Post tribulation arguments

[Iconoclast]

"trouble being honest"
No debate here. Just ad hominems--the mark of those that know not debate.

"nonsense no substance attacks"
No debate here. Just ad hominems--the mark of those that know not debate.

"They attack you" More ad hom; no debate. A denial of the truth.

"twist clear teachings of Scripture." No debate; simply unsubstantiated false allegations.

"they twist definitions" no debate, just false allegations.

"they have to jump all over the place" no debate; only false allegations.

"they will not directly addressed it No debate; but the posting of an outright lie. Each and every post has been directly answered.

Such derogatory posts are actually against the rules.

I was posting to blessedwife who is being buried by attack posts which you do not comment on.
I will get to a keyboard later on tonight to show exactly what I am posting about which are factual observations on her posting and yours, and DC.....

DC writes the encyclopedia back to BW every time she writes a sentence ...but we all read and see through it.....I support BW because she is honest and behaves according to Christian ethics which seem to be absent from others here.....we will expose this in about 6 hrs or so when I get down the road where I need to be....

 

[Darrell C]

None so blind as those who won't see.

I'd be glad to see, but prefer you get involved in the discussion itself.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Nothing is literal.

Everything is literal.

That figurative language is employed does not change that.

You need spiritual eyes to understand.

I view it more as putting on the blinders to spiritual truth.

So you are going to tell me that none of this...


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


...is literal?

Satan is not a literal entity that is bound?

The bottomless pit is not a literal holding place with his imprisonment?

There is no literal seal that silences him for the thousand years?

He does not literally deceive the nations today?

He will not literally be loosed?

There are no numbers 9 or 13 (for example), they are all sevens, twelves and a thousand.

Is that supposed to be some brilliant observation?

So the Gospel of Mark and John are not literal because they do not include the number nine?

I guess the Prophecy of Isaiah has nothing literal either, based on your observation?

Now be honest...who is the man you learned that from? lol

How about a quick study on 1,000?

Sure.

While I am waiting for that I will address the following.

Psalm 50:10. 'For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.'
There are more than 1,000 hills in the world. Do the cattle there not belong to God?

Can you prove to me that (1) there were more than a thousand hills when this was stated and, (2) that there were cattle on them if there were? lol

Good stuff, Martin.

While we might consider this hyperbole, the point is that God is Sovereign.

That differs when it comes to using timeframes in Prophecy.

The thousand years mentioned here...


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


...is given a specific start and end date. The thousandth year. There are three groups in view, Satan, Tribulation Martyrs, and the dead.

That is quite different than hyperbole meant to express "a long time."

Psalm 90:4. 'For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past.'
Would 1,001 years be more than that?

Simply meant to state time is irrelevant to the Eternal God.

Does not state a specific period in Prophecy, and I charge you to show one instance when it does not.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

(cf. also 2 Peter 3:8).

Same thing, simply meant to state time is irrelevant to the Eternal God.

Lets look at something relevant to Prophecy and times given:


Revelation 9

King James Version (KJV)

1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.


What do your spiritual eyes make of this timeframe?

Not literal? The Word of God is in error and mistaken about five months being five months?

Peter is not speaking about an event in prophecy, he is using figurative language to describe God's relationship to time.

Psalm 105:8. He remembers His covenant forever; the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.'
There have not yet been a thousand generations of men, but if there are, will His covenant fail?

First, I would like to know how you arrive (1) that there have not been a thousand generations, and (2), if there has not been, how you do not know that when this universe passes away it will not arrive at one thousand generations to the generation?

That aside, this is an open ended statement of truth which simply states God's Sovereignty as well as His will. In other words, that which He has commanded will not change.

Isn't it staringly obvious that 1,000 is never literal in Scripture, but that it means all the years or things that are?

No, it is not obvious, but the opposite. Any time a specific time is given for a specific event...we can count on it being a literal period.

Here is another literal timeframe:


Revelation 11

King James Version (KJV)

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.


And both of these timeframes correspond to the Prophecy that went before it:


Daniel 12:6-12

King James Version (KJV)

6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.



No way to blame spiritual eyes for disannulling Prophecy.

Here we see that there are three and a half years allotted for the Tribulation from the point of the Abomination of Desolation. Added to that is first 30 days, then 45 more, making a total of 3 1/2 years plus a 75 day period.

Spiritualize that for me.

Tell me that the same time period, the Tribulation...is not in view.

Tell me that the Antichrist is not literal, that the Temple is not literally made desolate, and in doing so what you are telling me is you do not believe the Word of God.

It's right there.

