The Apostle Peter on the Second Coming of Our LORD

[OldRegular]

But you haven't been questioning that either one of you go back and look at what you are questioning. I said there was 7000 years of time for mankind given by God and there is. Nearly 6000 has been accomplished how much we don't know could be tomorrow could be 232 if the Jewish calender is correct. But we don't know how many years are left we do know there is at least 1007 years left.

Where do you come up with the idea that there are 7000 years for man. I asked this earlier?

For instance blessed wife you said that I said there was 200 years left and I didn't, I said could be 232, but I also qualified it. So get right what you are challenging and we wouldn't have wasted postings.

What we do know is that Christ return is imminent.

Imminent has already been 2000 years!

 

[blessedwife318]

But you haven't been questioning that either one of you go back and look at what you are questioning. I said there was 7000 years of time for mankind given by God and there is. Nearly 6000 has been accomplished how much we don't know could be tomorrow could be 232 if the Jewish calender is correct. But we don't know how many years are left we do know there is at least 1007 years left.

For instance blessed wife you said that I said there was 200 years left and I didn't, I said could be 232, but I also qualified it. So get right what you are challenging and we wouldn't have wasted postings.

What we do know is that Christ return is imminent.

Actually I did challenge your age of the earth stating that most Young Earth Creationist date the earth between 6-10 thousand years old which really messes up your idea that man only has 6000 years before the rapture. But the bigger issue that you keep missing is you are being inconsistent. Either the coming of Christ is Imminent or it was 2000 years on the future when the apostles and early church fathers said He could come at ant time. You are making liers out of the very people you have tried to use to back up your view point.

Also the part I bolded is very bold on your part to say that Man only has 7000 years with no proof to back that up. That is pure speculation and you know itl.

 

[revmwc]

Where do you come up with the idea that there are 7000 years for man. I asked this earlier?

Imminent has already been 2000 years!

Which to God is but a day not quite 2000 years. Christ rose just a day ago. I answered it earlier before you even asked that question was answered.

 

[blessedwife318]

revmwc
You just don't seem to understand that you can only hold one of the views and be consistent. Either Christ can come at any time, or He has to come at 6000 years. It would seem that you are willing to sacrifice the Imminent return of Christ in order to hold on to your pet theory that man will only live on earth 7000 years. You are throwing away a very clear doctrine in favor of your own theory and I can't begin to understand why. You are making liars out of the very people you quoted in another thread.

 

[revmwc]

Actually I did challenge your age of the earth stating that most Young Earth Creationist date the earth between 6-10 thousand years old which really messes up your idea that man only has 6000 years before the rapture. But the bigger issue that you keep missing is you are being inconsistent. Either the coming of Christ is Imminent or it was 2000 years on the future when the apostles and early church fathers said He could come at ant time. You are making liers out of the very people you have tried to use to back up your view point.

Also the part I bolded is very bold on your part to say that Man only has 7000 years with no proof to back that up. That is pure speculation and you know itl.

Imminent it has only been one day almost two and that is imminent, which is exactly what Peter said one day to the Lord is as a 1000 years and 1000 years as one day. So we have almost completed the second day with one day left (1000 years) after that plus the 7 year tribulation = 1007 years plus where ever we are on the Lord's time table. Could be now could be in 232 years and that is what I have consistent said.

 

[DHK]

Either the coming of Christ is Imminent or it was 2000 years on the future when the apostles and early church fathers said He could come at ant time.

The coming of Christ is imminent as Christ and the apostles taught--it could happen at any time. In having a discussion with a Catholic in the Other Christian Denominations Forum, about the history of "the church," I came across this information about the "Montanists" who came into existence ca. 150 A.D.
Armitage, in his book "A History of the Baptists" says:

In consequence, they were decided Pre-Millenarians. They believed in the literal reign of Christ upon the earth, and longed for his coming, that he might hold his people separate by the final overthrow of sin and sinners, and then his saints would reign with him here in his glory. They regarded every new persecutor on the imperial throne as the Antichrist of the Apocalypse; and made so much of that book, that the Alogians thought it a Montanist forgery. [Belck, History of Montanism, p. 7] They hoped by preaching these things to purify the Churches, without founding a new sect and for a time, things tended in that direction.

