Featured Church And Israel

Okey dokey. Make sure you get the revision, Dispensationalism, and not the original, Dispensationalism Today. The revision has a chapter on progressive dispensationalism, which was propagated after the first edition. I once had a confused student quote from both of them in a research paper.

 

If you stopped at the first chart, you were fooled. If you read down to the follow-up chart, you were informed.

 

Lol, that's exactly Dispensationalism in a nutshell, complicated. IMO, nowadays most "Dispensationalists" are in it for the sensationalism of it, i.e., living in the last days, speculating what comes next in the news and current events.....

 

I agree completely. I will further say that, though they do not mean to, those who follow replacement theology make God out to be a deceiver. All Jews up to and through the 12 apostles believed that the OT promises of a kingdom to Israel were of a physical kingdom. If God did not mean that, why did He say it in such a way that the people of Israel were deceived into waiting for a physical kingdom?

Even at the Ascension, the apostles said asked about a physical kingdom. Christ did not disabuse them, but told them that it wasn't the current agenda:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:6-8).

 

I remember the excitement I felt after I became a Christian, and I believed we were living in the last days. It took too many years before I learned to live for Christ, and not to spend my days watching for signs of the times. I'm about halfway through "The Day and the Hour" by Francis Gumerlock. In this book, Gumerlock reviews hundreds of instances from the 1st century through modern times where people were sure they were in the "end times".

 

This is exactly the kind of lack of understanding I was talking about in Post #25. This is a ridiculous and false charge. And you wonder why I have you on "ignore" (and am now going back to ignoring you).

 

I knew it! I knew it! You peeked!

 

But you see, that is not the theology of dispensationalism. I specifically tell my students not to look for signs of the times. If you read Ryrie (or any other actual dispensational theologian), you will find no injunction or encouragement to look for the "signs of the times." In fact, I don't recall any such injunction in Scofield. His reference Bible has no notes at all for Matt. 16:3, 24:24, Mark 13:22, Luke 21:11 or 25, etc. And the note for Acts 1:6 simply says that "The answer was according to His repeated teaching; the time was God's secret" (p. 1147).

In fact, historic premilllennialists are just as likely to look for signs as anyone else. My grandfather (with that position) and many others back in the 1940's speculated in print that Mussolini was the Antichrist.

So, please stop talking about "looking for signs" as if it were part and parcel of dispensationalism. That practice is not dispensationalism.

 

Yeah, I do so occasionally, but usually go "Tsk tsk."

 

You make a good point, especially since I really don't know much about dispensationalism. I guess it's just natural to look for signs if you believe you are living in the last days and expect to see things happen. Maybe that just comes with a "futurist" view. I remember watching someone (John Hagee?) saying something like "hold the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, and see how they line up".

 

Please, please don't study theology under a TV preacher, especially a Charismatic like Hagee.

 

I used to like Hagee, but now I can hardly stand him because he is too focused on his view of the end times, and not enough on daily application of the Christian life. I'd forgotten he is Charismatic. I only watch a couple of TV preachers (Charles Stanley and Robert Morris) when I am unable to attend church. For studying theology, I prefer to read. I have different favorites, depending on the subject. Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, and C.S. Lewis are my favorites for general apologetics; Gary DeMar and Ken Gentry are my favorites for eschatology, etc. In any case, the Bible is its own final authority. Whenever anyone says anything that doesn't seem to line up with Scripture, that person loses credibility. Having said all that, I still intend to check out Ryrie's book based on your recommendation.

 

just for clarification, I do not agree with the first chart but the position of the 1689 federalism whose article it is.

 

That explains a lot!

Well, the Bible is its own final authority, yes. But if one fails to interpret with an historical-grammatical hermeneutic, then the interpreter makes himself the authority. The Reconstructionists are noted for that.

Excellent!

 

Yes, but they are not theologians. Most of them are pastors or evangelists, some good men. However, if you have an eye problem you go to an ophthalmologist, not a dietician. So if you want to learn theology you sit under a theologian and read theologies.

You can be greatly blessed by a TV preacher, and learn about the Christian life and share in the thanks when he sees souls saved. But why would anyone want to get their theology from TV? That's about on the level of getting it from Wikipedia!

 

Okey dokey.

 

I knew you'd like that .

Would that be different from "sensus literalis" - according to the sense of the literature? That is, we interpret the text differently depending on whether it is historical narrative, poetry, didactic, or even prophetic. Having said that, I am guessing that interpreting with an historical-grammatical hermeneutic incorporates the method I've described here. Basically, I try to understand what the author meant, and how the original audience understood the message.

 

Yeah, but was he a TV preacher, or did he just have a show of some kind. (I don't know--don't watch much TV & never saw him.) But if he was actually preaching on his show instead of teaching--then he was the exception.