This corresponds, by the way, with the death of the Two Witnesses after their 3 1/2 years ministry, the rise of Antichrist who kills the Two Witnesses, and the command by Christ to flee when this takes place...


Matthew 24:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:


And when we balance the Prophecy we see that Israel, not the Church, is preserved for the remaining 3 1/2 years:


Revelation 12:5-6

King James Version (KJV)

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.


That seventy five days left over? Consult Matthew 25.

So consider that rather than thinking because something doesn't appear, like certain numbers, maybe you should be considering that specific timeframes for specific events, particularly events prophesied in the Old Testament...mean just what they say.

To spiritualize everything instead of simply seeing the literal teaching though described in figurative speech is just one of the mistakes which leads to erroneous positions on a number of issues.

But you are a first. Not sure I have ever had anyone say...

Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Nothing is literal.

Simply amazing.

God bless you too. :wavey:

Hey, thanks!


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You see what's happening here is your discussing honestly the issues and the topic but you're dealing with two people would have trouble being honest .and you quoted it you you pointed that out earlier on and then you get 50 pages of nonsense no substance attacks and everything else twisting of words because they realize no one's going to go back and read through all the long winded post that say nothing.

They attack you and try to make a big deal because they can't actually answer the substance of what you said
the honesty that you call them out on is lacking so they go into all the world with their objections and twist clear teachings of Scripture.
they twist definitions that the whole church understands and goes by but no we have to listen to only what they think the terms mean:sleeping_2:..
Your honesty is too much for them to bear upon this so they have to jump all over the place to avoid it:thumbs: we all see how they post oh so the truth is coming out one way or another even if they will not directly addressed it comes out in their writing because we could all read what it doing:thumbs:

If you would like to show where I am a liar feel free to, and we can also examine your understanding of what it means to be honest.

And your cheerleading is still not helping anyone.

Haven't gotten to your friend's responses yet, so we will see if an honest treatment of some very simple issues has been forthcoming.

If you have something you want to say about me, say it to me, rather than backbiting in hopes of ingratiating yourself to someone else.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

I was posting to blessedwife who is being buried by attack posts which you do not comment on.

There is a conversation/debate going on between her and DC. Do you want me to start my own line of questioning at the same time, or take the high road and not to interfere with the current debate? I think the latter would be the wiser thing to do.

I will get to a keyboard later on tonight to show exactly what I am posting about which are factual observations on her posting and yours, and DC.....

Your cheerleading has already been noted, along with the negative attack ads.

DC writes the encyclopedia back to BW every time she writes a sentence ...but we all read and see through it.....I support BW because she is honest and behaves according to Christian ethics which seem to be absent from others here.....we will expose this in about 6 hrs or so when I get down the road where I need to be....

Perhaps you haven't read very objectively--only through rose-colored Calvinistic glasses.

First, BW presented a general outline of the book of Hebrews.
Since that time DC has been trying to get her to narrow the discussion down. (It is impossible to speak of one book).
He has narrowed it down now to a passage from Hebrews 10. (Heb.10:1-4).

So his last post was:

So on this one point, I have offered Hebrews 10:1-4 (in this particular post, that is) and commented why it is relevant.

If you disagree, then show why the point is in error, and you are free to choose whatever Biblical passage you like, you are not secluded to the one I presented.

I will check back in when I can to see your response.

And as you can observe: There is no response.

 

[Darrell C]

I was posting to blessedwife

Yeah, that is noticed, and it is a little disgusting if you ask me.

who is being buried by attack posts which you do not comment on.

She is being challenged to actually face the issues that are relevant.

You will be too.

I will get to a keyboard later on tonight to show exactly what I am posting about which are factual observations on her posting and yours, and DC.....

Can't wait.

DC writes the encyclopedia back to BW every time she writes a sentence ...

I like to be thorough...you have a problem with that?

Every statement is going to be addressed as needed, and who is being honest, and who is attacking...is really quite clear.

That is the point of this entire exercise. Once again a thread is derailed and charges based on false premise ensue.

Now you guys can either stay on topic, or deal with the fallout, which is simply forcing the issues you so erroneously post.

For her, it began with saying DHK said Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist. That has been addressed, and to my knowledge, she has still not admitted that error.

Now the conversation deals with the Distinction drawn between Israel and the Church.

And as far as I can it has nothing to do with you. If you want to get into the discussion great. If you want a repeat of the last time, that's okay too.

but we all read and see through it.....

Who is "we all?" lol

I support BW because she is honest and behaves according to Christian ethics

So you feel you need to support her?

which seem to be absent from others here.....