They looked for the return of Christ. To them his return was imminent. It could be at any minute. And throughout the time every passing Emperor was a potential antichrist. Keep in mind that the Emperors: Domitian and those following were some of the cruelest rulers on record. Is it any wonder that they would consider them "Antichrists."

It also appears that their dispensationalism seems to be quite organized.

 

[blessedwife318]

The coming of Christ is imminent as Christ and the apostles taught--it could happen at any time. In having a discussion with a Catholic in the Other Christian Denominations Forum, about the history of "the church," I came across this information about the "Montanists" who came into existence ca. 150 A.D.
Armitage, in his book "A History of the Baptists" says:

They looked for the return of Christ. To them his return was imminent. It could be at any minute. And throughout the time every passing Emperor was a potential antichrist. Keep in mind that the Emperors: Domitian and those following were some of the cruelest rulers on record. Is it any wonder that they would consider them "Antichrists."

It also appears that their dispensationalism seems to be quite organized.

I believe in the Imminent return of Christ but it is clear that revmwc does not since he has said that it was at least 2000 years out from when the Apostles and early church fathers were writing. He is the one that is holding to contradictory viewpoints.

And as I have said before proving pre-millennialism does not prove dispensationalism.

 

[blessedwife318]

But you haven't been questioning that either one of you go back and look at what you are questioning. I said there was 7000 years of time for mankind given by God and there is. Nearly 6000 has been accomplished how much we don't know could be tomorrow could be 232 if the Jewish calender is correct. But we don't know how many years are left we do know there is at least 1007 years left.

For instance blessed wife you said that I said there was 200 years left and I didn't, I said could be 232, but I also qualified it. So get right what you are challenging and we wouldn't have wasted postings.

What we do know is that Christ return is imminent.

Lets assume that all the Genealogies in the Bible are correct and have no gaps in them and no overlaps. Using that method you can add backwards to get Adam being created at 4004 BC. You now have a huge problem with your theory. 4004+2015=6019. Its already been over 6000 years and that is taking the most conservative date for creation. That is why its very dangerous to try to date an event that God told us no one would no the date of.

Here is a link from a Dispensational site so you should have no problem with it.
Adam created 4004 BC

Although its even older then 6019 when you consider that a Prophetic year is 360 day, so taking into acount the 5 extra days
6019 x 5 = 30095 extra days.
30095 / 360 = 83.59 years.
6019+83.59=6102.59

That means your theory does not hold any water.

 

[DHK]

I believe in the Imminent return of Christ but it is clear that revmwc does not since he has said that it was at least 2000 years out from when the Apostles and early church fathers were writing. He is the one that is holding to contradictory viewpoints.

And as I have said before proving pre-millennialism does not prove dispensationalism.

That would depend on how you define dispensationalism. I don't define it according to "Darby" or whatever OR throws at me.
A dispensation is simply an era of time. Obviously if one is premillennial they are dispensational. The believe in a Millennial Kingdom as one dispensation. They believe in a dispensation that is pre[vious] to that, and one that is after the Kingdom. That is a start of 3 without asking any questions.

 

[blessedwife318]

I was interested to see how far this 6000 year theory went so I googled. Here is an interesting site I found that Chronicles all the different people that have espoused this theory and the results.

6000 year theory

Some highlights (low lights?)

Harold Norris, in When Will Our Lord Return?(1915), calculated a 2,520-year period which would end in 1919 with the return of Christ. (pp. 32-33; 37; 53; 84; 95-96)

He calculated that 6,000 years would also end in 1919 and says:

"the sixth millenary will end in the year 1919 A.D. (3,495 + 587 + 1919 - 1 = 6,000). Further, if we reckon these years according to the sacred dating, it will end in the month Nisan of that year. This is in accordance with our previous conclusion, that the present age is due to end at Nisan or April, 1919 A.D." (pp. 95-96)

The Great Pyramid (1948) by J Elliot-Page calculates prophetic dates by converting the lengths of pyramid passages in "pyramid inches" to years. The writer predicted:

Thus the year 1994 A.D., which is exactly 6,000 years from Adam, will see the full ushering of millennial blessings for all nations.

