The "D" Chart

[canadyjd]

Not exactly. What Jesus actually said was "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), with the world "of" being the Greek ek, meaning "from."

I stand corrected, however, it is a distinction without a difference. Christ now stands in His position of highest honor at the right hand of God the Father, making intercession for us. He will not step down from that position, will He?

What are the "several" dispensational theories you mean? If you prefer covenant theology, it also has "several" theories, so what is your point with this?

It seems the most prominent, made very popular by the “Left behind” book series, features distinctions….
1. Pre-trib rapture refuted by Jesus in Matthew 24+)
2. Separate future for Israel (refuted by Paul in Ephesians
3. 1000 year reign on earth (misunderstanding of Revelation 19)

And what in the world are the "many 'second comings'" you are talking about?? Never heard of that one. As JD points out, there is only one in dispensational doctrine.

The is an effort to explain Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 + as not being His second coming since He doesn’t come to earth to establish the 1000 year reign, but rather collects the saints (interpreted as Jews only)

However, I will cede to your knowledge on the issue. It is probably not fair the day “many second comings” since those that hold the views do not see it as a second coming.

So again, I stand corrected

Peace to you

 

[Charlie24]

The first resurrection is referred to as being saved, having passed from death unto life, per John 5:24 & 1 John 3:14, Colossians 2:12-13.

Getting back to the 1000 being literal...I don't think that passage teaches a literal 1000 years. We see Satan as a dragon being chained for a 1000 years. First off, Satan is not a dragon, but a dragon is symbolic, a type, of him and his character. Seeing he is a spirit, chains cannot literally restrain him, either.

There's too much symbolism being employed by John to take this literally. Satan is not a literal dragon that will be restrained a literal 1000 years with literal chains.

And I want to you to reconcile your belief of Revelation 20:1-6 with Matthew 25:31ff and John 5:28-29. There is a clear disconnect if both these are true, as both cannot be true simultaneously, my friend.

If you want to understand the Dispensationalist view of the Rapture I can show it to you in detail.

At least you will know what to argue, but until you understand it all the way through your arguments will go around in circles.

If you will just save the arguments till later we can move on with it.

 

[Charlie24]

If you want to understand the Dispensationalist view of the Rapture I can show it to you in detail.

At least you will know what to argue, but until you understand it all the way through your arguments will go around in circles.

If you will just save the arguments till later we can move on with it.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to have a full understanding of exactly what you don't believe?

 

[John of Japan]

I stand corrected, however, it is a distinction without a difference. Christ now stands in His position of highest honor at the right hand of God the Father, making intercession for us. He will not step down from that position, will He?

No, there is a huge difference. If His kingdom were only of Heaven and not on earth, He would not have said "from" (Greek ek). If I say, "I work Tennessee" when I'm in Wisconsin, that means I no longer work in Tennessee. So when Jesus says His kingdom is from Heaven, that indicates a kingdom on earth.

It seems the most prominent, made very popular by the “Left behind” book series, features distinctions….
1. Pre-trib rapture refuted by Jesus in Matthew 24+)

Not refuted in Matt. 24 since that is not about the rapture but about the 2nd coming. (P. S. I don't get my theology from the Left Behind books. Just sayin'. )

2. Separate future for Israel (refuted by Paul in Ephesians

No, upheld by Paul in Romans 9-11. There are three whole chapters there with Paul proving a future for ethnic Israel.

As for Ephesians, where does it say that God abrogated His unconditional covenants (Mosaic, Abrahamic, Davidic) with ethnic Israel?

3. 1000 year reign on earth (misunderstanding of Revelation 19)

No, that's in Revelation 20, and it's not a misunderstanding, but a literal interpretation. The misunderstanding is on the side of those who believe it is somehow an allegory. But in order to hold that position, one must say what it means as an allegory, but that is impossible" to do. As postmillennialist A. T. Robertson wrote about the passage: "For a thousand years (chilia etê). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, accessed through Power Bible 3.3).

So, since you reject the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth ("from" Heaven), what does the 1000 years stand for, and why?

The is an effort to explain Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 + as not being His second coming since He doesn’t come to earth to establish the 1000 year reign, but rather collects the saints (interpreted as Jews only)

How is it Jews only?

However, I will cede to your knowledge on the issue. It is probably not fair the day “many second comings” since those that hold the views do not see it as a second coming.

Thanks for the correction.

So again, I stand corrected

Peace to you

God bless

 

[Charlie24]

No, there is a huge difference. If His kingdom were only of Heaven and not on earth, He would not have said "from" (Greek ek). If I say, "I work Tennessee" when I'm in Wisconsin, that means I no longer work in Tennessee. So when Jesus says His kingdom is from Heaven, that indicates a kingdom on earth.

Not refuted in Matt. 24 since that is not about the rapture but about the 2nd coming. (P. S. I don't get my theology from the ````` books. Just sayin'. )

No, upheld by Paul in Romans 9-11. There are three whole chapters there with Paul proving a future for ethnic Israel.