A matter of perspective.

we will expose this in about 6 hrs or so when I get down the road where I need to be....

Great.

Look forward to it, though I will likely have to get to it in the morning.


God bless.

 

[percho]

Neither: those taken (and see the Greek on this, kind of interesting) will die physically, and those left are those born again during the Tribulation, which would mean, if we end up being one of those, we are not saved prior to the Tribulation, and in a LaHaye context...left behind, lol.


God bless.

Would, "the taken," or, "the left," of Matthew equate to; that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. of 1 Thes 4:15

Where are they preceding to?

 

[Darrell C]

Would, "the taken," or, "the left," of Matthew equate to; that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. of 1 Thes 4:15

Where are they preceding to?

No, the taken and left are those who are alive when the Lord Returns.

While in Matthew there is just a small mention of the eagles gathering...


Matthew 24:27-28

King James Version (KJV)

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.


...we see in Luke a little more detail given, and we can pick up the context early to see that in view is the same event described in Matthew 24:


Luke 17:22-27

King James Version (KJV)

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.


So we can safely conclude that the context remains that which is the theme of both chapters, which that of the Lord's Return. We see that His Return involves judgment, and that is here likened to the judgment visited on those in Noah's day.

To make it clear to His students the Lord again gives an example of judgment...


28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.


...and we see again it is the same context, the Lord's Return. And a primary thrust of this teaching is "When I return there will be judgment like there was in those two examples."


31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.


I take this to mean "Do what I tell you." Wife disobeyed the directive of God and was herself included in the judgment she should have escaped. Disobedience is often connected with unbelief, and that unbelievers are in view is made clear in Matthew 25.


33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Here it is made clear that physical death is involved in this judgment.



34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.


Now here is where we see His terms defined:


37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.


The disciples are asking "Where are they taken?" I guess we could try to make it say "Where are they left," but taken seems to fit better, I think.

Regardless, what we can say is that His primary thrust is one of judgment, and whether it refers to taken or left, the end result is physical death. That is what happened in the examples, and that is why He uses them. It is not until we get to Matthew 25 that we see that in the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats, it is the believers who are "left" alive, while the unbelievers are taken in judgment and their death is described as entrance to eternal punishment.

Christ taught, in regards to the Millennial Kingdom, that nothing that offends will enter that Kingdom, and that only those born again would.

We see this imagery in the Old Testament:


Ezekiel 39

King James Version (KJV)

39 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:

2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand.

4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.

5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.


We see it in the New Testament:


Revelation 19:17-21

King James Version (KJV)

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


This shows the consistency of Prophecy and Christ's teaching. We have the enemies of God slain which corresponds to Christ's teaching about judgment when He returns, and those who are left enter into that Kingdom:


Matthew 25:31-34 & 41

King James Version (KJV)

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


We would not really consider those that remain alive to be "taken." And we look at this and consider that these Sheep are not glorified, but rather than being destroyed physically, they are spared, which leaves them in their current state, which is like unto ours today: physical and born again.

The singular problem, as mentioned before, for the Post-Tribulation view is that if the Rapture occurs at Christ's Return, then we have a few problems to reconcile.

The first would be that this does not depict a Rapture, but simply the gathering prophesied in the Old Testament.

Secondly, Paul does not include unbelievers in his Rapture teachings.

Third, Revelation 20 excludes the Rapture of the Church because only Tribulation Martyrs are mentioned, and nothing about those still living is mentioned.

Fourth, it conflicts with Christ's teaching such as we have just looked at.

Fifth, and finally (for now), this scenario leaves no physical believers who will have offspring that rebel against God when Satan is released from his imprisonment:


Revelation 20:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


The only possible way this multitude of rebels could come about is if there are physical descendants of the born again believers who are the Sheep of Matthew 25. Paul taught that the Rapture of the Church would include both those who are living as well as those who are dead, and they are all glorified at this time. We would have to get into some serious speculative ideas to reconcile these problems, but...

...we need not do that.

The Pre-Tribulational Rapture is the only view that can be reconciled without negating other teachings, as all groups who have embraced another view are forced to do. They leave Scripture in a shambles because they have to remove a great many prophecies and promises of God in order to make their system work.

God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here we go in post 51 DHK posts this against O>R>;

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
The "pre-trib-removal-of-the-Saints-who-compose-the-Church" and the concept of the Church as a "Parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel are based on the false doctrine invented by one John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's, a period that gave the world many false doctrinal organizations.


DHK posts this...

same old; same old. A lie often repeated does not make it a truth.