Armstrong's book The Wonderful World Tomorrow does not state when the 6,000 years started. However, his Plain Truth magazine said in 1965, "twenty years from now your Creator will have established a world government…" (August p. 48)

Thomas Foster, a prominent member and writer of the sect called Christian Revival Crusade, wrote in 1977:

From Adam to Christ was 4000 years, and from then to the year 2000 A.D. will make a total of 6000 years; the 7th millennia is the "Millennium"...
From Adam to the end of this century will be 6000 years and, as seven stands for rest, the next 1000 years will be a "rest" from the works and evils of Satan.

Trying to find hidden codes in the Bible and predict dates always ends in wrong prediction. Better to Take Christ at His word that No one knows the day or the hour, and the Apostles at their word that His coming could be at any time.

 

[OldRegular]

That would depend on how you define dispensationalism. I don't define it according to "Darby" or whatever OR throws at me.

Darby is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not. And pre-trib-dispensationalism is the mother of the "parenthesis" Church whether you like it or not! Check out my thread "Out of Whose Womb"!

 

[blessedwife318]

That would depend on how you define dispensationalism. I don't define it according to "Darby" or whatever OR throws at me.
A dispensation is simply an era of time. Obviously if one is premillennial they are dispensational. The believe in a Millennial Kingdom as one dispensation. They believe in a dispensation that is pre[vious] to that, and one that is after the Kingdom. That is a start of 3 without asking any questions.

Words have meanings. Labels have meanings. Trying to arbitrarily change the meaning of a label to make it fit what you want it to is not a good way to try to win a debate.
Dispensationalism whether you like it or not has a specific meaning and a very systematic theology around it.
Just as Covenant Theology has a specific meaning and a very systematic theology around it.
Trying to confuse the terms does not do anyone any favors.

So No being pre-millennial does not automatically make one dispensational. That only works in one direction. Being dispensational does mean being pre-millennial but not the other way around.

 

[HankD]

Either the coming of Christ is Imminent or it was 2000 years on the future when the apostles and early church fathers said He could come at ant time. You are making liers out of the very people you have tried to use to back up your view point.

Modern or progressive dispensational thinking:

The Day of the Lord (as opposed to the Day of man) is when God takes back the actual reins of the world from the evil one said day having started in the garden.

ASV 1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one.

The day of God begins at the catching away (aka "rapture", aka" harpazo") of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

This is the event which begins the Day of the Lord of which no man knows the day or the hour, it could be as soon as I finish typing this sentence or several more centuries from now.

Chafer's Systematic Theology, Volume 5, pg 360 interprets 2 peter 3:10 with the sense of the RSV translation:

RSV 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.

The phrase "and then" = 1000 years later. In verse 8 Peter just told us:

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Chafer believes Peter is telling the church the length of the day of the Lord - 1000 years. How it comes in - Like a thief - then how it goes out 1000 years later - in a conflagration in which the heavens and earth are incinerated. Similar to our "in like a lamb, out like a lion".

You can take my word for it or I can type out the pertinent stuff from Chafer's Systematic Theology. I may have the page wrong but I know the volume is right because its missing from my set - it's in the trunk of my car.

Anyway that's the official view (well it was in the 60's - 70's) when I went to Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary and his 7 volume set (and index) was our Theology text.

Be kind - I'm sharing information to clear up some issues. If you feel it's a stretch, that's OK, we can discuss it. right now I'm off to bed.

HankD

 

[blessedwife318]

Chafer was the text I used as well for Systematic Theology and Pentecost Things To Come. Both of those books are on the shelf right next to me.

 

[revmwc]

Actually I did challenge your age of the earth stating that most Young Earth Creationist date the earth between 6-10 thousand years old which really messes up your idea that man only has 6000 years before the rapture. But the bigger issue that you keep missing is you are being inconsistent. Either the coming of Christ is Imminent or it was 2000 years on the future when the apostles and early church fathers said He could come at ant time. You are making liers out of the very people you have tried to use to back up your view point.

Also the part I bolded is very bold on your part to say that Man only has 7000 years with no proof to back that up. That is pure speculation and you know itl.

