Featured Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

I did not reference that Confession as one that taught a General resurrection and Judgment {My post #3}. The version I linked in the preceding post #39 was the 1646 revision. In fact if you would read carefully it is spelled out in my post #39 above! The initial 1644 version did not mention the resurrection other than that of Jesus Christ! If you want to educate yourself then you can get Lumpkin's book!

Actually the article you quote does teach a general resurrection and judgment if read without the dispensational bias!

"A resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust," is A, as in one, resurrection.

 

At least be honest. I did not mischaracterize anything but simply quoted the confessions. If you don't agree with the confessions that is your prerogative.

It is not unlikely that there were premillennialists among the Baptists of that time but historic or covenant premillennialism is a long way from dispensationalism. It is also likely that the person you cited was a minority opinion or the confessions would have been written to espouse his views.

I would also note that the quote you present is misleading.

Notice: "The Resurrection of the Dead hath this Order, and is described by the Apostle in this manner, to wit, Christ first, I. Cor. 15. 22, 23, 24. afterwards they that are Christ's at his Coming. But the rest of the Dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished,". Now this man implies that the Apostle Paul says "But the rest of the Dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished,"! That is certainly misleading, perhaps not intentionally, particularly to those who are not conversant with Scripture.

 

I really see no point in your dishonesty. You know the above is false.

I simply take the wording of the confessions literally or at "face value" as some like to say! I would also note that Confessions are generally written to be understood literally since their purpose is to set forth the writers' understanding of what Scripture teaches.

 

Scripture teaches that God deals with mankind through covenants not dispensations. That is an indisputable Biblical fact. However, as I have noted many times dispensationalism is a schooled doctrine. It must be taught because it does not come directly from Scripture. The word dispensation does not even occur in the Old Testament.

DHK, You dismiss Ice and Walvoord, and have previously dismissed Darby, Scofield, Ryrie and numerous others, as spokesman for the Dispensational doctrine. Are you taking on that task for yourself.

 

That is eisegesis at its worst, Period. If you are unfamiliar with that word you can look it up.

You are to be commended for studying the Bible. However, you should let Scripture speak to you rather than you speaking to Scripture as you do in the above passages from Hebrews.

It is utter nonsense to attempt a defense of dispensationalism using Hebrews 1 and 2. There is no way that "many times and in various ways" can be twisted into 5 dispensations or whatever number. God did speak to the prophets many times, perhaps that is what some call progressive revelation. God did speak to the prophets in many ways, sometimes through dreams [Joseph], sometimes through visions [Daniel], and sometimes verbally [Abraham, Moses].

Jesus Christ, the Messiah, told the unbelieving Jews: John 10:30. I and my Father are one.

Jesus Christ, the Messiah, told his doubting disciples:
John 14:6-11
6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake..

Perhaps those two passages will help you better understand Hebrews 1 & 2! But again, it is essential that we study Scripture but you must let Scripture speak to you rather than you speaking to Scripture!

 

The basis of dispensationalism is Darby's epiphany while recuperating from a fall off a horse. I would note the similarity between Macarthurs understanding of Hebrews 1, 2 and mine in post #48.

 

I presented the following Scripture to show what Hebrews 1, 2 is trying to tell those who would learn.

Hebrews 1, 2 tells us:

1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In the Scripture above Jesus Christ is trying to get the unbelieving Jews to understand who HE is. The writer of Hebrews is reaffirming this truth; Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah, is the final Revelation of God.

The book of Hebrews presents the superiority of the New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13] over the Mosaic Covenant. Sadly some, without comprehension, still await the New Covenant and sadly some look backward and await the renewal of animal sacrifice in a temple that God destroyed in 70AD. Jesus Christ has already made the ultimate and perfect Sacrifice fulfilling the promise of God made in Genesis 3:15.

Do you comprehend now DHK?

 

I don't care whether you have read Darby, Scofield, Wolvoord, Ryrie or whoever. I am simply quoting that great dispensational writer, Thomas Ice and I provided the link. If you have a problem with what Ice says take it up with him.

 

I have given you my explanation of Hebrews 1:1,2. It is very similar to MacArthur's as I pointed out.

No Hebrews 1:1,2 says nothing about covenants and it certainly says nothing about dispensationalism and, furthermore, you know it.

You do not understand Scripture or you could not be a dispensationalist. The Bible says nothing about dispensations in the sense dispensationalists contend. The word does not even appear in the Old Testament as I have repeatedly stated. God deals with Mankind through Covenants. That is what the Bible teaches and it cannot be refuted.

 

I agree that Scripture shows that God deals with mankind through Covenants, not dispensations.Show me one place in the Old Testament which covers 5 so-called dispensations of Scofield where the word dispensation appears.

An interesting observation: Watts preceded both Darby and Watts..

If you want to question my salvation DHK at least be a man and do it directly, not hint around. I could care less what you think about me.

As for putting your faith in man it is you who have put your faith in a man made doctrine of Dispensationalism of which John Nelson Darby is the grand puba..

 

Spoken by one who has the experience!

Dispensationalists have dug themselves into a pit. Hyper dispensationalists are almost to China, Classic Dispensationalists are still digging, Progressive Dispensationalists got smart and are climbing out of the pit of Dispensationalism.

I am not the one throwing pejoratives, it is you DHK. That is your normal fall back position.

I will say this of Watts. He did not believe in the "parenthesis" Church! Watts was a covenant premillennialist not a dispensationalist! So you see DHK once again you are ill informed. Now there is much more in the link if you really wish to learn!

One thing of note that Watts says and which I addressed earlier in my post #64 on the thread: { Reasons why the Bible teaches a Pretribulational rapture}.

From post #64 on the thread: { Reasons why the Bible teaches a Pretribulational rapture}.