" on the way dispensationalism has been co-opted many times by those who profit from sensationalistic fear-mongering. That is a powerful motivator to many in this world. We live in a culture that has raised turning fact into fiction for profit into an ART-FORM!
However, that said, those of us who do still have our heads and hearts screwed on straight should not go throwing out a good and solid scriptural system of theology such as dispensationalism just because a few loons twist scripture for the love of money. I'm (thankfully and happily) still a dispensationalist and I enjoy the harmony that it brings to the prophetic puzzle of the ages that God has been progressively revealing ever since day one of the Creation. The scriptures make far more sense to me now than they ever did. I sincerely thank God for that! Like I told Bro.Bosley before...one of the best books I have ever seen that catalogs the truths of Scripture about eschatology in an understandable fashion is J. Dwight Pentecost's very thorough book, "Things To Come". Get it, sit down with it and an open Bible and read it. Even the INDEX in it is 18 pages! Don't worry about guys like Haggee,Lindsey or LaHaye/Jenkins....that is like comparing Cotton Candy to Steak/Bake Potatoe and Salad for nutritional value. Now I'm hungry!:thumbsup:

Bro. Greg:thumbs::laugh:

 

I suggest The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema for both you and your redneck "Sister"!

 

I am just the opposite. The more I read concerning the opposing view, the more convinced I am that progressive dispensationalism is the correct view. The nation of Israel will see their Messiah rule and reign in Israel despite the distorted views that deny that fact.

 

....and you can kiss my sweet.....

 

That calls for a delegation!:tongue3: This one from Bl-Breathitt County!:smilewinkgrin:

 

Hello RL, what has strengthened my position, made me more convinced that the catching away will precede the Tribulation, has been dsicussion with those that are post-trib. So far the strongest argument for a post-trib view that I have found has actually been from Progressive Dispensationalists. One fellow I have debated with presents a strong case for, yet, when the arguments are examined, I find that they lead me back to the pre-trib view, as there are, from my view, inconsistencies that arise from the very arguments themselves.

You bring up one in the following statement:

The "simultaneous resurrection/rapture" in 1 Thessalonians 4 can be seen, truly, but it speaks of the "dead in Christ."


1 Thessalonians 4

King James Version (KJV)

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

I have put emphasis on two factors in the text which point to 1) concern about departed loved ones who apparently 2) "believed that Jesus died and rose again."

I cannot take this to mean that the Thessalonians had concern for their ancestors, but for recently departed loved ones that had embraced the Gospel.


So the catching away is simultaneous, however, included are the dead in Christ (those which were alseep/had died) and they that remain (alive at the time of the catching away).

Another interesting issue would be the First Resurrrection itself: does "first" refer to "first in sequence" or does first refer to the type. I hold to the latter, because the first principles of the Oracles of God taught a general resurrection which involved both the just and the unjust...simultaneously. In the First Resurrection of Revelation 20 we see the resurrection of Tribulation Martyrs mentioned only. Those that die in the Tribulation are said to "not live again" until the thousand years are finished (which can easily be understood to be the very Kingdom God promised Israel).

Is this the first resurrection? In chapter 11 we see the resurrection and catching away of the Two Witnesses. Would this not be the first resurrection? Take a look at the word "first" and how it is used in scripture. You can do that here.

If you are not familiar with Strong's online concordance, simply go here, type in the word you are looking up, and you will be given the verses the word is found in, as well as definition and biblical usage. Comparing scripture with scripture is going to the best way to understand the words in their original use, and this resource I count as probably the best for study.

In the first link I gave I typed in "first resurrection, which took me to the passage this is used in. If you click on the 4413 beside "first" it will take you here. Notice also that every verse this word is used in is given, and with these, we can for ourselves get an idea of how this ancient word was used in biblical times. See Mark 6:21 for an example of "first in rank." In Mark 12:28 the question is posed, "Which is the first commandment." Does he ask, which one came first? No, he is asking which is the greatest.

Considering also that there are several resurrections mentioned in scripture preceding Revelation 12, i.e. Lazarus and this curious event...



Matthew 27:52-53

King James Version (KJV)

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


...so we can be sure of two things: 1) there is a better understanding of resurrection provided for us in New Testament revelation; 2) it is unlikely that we would be reasonable to conclude the First Resurrection is speaking about the first resurrection in sequence of time.

I have to be going so forgive me for rushing this, but I will mention one more thing: the PDs that I have spoken to deny the resurrection of the Two Witnesses as a literal resurrection and catching away, taking the view that the Two are not men, but the Old and New Testaments. But to make this case there are some things involved with the Two that we cannot ascribe to the Testaments, least of all that the Testaments "can be killed." The Two, inmy view, represent the offices of Priest and King, both literal men here:



Zechariah 4

King James Version (KJV)


1 And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep.

2 And said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and his seven lamps thereon, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which are upon the top thereof:

3 And two olive trees by it, one upon the right side of the bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof.

4 So I answered and spake to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these, my lord?

5 Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.

6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.

7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

8 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.

10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

11 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof?

12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?

13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.

14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.


Compare with:



Revelation 11:4

King James Version (KJV)


4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.


As I said, I view the Two to represent the offices of Priest and King, earthly representatives that are literal men. I view the Two of Revelation 11 to be literal men that will die, be resurrected, and caught away:



Revelation 11:11-12

King James Version (KJV)


11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.


Clearly these Two are raptured, caught away...after being resurrected. How say some that it is not until ch.20 that we see the "first" resurrection? lol It could be argued, of course, that the two events occur simultaneously, but, the series of events do not make this reasonable in my view. Which is why PDs also...make the Seal and the Vial Judgments...simultaneous (this word occurs foten in this discussion, no? lol). That is, if I remember correctly, lol.

In my view, RL, to see it as other than it is written makes for more explanation, rather than seeing it straightforward. "First" is first, but first in rank. There are only two resurrections, the resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the wicked. Both will be resurrected, both will have bodies suited for eternal existance, but only those that take part in the First Resurrection (regardless of the when) are assured that the Second Death will not harm them. The First Resurrection of ch.20 is not the first resurrection according to the type Paul speaks of in 1 Thessalonians, the Two Witnesses' preceding. Nor is it the last, as there will be those born in the Kingdom that will have to be glorified should they die during this Age.

Okay, all I have time for this morning, if you are familiar with Strong's disregard the info above, I just don't want to take for granted you are aware of this valuable resource. As I said, comparing scripture with scripture is one of the best means of coming to a balanced view on any subject. Particularly things eshcatological.

God bless.

 

Thomas15 thinking to himself....I wonder if I'm the only person here who see the OP asking an innocent babe in-the-woods question looking for advice on reading material then suddenly realizing that the OPer has already basically made up his/her mind and is really looking to promote his/her personal agenda?

Naw, it can't be that! Not here on the Baptist Board!