Here is the challenge as offered to my statement:"I said,
According to the Jewish calender we are in the year 5775, that would leave 225 years to reach 6000 and the Lord could come in 232 years, but the signs we are to look for are upon us, so as those of the early church I look for and love His appearing believing His return is imminent.
What year are we in? No one really knows, those early church fathers knew even less than we do!"

You said,

“Tripplieng down on date setting now. The Bible is clear that No One knows when Christ will return/rapture his church (depending on your viewpoint) but here you are in direct violation setting dates and making liars out of everyone you have tried to quote to back up your view.”

Again I will ask where did I set any date in the statement highligh it in read please, since you accuse me of it.

More of your statements and my answers:

“And this is how people get into trouble and start predicting dates. You have to read a lot into the passage to get that man only has 6000 years + the Millennium on this planet. Especially since even Young Earth Creationist put the earth between 6-10 thousands years old.”

I answered “Imminent = ready to take place
In God's time 1000 years is very soon in <man's time table it any day now. No one knows the day nor the hour of His return. We definitely don't know the exact date or year. We can know from Man's history and the Jewish calender we a very close to man having been on earth 6000 years therefore the age of the Earth is within that time period but not older than 6000.”

You said:
“Imminent=ready to take place= in 2000 years according to you.

Sorry you can't have it both ways. Either the return is still about 200 years out accordingly to YOUR dating or it could happen at any time, be Imminent.

So what is it Imminent or 200 years away by YOUR dates?”

My response:
“By God's time today!
Jesus said Matthew 25:13, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."
We don't know the day nor the hour so it is imminent.”

You said:
“So are you going to recant what you said in post 77 about his coming being 200 years out?”

My Response back:
“Never said it was two hundred years out. Simply pointing out the by the Jewish calender it could be.

Here is what I said,
"According to the Jewish calender we are in the year 5775, that would leave 225 years to reach 6000 and the Lord could come in 232 years, but the signs we are to look for are upon us, so as those of the early church I look for and love His appearing believing His return is imminent.
What year are we in? No one really knows, those early church fathers knew even less than we do. "
No where did I say I believed it would be 232 years, I said that it could be by the Jewish calendar.”

You said:
“You are the one making the argument that man only has 6000 years by doing some major reading into the text of Peter. You are then the one that says that we are only in year 5775 by the Jewish Calendar. You are the one that said that there is 225 years until we hit the 6000 year mark and then you are the one that gave your self a 7 year window to make room for the tribulation. The only thing that can be concluded from all your statement and math is that the return/rapture is 200+ years out. Why do through all that math if that is not the point?
Let me play this game some more using your logic. According to Daniel there are 70 weeks. A week has 7 days so we know based on Peter that is actually 7000 years so that means there are 490 days or 490,000 years. I think I have made my point that when you start reading into the text and trying to find hidden codes you will end up in crazy territory.”
And “That man only has 6000 + 1007 years is not hard and fast in Scripture. You have to read a lot into Peter to get the idea that Man only has 6000 years.”

My response to the first section,
“Your twist of what I said is above.
What I actually said with hypothetical word could.
Some commentaries I have read state Peter was showing that if it took 2000 years for Him to return it would still be but Yesterday that Christ died. I was taught the 7000 years of time for man.
We need only be looking for His return. But I still believe that the Bible bears out a close to 6000 year old earth and we will soon see the Snatching away. Leaving 1007 years of time left for man.
According to the Jewish calender we are in the year 5775, that would (insertion to clarify when you subtract a number from another number that would leave the answer) leave 225 years to reach 6000 and the Lord could come in 232 years, but the signs we are to look for are upon us, so as those of the early church I look for and love His appearing believing His return is imminent.
What year are we in? No one really knows, those early church fathers knew even less than we do.
The problem with you hypothetical of Daniels prophecy is that all but the last week has been fulfilled.
It was fulfilled over a 483 year period. Dividing 483 by 7 give you 69 thus 69 weeks has been fulfilled.
What was to happen in the 69th week, Messiah was to be cut off. Jesus was crucified in the 483rd year from the decree to rebuild the city just as Daniel prophesied.
The 70 weeks were actual 7 year periods of time. One has yet to be fulfilled.”