As for Ephesians, where does it say that God abrogated His unconditional covenants (Mosaic, Abrahamic, Davidic) with ethnic Israel?

No, that's in Revelation 20, and it's not a misunderstanding, but a literal interpretation. The misunderstanding is on the side of those who believe it is somehow an allegory. But in order to hold that position, one must say what it means as an allegory, but that is impossible" to do. As postmillennialist A. T. Robertson wrote about the passage: "For a thousand years (chilia etê). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, accessed through Power Bible 3.3).

So, since you reject the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth ("from" Heaven), what does the 1000 years stand for, and why?


How is it Jews only?

Thanks for the correction.

God bless

Regarding the 1000 years, it's mentioned 6 times in Rev. 20.

3 of those times it specifically says, "when/till the 1000 years are finished/expired.

 

[37818]

.

I'm not really sure which post of mine you are answering here, nor exactly what you are trying to say. What position are you positing?

I do not accept the pre-trib rapture view.
I hold a post-trib pre-wrath rapture. I am pre-mil.
I want to discuss.

 

[John of Japan]

Regarding the 1000 years, it's mentioned 6 times in Rev. 20.

3 of those times it specifically says, "when/till the 1000 years are finished/expired.

Right. And what does that mean? Is there a real, literal 1000 years or not?

 

[John of Japan]

.
I do not accept the pre-trib rapture view.
I hold a post-trib pre-wrath rapture. I am pre-mil.
I want to discuss.

Okay, go ahead and discuss.

 

[Charlie24]

.
I do not accept the pre-trib rapture view.
I hold a post-trib pre-wrath rapture. I am pre-mil.
I want to discuss.

In 1 Thes. 4 Paul explains the Rapture/Resurrection is coming, in chp. 5 he begins telling us to be prepared for it.

Then in 5:9 he tells us this,

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Most of us Dispensationalists believe Paul is telling us the wrath of God is not meant for the Church on the Day of the Lord.

What say thou?

 

[Charlie24]

Right. And what does that mean? Is there a real, literal 1000 years or not?

Of course it's literal.

 

[Charlie24]

In 1 Thes. 4 Paul explains the Rapture/Resurrection is coming, in chp. 5 he begins telling us to be prepared for it.

Then in 5:9 he tells us this,

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Most of us Dispensationalists believe Paul is telling us the wrath of God is not meant for the Church on the Day of the Lord.

What say thou?

Somethinig else for you to think about on the pre-trib veiw.

When Christ instructed John to write the letters to the Church in Rev., He said to tell the church this.

Rev. 3:10

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

What do you think the "hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world" to be?

Is it the Great Tribulation He will keep us from?

 

[John of Japan]

Of course it's literal.

Well, then, I apologize, but I haven't figured out yet where you are coming from. Are you post-trib, then, or what?

 

[37818]

In 1 Thes. 4 Paul explains the Rapture/Resurrection is coming, in chp. 5 he begins telling us to be prepared for it.

Then in 5:9 he tells us this,

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Most of us Dispensationalists believe Paul is telling us the wrath of God is not meant for the Church on the Day of the Lord.

What say thou?

My view is post-trib pre-wrath rapture.
Post-resurrection rapture. 1 Thessalionians 4:15.

 

[Charlie24]

Well, then, I apologize, but I haven't figured out yet where you are coming from. Are you post-trib, then, or what?

We see things generally in the same.

I originally responded to your post, the 1000 years part of it, confirming what you said on it and added a little extra on the 1000 years.

I wasn't disagreeing I was confirming.

 

[Charlie24]

My view is post-trib pre-wrath rapture.
Post-resurrection rapture. 1 Thessalionians 4:15.

I was just giving you some things to consider on the pre-trib. view.

If your can't see the pre-trib. that's ok.

 

[John of Japan]

Somethinig else for you to think about on the pre-trib veiw.

When Christ instructed John to write the letters to the Church in Rev., He said to tell the church this.

Rev. 3:10

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

What do you think the "hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world" to be?

Is it the Great Tribulation He will keep us from?

Rev. 3:10 refers to the Rapture taking us away from the tribulation. The word "from" is the Greek ek, or out of, so the church will not go through the Tribulation, but be taken out before it.

 

[John of Japan]

We see things generally in the same.

I originally responded to your post, the 1000 years part of it, confirming what you said on it and added a little extra on the 1000 years.

I wasn't disagreeing I was confirming.

Okay, thanks.

 

[37818]

Okay, go ahead and discuss.

The first resurrectio, Revelation 20:6, is post tribulation per Revelation 20:4.

 

[Charlie24]

Rev. 3:10 refers to the Rapture taking us away from the tribulation. The word "from" is the Greek ek, or out of, so the church will not go through the Tribulation, but be taken out before it.

Yes, that was my purpose of posting it.

Now tell 37818 that so he can understand it.

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, that was my purpose of posting it.

Now tell 37818 that so he can understand it.

I'm not a teacher, I can't break things down the way you can to be understood.