DHK POSTS THAT OR IS POSTING A LIE


BW318 responds;

Just because you don't believe what Darby taught, does not mean its a lie that he taught the church was a parentheses in God's program. I was taught this at my dispensationalist Bible College.

Being an honest person she knows where the lie is found.
It was not in OR'S post...nope.

It was not in the dispensational college she attended....nope...they taught her the truth as they also were honest...

BW spots the source and comments on it:thumbs:I bolded that in red..
in post 145 DHK claims this however:laugh:

There is a conversation/debate going on between her and DC. Do you want me to start my own line of questioning at the same time, or take the high road and not to interfere with the current debate? I think the latter would be the wiser thing to do.

However...BW started posting to DHK HERE in the 50's...lol he already had spoken to her....so much for the high road I guess.


This is perhaps to cover not saying anything about DC's posts.

post 54..she responds to revmac drive by post....
she says

OR does not believe in a parentheses church. He is pointing out correctly that John Darby taught that the church was a parentheses in God's program. I'm glad to see you disagree with John Darby on that issue.

rev mac offers this:laugh:

I have read very little of Darby's work.

so he really does not know enough to say so...BW was truthful once again.
She was taught the classic position...she still knows it, but has studied away from that error......I will keep each segment short to fit it all in:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Well I disagree with your view on the rapture but I do agree with your view that God predestined everything including the church. So lets keep this discussion honest and not accuse other poster of things they don't believe. OR does not believe that the church is a parentheses and if you read his post you would see he finds that idea as repugnant.

Now she appeals to revmac and others for.....HONESTY.... she sees it is lacking.

yet DHK DOES THIS;

It is not what Darby taught that I necessarily disagree with. It is the rhetoric and false accusations that OR brings against Darby

In other posts he has disagreed...he has been snagged...so he finds this quote trying to create a smokescreen:laugh:...gotta love it:thumbs:

Darby, on the other hand, developed a new premillennialism, which he called "dispensationalism" after the division of history into eras or dispensations. Though later dispensationalists quibbled over the number and names of these periods, most agreed with Darby that there were seven, like the seven days of creation. Darby listed the ages as: Paradise, Noah, Abraham, Israel, Gentiles, the Spirit, and the Millennium.

OR has pointed this out dozens of times:laugh: BW sees who is lying, comments and now the tune changes:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK tries to sneak this in...speaking of the high road:laugh:

If you read carefully the beliefs that he had, there is nothing new.
Premillennialism had been taught before. It simply had "fallen out of favor" for 1500 years. It was not the popular teaching of the day. So it was new to that generation.

Dispensationalism had been taught before. Isaac Watts taught dispensationalism. Some say that the dispensationalism that Watts taught was closer to that of Scofield than Darby's. Many throughout history have taught dispensationalism. It is not new.

How many dispensations are there? People today quibble over the same thing. Why should that be a point of controversy?

It had fallen out of favor for 1500 years:laugh:

Yes I know. One thing I really appreciate about the Bible College I want to is that they were honest about the history of Dispensationalism and what it taught.

It's been amazing to me since I graduated how many want to hide that history and attack those that present the true history. That was one of the major things that lead me away from the dispensationalist camp. Why would they not be honest if they truly believed it was true.

Good point BW....I would have to question that also!.....I am glad to just sit back and be a cheerleader as you unravel this dog and pony show....good work BW!

 

[Iconoclast]

She sees more dishonesty and crushes it....here;

Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist. He was a Historical Premillennialist. There is a distinction between those two ideas that must be maintained. It is dishonest to push dispensationalism into historical premillennialism when they do not fit together. The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Darby, Schofield, Ryrie all make that very clear.
Here is Ryrie:

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction of Israel and the Church.

This grows out of the dispensationalists consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself thought salvation and other purposes as well

Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 47.

But now for quotes from Spurgeon himself on this issue.
Charles H. Spurgeon, "Jesus Christ Immutable," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 15:8.
Bold Mine

Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages.


Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall

He considered the idea of Israel and the Church being distinct from each other an " absurdity"
That itself is enough to put him firmly outside of the camp of Dispensationalism.
But for the sake of argument I will continue.
I think we can all agree that another mark of Dispensationalism is the "Pre-Trib" Rapture of the Church.
Well lets see what Spurgeon said about the timing of the Rapture.
To be honest he does not say a lot about the rapture but I did find this sermon

This quote alone shows that Spurgeon believes we will be on earth during the tribulation and that we are to view it as a time to life up our heads waiting for his return.
Some more quotes from this sermon



This sermon shows that if Spurgeon had a view on the rapture it was post-trib. He makes it clear throughout the sermon that he believe we will be on earth during the tribulation. There is no way you can get a pre-trib view out of this sermon.