Your response:
"You can try to cover yourself with the word COULD all you want, but you are teaching that man has 6000 year before the Rapture. Why else would you go through all the math to try to prove this theory?
I know what the 70 weeks are. I was just showing how abusred it is to try to prove that man only has 6000 years based on twisting Peter and Genesis together. And yet you keep insisting on reading the 6000 years into Peters Letter.”

You started out accusing me of setting the date and went to the 200 years, In ever said that I used the term could be 232.
Now you say you didn't challenge the 232 years but the response show that was your first question until you changed to the 6000 year question.

 

[OldRegular]

Modern or progressive dispensational thinking:

The Day of the Lord (as opposed to the Day of man) is when God takes back the actual reins of the world from the evil one said day having started in the garden.

ASV 1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one.

The day of God begins at the catching away (aka "rapture", aka" harpazo") of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

This is the event which begins the Day of the Lord of which no man knows the day or the hour, it could be as soon as I finish typing this sentence or several more centuries from now.

Chafer's Systematic Theology, Volume 5, pg 360 interprets 2 peter 3:10 with the sense of the RSV translation:

RSV 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.

The phrase "and then" = 1000 years later. In verse 8 Peter just told us:

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Chafer believes Peter is telling the church the length of the day of the Lord - 1000 years. How it comes in - Like a thief - then how it goes out 1000 years later - in a conflagration in which the heavens and earth are incinerated. Similar to our "in like a lamb, out like a lion".

You can take my word for it or I can type out the pertinent stuff from Chafer's Systematic Theology. I may have the page wrong but I know the volume is right because its missing from my set - it's in the trunk of my car.

Anyway that's the official view (well it was in the 60's - 70's) when I went to Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary and his 7 volume set (and index) was our Theology text.

Be kind - I'm sharing information to clear up some issues. If you feel it's a stretch, that's OK, we can discuss it. right now I'm off to bed.

HankD

I will be honest with you Hank. Chafers remarks about Peter and the Day of the Lord sounds like eisegesis at its worst. Reading stuff that is not there. That certainly does not appear to be the literal hermeneutic or taking things at "face value" as Ryrie liked to say!

So did you read about the "parenthesis " Church in Chafers Books? I posted elsewhere that he thought the term intercalation more appropriate!

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).

 

[HankD]

I will be honest with you Hank. Chafers remarks about Peter and the Day of the Lord sounds like eisegesis at its worst. Reading stuff that is not there. That certainly does not appear to be the literal hermeneutic or taking things at "face value" as Ryrie liked to say!

So did you read about the "parenthesis " Church in Chafers Books? I posted elsewhere that he thought the term intercalation more appropriate!

Hi OR,
Yes, I am very much aware of his shortcomings, his Systematic Theology was my required source for many years in my Christian Education.

While generally dispensational at the time, I disagreed with several points of their dispensationalism. On the tests, I would give their view from the books and then my own view e.g. "Chafer and Scofield see the church as a parenthesis or intercalation in the history of a dispensational plan, however I believe the institution of the Church is/was the driving force and culmination of God's plan for mankind and the fulfilling of the Abrahamic covenant of redeemed Israel and the saved of the Gentiles into one body. This method was acceptable to my theology professor.

Also, we were not allowed to publicly evangelize against the school's doctrinal positions (that was 60's - 70's don't know about now).

As a former Catholic I was also asked to sign a covenant to not use alcohol (except medicinally) or tobacco products, in addition - no dancing, card playing, movies, and we needed an approved local church membership, etc... I was married with children and there were other expectations.

Though my school was not charismatic they also had a covenant for charismatics against evangelizing their position while attending the school.

If one could not agree to these limitations then you would be asked to leave or not apply.

I hold most of my views on eschatology very lightly. Every position has its problems. I certainly don't like to see brethren throwing each other in the Lake of Fire over it. I believe we will all answer for this at the Bema Seat.

While you object to Chafer's seeming eisegesis, others object to brethren rejecting the plain and simple term "the thousand years" of Revelation 20 as literal yet accept the term "the resurrection" in the same chapter as literal.

Similar to your saying "Reading stuff that is not there" many would say amil folks are "Throwing away stuff that is there".

Studying the writings of men for eschatology is like eating fish.
Eat the flesh, throw away the bones (or what we consider bones) whether Chafer or Sproul.

I especially like RC Sproul though I don't agree with him completely. He has compassion for those like me who don't see eye to eye on the details. His criticisms are gentle and without condemnation.

If I ever changed my position it would probably look a lot like his.

Anyway, for now I accept Chafer's explanation that it's more than a coincidence that Peter talks about 1000 years in the context of the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3. I don't agree with the parenthesis/intercalation theory.

Intercalation:
from the Latin intercalātus past participle of intercalāre to insert a day or month into the calendar.

Parenthesis:
a word, clause, or sentence inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage that is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by curved brackets, dashes, or commas.

I think Chafer objected to the Scofield "parenthesis" because it gave the sense that the Church was an after thought which I don't believe he meant to convey, actually both men were (IMO) searching for terminology of what to call the hitherto unrevealed "mysteries" of the Kingdom revealed by Christ during His Incarnation. Both made inaccurate choices IMO.


HankD

 

[revmwc]

Darby is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not. And pre-trib-dispensationalism is the mother of the "parenthesis" Church whether you like it or not! Check out my thread "Out of Whose Womb"!

Do you quote Darby saying it is a Parenthesis church in that thread? I have you too several times so read Darby and post it.

 

[DHK]

Words have meanings. Labels have meanings. Trying to arbitrarily change the meaning of a label to make it fit what you want it to is not a good way to try to win a debate.
Dispensationalism whether you like it or not has a specific meaning and a very systematic theology around it.
Just as Covenant Theology has a specific meaning and a very systematic theology around it.
Trying to confuse the terms does not do anyone any favors.

So No being pre-millennial does not automatically make one dispensational. That only works in one direction. Being dispensational does mean being pre-millennial but not the other way around.

I learned dispensationalism from a pastor not a book, or rather the only book being the Bible. He taught a traditional 7 dispensations. Without ever hearing of OR's "authorities," I came to learn that there were some that believed in only 5 dispensations, and some that were hyper-dispensationalists and believed in 10 or more. I saw in life that there were many kind of dispensationalists just as there were many kind of Baptists and not every one thinks the same. They all develop their own system.
To say there is just one system of dispensationalism is absolutely wrong, and you know that. There is Classic Dispensationalism, Historic Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, etc.

But a dispensationalism doesn't have to fit into someone else's mold, just as a Calvinist doesn't have to fit into a certain mold. Spend time in Cal vs. Arm forum and you find that there are dozens of different kinds of Calvinists. There are some, but not many like John MacArthur--an ardent Calvinist but dispensational and pre-trib, pre-mill.
There are "four point" Calvinists. There are Calvinists that attribute evil to God, and not ashamed to do so.

Everyone does not fit into the same mold. We all have our own convictions as we study the Bible. The problem here is that certain people want to debate someone else's position rather than the person themself, thinking that because they know a position they know what the person believes. That is a wrong assumption.

 

[blessedwife318]

Here is the challenge as offered to my statement:"I said,
According to the Jewish calender we are in the year 5775, that would leave 225 years to reach 6000 and the Lord could come in 232 years, but the signs we are to look for are upon us, so as those of the early church I look for and love His appearing believing His return is imminent.
What year are we in? No one really knows, those early church fathers knew even less than we do!"

You said,

“Tripplieng down on date setting now. The Bible is clear that No One knows when Christ will return/rapture his church (depending on your viewpoint) but here you are in direct violation setting dates and making liars out of everyone you have tried to quote to back up your view.”

Again I will ask where did I set any date in the statement highligh it in read please, since you accuse me of it.

More of your statements and my answers:

“And this is how people get into trouble and start predicting dates. You have to read a lot into the passage to get that man only has 6000 years + the Millennium on this planet. Especially since even Young Earth Creationist put the earth between 6-10 thousands years old.”