So there is the two big distinctions between Classical Premillennialism and Dispensational Pre-Millennialism and Spurgeon clearly falls into the Classical camp.


Continued:

 

[Iconoclast]

Now she toasts the rest of the falsehood!

Yes Premillennialism has been taught, but as I said above there is a distinction between Classical (also known as Historical) and Dispensationalism.
Here is the disticntion as I understand them taken from here
1. First, historic premillennialists believe in New Testament priority in which the New Testament interprets/reinterprets the OT.
2. Second, historic premillennialists believe the church is the new Israel.
3. Third, unlike dispensationalists, historic premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of national Israel.
Of course there is also the timing of the Rapture, as Pre-trib is curcial to dispensational thought since it fits with their clear division between Israel and the Church.


Issac Watts was not a Dispensationalist or even a Proto-Dispensationalist.
First is must be noted that using the word "Dispensation" does not make use a Dispensationalist.
link

[QUOTEIn several cases Watts calls Israel “the church,”47 proclaims the “church
or nation of the Jews” to be a “type or figure of the whole invisible
church of God,”48 and explains that for Israel “the church was their whole nation, for it was ordained of God to be a national church.”...Watts, however, appears to use the term
more specifically and sees at least a typological relationship between
the two bodies and very likely a replacement of Israel by the church.
Watts manifests this replacement emphasis in several places. He
argues that God has rejected Israel as his people because of their sin
and has replaced them with the Christian church ]

link
What is strikingly absent from these triumphant declarations of
the future earthly reign of Christ, however, is the nation of Israel.
link
dispensational characteristics
on the other hand, begin to make sense. Like the dispensationalist,
Watts sees progressive stages in the outworking of God’s plan in the
world. But Watts understands that plan much differently than the dispensationalist.
He sees the plan of God as rooted in a covenant of
grace, manifested primarily in spiritual blessings upon the church, and
culminated in the spiritual reign of Christ over his church with no
place for national Israel.

link
Can't be a Dispensationalist if you don't see the Church and Israel as distinct. And you really can't if you believe that the Church has replaced Israel which is why Watts cannot be counted among the Dispensationalist camp.



Then do so. I have seen that claim many times but on further investigation it has always fallen apart. At best what I have seen is people taking the Classical Premillennial teachings and try to shove Dispensationalism into it but it doesn't work, they are too distinct from each other to be merged together throughout history.


Again if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. I look forward to see that, because as I have said before my Dispensational Bible College did not have a problem stating that Darby was the founder of Dispensational thought, they made no claims to Classical Premillennialism. But maybe you know something that my Professors there did not.[/QUOTE]
that is game set and match...BW318 in a landslide:wavey::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

20 plus years of trying and no one has proven the pre-trib rapture to me. But The OP was looking for arguments against the Post Trib view and I gave them one as I also do not believe in a Post-Trib Rapture.

She had already responded to the OP and gave a reason before the thread was derailed....she had to pause...[a parenthesis in the thread:thumbs:to address the falsehoods.

 

[Iconoclast]

True, the more I study the differences between all the camps the more it frustrates me that some Dispensationalist want to sneak into the Historical pre-mill camp to use their history to bolster their claims.

This is quite dishonest as they know exactly what they are doing:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Here we go in post 51 DHK posts this against O>R>;


DHK POSTS THAT OR IS POSTING A LIE


BW318 responds;

Being an honest person she knows where the lie is found.
It was not in OR'S post...nope.

It was not in the dispensational college she attended....nope...they taught her the truth as they also were honest...

BW spots the source and comments on it:thumbs:I bolded that in red..
in post 145 DHK claims this however:laugh:

Nothing to laugh at Icon. It doesn't matter who OR quotes, even if it is Darby itself. His argument is lame, as is yours. You just don't get it.
First: There is not a dispensationalist on this board that has admitted to believing in a "parenthetial church" that OR demands that we believe.
Second: Therefore OR is bearing false witness against us. That is the pure and simple truth.
You won't accept the fact that not all dispensationalists believe the same thing. You guys never have. You would rather debate a book than a person.

However...BW started posting to DHK HERE in the 50's...lol he already had spoken to her....so much for the high road I guess.

This is perhaps to cover not saying anything about DC's posts.

post 54..she responds to revmac drive by post....
she says

You are so deceptive, you are dishonest and ought to be ashamed.
Icon, the words you quoted "so much about taking the high road" came from post 145! during my conversation with you. Now you are quoting almost 100 posts earlier about me entering into this conversation in posts preceding the ones that I was speaking about to you. You are doing the same thing with this thread that you do with scripture--ignoring context! :laugh:
Never learn do you??

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C

Could you point out where he state Spurgeon is a Dispensational Premillennial?

And this is the typical response that we see from a-millennials, particularly the member in view in DHKs response: you are not even addressing what is said, and seeking to argue about something everyone else is sick of hearing.

You owe DHK an apology for your error.

you have not followed the thread evidently.....Spurgeon had nothing to do with it...the use of him was deceptive as pointed out.....but that was not the main point but you seek to divert away from what was said.

Perhaps if you had read his post and responded to what he said you would not have wasted this space: a distinction was drawn, and the views compared, not said to be the same.

she responded to what was being offered...and destroyed the false illusion.

You are the one who does that in your inability to comprehend what is being said.

Here you begin your nasty responses which were uncalled for. Dhk says nothing because he was the one being toasted.....but he claims later on he was taking the HIGH ROAD:laugh:...yeah sure!

And as far as a dispensational view being incompatible with a historical premillennial view, perhaps if you spent more time in your Bible than reading the theologies of men you might come to understand how ignorant such a statement is.

She was 100% CORRECT. You show once again you do not know what you are talking about....oh yeah I forget....Spurgeon is all wrong and you are correct.....people should not read Spurgeon, they should read your posts instead:laugh: You are a legend in your mind...let me compile your quotes from BB and replace Spurgeons Metropolitan Tabernacle ane new park Street pulpit from my library:laugh:

You will not refute that there are differing Ages or Economies in Biblical History;

red herring

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;
red herring
You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;
red herring..it is past
You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;
red herring

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;
red herring

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.
Chiliasts are not premill dispys....lol

If you want to try...step up. But don't bring the words of men...we will examine these issues in the Word of God.

you cannot

 

[Iconoclast]

Nothing to laugh at Icon. It doesn't matter who OR quotes, even if it is Darby itself. His argument is lame, as is yours. You just don't get it.
First: There is not a dispensationalist on this board that has admitted to believing in a "parenthetial church" that OR demands that we believe.
Second: Therefore OR is bearing false witness against us. That is the pure and simple truth.
You won't accept the fact that not all dispensationalists believe the same thing. You guys never have. You would rather debate a book than a person.


You are so deceptive, you are dishonest and ought to be ashamed.
Icon, the words you quoted "so much about taking the high road" came from post 145! during my conversation with you. Now you are quoting almost 100 posts earlier about me entering into this conversation in posts preceding the ones that I was speaking about to you. You are doing the same thing with this thread that you do with scripture--ignoring context! :laugh:
Never learn do you??

Now...I could not get to it last night...no online access.... but I will show you from one of your own allies how you are the one in denial.....lol

From Jeromes post;

[QUOTEDispensationalism, although still young by Spurgeon's time, did predate Spurgeon's ministry by a decade or so. John Nelson Darby and the "Brethren" were very influential and began spreading their system by the late 1830's. Bebbington states:

Although never the unanimous view among Brethren, dispensationalism spread beyond their ranks and gradually became the most popular version of futurism. In the nineteenth century it remained a minority version among premillennialists, but this intense form of apocalyptic expectation was to achieve much greater salience in the twentieth. [emphasis ours]65]

Since the dispensational perspective was viewed as a "minority version among premillennialists" it is evident that another premillennial position was in existence during this time. In fact, the Historicist view was the dominant premillennial option at this time. Bebbington goes on to state that during "the 1830's and 1840's two schools of thought emerged"66 in premillennialism. One, he states was "normally called 'historicist'"67 and the second was identified as "the futurist school."68 In short, the "historicist" was most closely identified with the Historic/Covenantal Premillennial position; while the "futurist" was most clearly the Dispensational Premillennial position.69

[/QUOTE]

This eschatological view was firmly embedded into the Reformed Tradition by the works of John Calvin. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote a section entitled, "The Error of the Chiliasts" in which he stated:

But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth. On the contrary, all Scripture proclaims that there will be no end to the blessedness of the elect or the punishment of the wicked.78

Turretin opposed the crasser, heretical chiliasts who anticipate an earthly millennium with sensual pleasures (including many wives and Jewish worship restored in Palestine) as well as the innocuous millennialism of such seventeenth- century Reformed theologians as Joseph Mede and Johan Heinrich Alsted. This kind of historical hope Turretin simply could not accept because he believed that the church must suffer, not reign in this life.82