I answered “Imminent = ready to take place
In God's time 1000 years is very soon in <man's time table it any day now. No one knows the day nor the hour of His return. We definitely don't know the exact date or year. We can know from Man's history and the Jewish calender we a very close to man having been on earth 6000 years therefore the age of the Earth is within that time period but not older than 6000.”

You said:
“Imminent=ready to take place= in 2000 years according to you.

Sorry you can't have it both ways. Either the return is still about 200 years out accordingly to YOUR dating or it could happen at any time, be Imminent.

So what is it Imminent or 200 years away by YOUR dates?”

My response:
“By God's time today!
Jesus said Matthew 25:13, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."
We don't know the day nor the hour so it is imminent.”

You said:
“So are you going to recant what you said in post 77 about his coming being 200 years out?”

My Response back:
“Never said it was two hundred years out. Simply pointing out the by the Jewish calender it could be.

Here is what I said,
"According to the Jewish calender we are in the year 5775, that would leave 225 years to reach 6000 and the Lord could come in 232 years, but the signs we are to look for are upon us, so as those of the early church I look for and love His appearing believing His return is imminent.
What year are we in? No one really knows, those early church fathers knew even less than we do. "
No where did I say I believed it would be 232 years, I said that it could be by the Jewish calendar.”

You said:
“You are the one making the argument that man only has 6000 years by doing some major reading into the text of Peter. You are then the one that says that we are only in year 5775 by the Jewish Calendar. You are the one that said that there is 225 years until we hit the 6000 year mark and then you are the one that gave your self a 7 year window to make room for the tribulation. The only thing that can be concluded from all your statement and math is that the return/rapture is 200+ years out. Why do through all that math if that is not the point?
Let me play this game some more using your logic. According to Daniel there are 70 weeks. A week has 7 days so we know based on Peter that is actually 7000 years so that means there are 490 days or 490,000 years. I think I have made my point that when you start reading into the text and trying to find hidden codes you will end up in crazy territory.”
And “That man only has 6000 + 1007 years is not hard and fast in Scripture. You have to read a lot into Peter to get the idea that Man only has 6000 years.”

My response to the first section,
“Your twist of what I said is above.
What I actually said with hypothetical word could.
Some commentaries I have read state Peter was showing that if it took 2000 years for Him to return it would still be but Yesterday that Christ died. I was taught the 7000 years of time for man.
We need only be looking for His return. But I still believe that the Bible bears out a close to 6000 year old earth and we will soon see the Snatching away. Leaving 1007 years of time left for man.
According to the Jewish calender we are in the year 5775, that would (insertion to clarify when you subtract a number from another number that would leave the answer) leave 225 years to reach 6000 and the Lord could come in 232 years, but the signs we are to look for are upon us, so as those of the early church I look for and love His appearing believing His return is imminent.
What year are we in? No one really knows, those early church fathers knew even less than we do.
The problem with you hypothetical of Daniels prophecy is that all but the last week has been fulfilled.
It was fulfilled over a 483 year period. Dividing 483 by 7 give you 69 thus 69 weeks has been fulfilled.
What was to happen in the 69th week, Messiah was to be cut off. Jesus was crucified in the 483rd year from the decree to rebuild the city just as Daniel prophesied.
The 70 weeks were actual 7 year periods of time. One has yet to be fulfilled.”

Your response:
"You can try to cover yourself with the word COULD all you want, but you are teaching that man has 6000 year before the Rapture. Why else would you go through all the math to try to prove this theory?
I know what the 70 weeks are. I was just showing how abusred it is to try to prove that man only has 6000 years based on twisting Peter and Genesis together. And yet you keep insisting on reading the 6000 years into Peters Letter.”

You started out accusing me of setting the date and went to the 200 years, In ever said that I used the term could be 232.
Now you say you didn't challenge the 232 years but the response show that was your first question until you changed to the 6000 year question.

A I have questioned both as you well know if you had quoted all I have posted in this thread.
B I was rounding down to 200 to make life easier.

That still does not change the fact that you made a definitive claim that man has only 6000 years on earth before the rapture and that we are most likely 200+ years out based on the Jewish Calendar.

So yes I question both your 6000 year theory and the idea that the rapture is still 200+ years out.