Darby developed a system of biblical interpretation and historical development which became known as Dispensationalism. According to Hoffecker this system:

. . .broke not only from previous millenarian teaching but from all of church history by asserting that Christ's second coming would occur in two stages. The first, an invisible "secret rapture" of true believers, could happen at any moment, ending the great "parenthesis" or church age which began when the Jews rejected Christ. Then literal fulfillment would resume OT prophecy concerning Israel, which had been suspended, and fulfillment of prophecy in Revelation would begin the great tribulation. Christ's return would be completed when he established a literal thousand-year kingdom of God on earth, manifest in a restored Israel.148

While there is some dispute as to the origins of Dispensationalism149 E. Schuyler English states:

While some trace the roots of dispensational concepts to the patristic period most theologians credit J. N. Darby, a Plymouth Brethren scholar, with the first systematizing dispensationalist theology in the middle of the 19th century.150

Darby is often difficult to interpret, mainly because of a rather abtruse writing style. During his own lifetime he was often misunderstood and in modern times Cruthfield states, "only the most intrepid of scholars deliberately choose to tackle Darby's works."151 Spurgeon himself commented on this when he stated regarding Darby's commentary on the Psalms, "If the author would write in plain English his readers would probably discover that there is nothing very valuable in his remarks."152 However, in his Lectures on the Second Coming, Darby states his position clearly:

Here then we have the details of it. The Lord hath declared that He will come and receive us unto Himself; and now the apostle, by the revelation given unto him, explains, how it will be. He will come to call us to meet the Lord in the air. . .What we are called to expect is not to die —we may die, and a blessed thing it is to die— but what we are to look for, as is expressed in the 5th of 2nd Corinthians, "Not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." That Christ's power over death may be fully shown, He takes to Himself mortal men, whether alive or dead; if alive, He changes them into glory without dying; if they are dead, He raises them153

In his scheme Darby taught clearly that there was a clear and distinct difference between Israel, for whom the seven year Tribulation and the Millennial kingdom were designed for,154 and the Church, whom would be removed by means of the rapture and "always with the Lord." Commenting on Darby's view of the millennium, Crutchfield states:

According to Darby, while the rapture primairily involves the hopes and destiny of the church, the millennial reign of Christ focuses predominantly upon the nation Israel and here hopes. There were two principles operative in the history of the Jewish people. On the one hand, unconditional promises had been made to Abraham (Gen. 12), and repeated to Isaac (Gen.26:3,4) and Jacob (Gen. 35:10,12) On the other hand, Israel had received promises under the condition of obedience (the giving of the Law at Sinai), and in this, failed miserably. Israel's failure, however, did not abrogate the unconditional covenantal promises made to Abraham some four hundred years before, for they rest solely upon the faithfulness of God. While the unconditional promises to Abraham included both earthly and spiritual elements, prominent among them the an absolute gift of the country.155

This is what the position is.....if it is not yours...do not call yourself a dispensationalist......do not mix the views together unless you are going to state you have a mixed up view.

 

[Iconoclast]

Nothing to laugh at Icon. It doesn't matter who OR quotes, even if it is Darby itself. His argument is lame, as is yours. You just don't get it.
First: There is not a dispensationalist on this board that has admitted to believing in a "parenthetial church" that OR demands that we believe.
Second: Therefore OR is bearing false witness against us. That is the pure and simple truth.
You won't accept the fact that not all dispensationalists believe the same thing. You guys never have. You would rather debate a book than a person.


QUOTE]

Now...I could not get to it last night...no online access.... but I will show you from one of your own allies how you are the one in denial.....lol

From Jeromes post;

[QUOTEDispensationalism, although still young by Spurgeon's time, did predate Spurgeon's ministry by a decade or so. John Nelson Darby and the "Brethren" were very influential and began spreading their system by the late 1830's. Bebbington states:

Although never the unanimous view among Brethren, dispensationalism spread beyond their ranks and gradually became the most popular version of futurism. In the nineteenth century it remained a minority version among premillennialists, but this intense form of apocalyptic expectation was to achieve much greater salience in the twentieth. [emphasis ours]65]

Since the dispensational perspective was viewed as a "minority version among premillennialists" it is evident that another premillennial position was in existence during this time. In fact, the Historicist view was the dominant premillennial option at this time. Bebbington goes on to state that during "the 1830's and 1840's two schools of thought emerged"66 in premillennialism. One, he states was "normally called 'historicist'"67 and the second was identified as "the futurist school."68 In short, the "historicist" was most closely identified with the Historic/Covenantal Premillennial position; while the "futurist" was most clearly the Dispensational Premillennial position.69

This eschatological view was firmly embedded into the Reformed Tradition by the works of John Calvin. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote a section entitled, "The Error of the Chiliasts" in which he stated:

But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth. On the contrary, all Scripture proclaims that there will be no end to the blessedness of the elect or the punishment of the wicked.78

Turretin opposed the crasser, heretical chiliasts who anticipate an earthly millennium with sensual pleasures (including many wives and Jewish worship restored in Palestine) as well as the innocuous millennialism of such seventeenth- century Reformed theologians as Joseph Mede and Johan Heinrich Alsted. This kind of historical hope Turretin simply could not accept because he believed that the church must suffer, not reign in this life.82

Darby developed a system of biblical interpretation and historical development which became known as Dispensationalism. According to Hoffecker this system:

. . .broke not only from previous millenarian teaching but from all of church history by asserting that Christ's second coming would occur in two stages. The first, an invisible "secret rapture" of true believers, could happen at any moment, ending the great "parenthesis" or church age which began when the Jews rejected Christ. Then literal fulfillment would resume OT prophecy concerning Israel, which had been suspended, and fulfillment of prophecy in Revelation would begin the great tribulation. Christ's return would be completed when he established a literal thousand-year kingdom of God on earth, manifest in a restored Israel.148

While there is some dispute as to the origins of Dispensationalism149 E. Schuyler English states:

While some trace the roots of dispensational concepts to the patristic period most theologians credit J. N. Darby, a Plymouth Brethren scholar, with the first systematizing dispensationalist theology in the middle of the 19th century.150

Darby is often difficult to interpret, mainly because of a rather abtruse writing style. During his own lifetime he was often misunderstood and in modern times Cruthfield states, "only the most intrepid of scholars deliberately choose to tackle Darby's works."151 Spurgeon himself commented on this when he stated regarding Darby's commentary on the Psalms, "If the author would write in plain English his readers would probably discover that there is nothing very valuable in his remarks."152 However, in his Lectures on the Second Coming, Darby states his position clearly:

Here then we have the details of it. The Lord hath declared that He will come and receive us unto Himself; and now the apostle, by the revelation given unto him, explains, how it will be. He will come to call us to meet the Lord in the air. . .What we are called to expect is not to die —we may die, and a blessed thing it is to die— but what we are to look for, as is expressed in the 5th of 2nd Corinthians, "Not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." That Christ's power over death may be fully shown, He takes to Himself mortal men, whether alive or dead; if alive, He changes them into glory without dying; if they are dead, He raises them153

In his scheme Darby taught clearly that there was a clear and distinct difference between Israel, for whom the seven year Tribulation and the Millennial kingdom were designed for,154 and the Church, whom would be removed by means of the rapture and "always with the Lord." Commenting on Darby's view of the millennium, Crutchfield states:

According to Darby, while the rapture primairily involves the hopes and destiny of the church, the millennial reign of Christ focuses predominantly upon the nation Israel and here hopes. There were two principles operative in the history of the Jewish people. On the one hand, unconditional promises had been made to Abraham (Gen. 12), and repeated to Isaac (Gen.26:3,4) and Jacob (Gen. 35:10,12) On the other hand, Israel had received promises under the condition of obedience (the giving of the Law at Sinai), and in this, failed miserably. Israel's failure, however, did not abrogate the unconditional covenantal promises made to Abraham some four hundred years before, for they rest solely upon the faithfulness of God. While the unconditional promises to Abraham included both earthly and spiritual elements, prominent among them the an absolute gift of the country.155

This is what the position is.....if it is not yours...do not call yourself a dispensationalist......do not mix the views together unless you are going to state you have a mixed up view.

 

[Iconoclast]

Now this....

[QUOTEYou are so deceptive, you are dishonest and ought to be ashamed.
Icon, the words you quoted "so much about taking the high road" came from post 145! during my conversation with you. Now you are quoting almost 100 posts earlier about me entering into this conversation in posts preceding the ones that I was speaking about to you. You are doing the same thing with this thread that you do with scripture--ignoring context! :laugh:
Never learn do you??[/][/QUOTE]


You have been caught and toasted by BW318...so according to your M.O. you project it on me but to no avail....

Yes ...I exposed your "high road" post for the wag the dog that it was....lol

She already caught you...you got quiet....Dc jumped in....so you then try and make like you had not commented here.....but as I went back to show that is not how it happened at all......it was you she started with...she saw your revisionist history and reacted immediately .....no deception at all except your attempt at it.....She saw it the same exact way!