Dispensation - rightly rendering Scripture?

There are those on the BB that do and some that do not hold to a dispensation view. There is also those of us who may use some of the tools, perhaps even be assigned some label of "modified" dispensation thinkers by some who demand labels.

What this thread seeks is marking out areas of agreement and disagreement with Scriptures.

Each post should present the Scripture support or argument against some object of dispensation.

There is no need of history lessons or quotes by theologians. There is enough of that on not only the www net but also the BB at times.

Personal animosity should be set aside, so that the focus remains upon the Scripture as the final determiner.

I am writing the OP on my phone and ask all who see mistakes in grammar and spelling to mark those as clumsy arthritic fingers.

 

I forgot to mention that there are some who consider rejecting dispensation is a step up, and a mark of maturity.

Perhaps it would be good for those who have that experience, indicate what Scriptures were instrumental in both determining the need and in settling upon what is now "your" view.

 

Like my daughter says, "Live like your going through the Tribulation, but hope to be either an early martyr or snatched away by Christ."

Imo, there is illusion in Scriptures to a "rapture," and it is based upon (as you know) the thinking that Christ never appoints His church to wrath. The use of the Greek word (orge) (used in 1 Thess. 1, 1 Thess. 5, Romans 5, Ephesians 5) may carry the emphasis that the wrath is passionately vengeful. Such wrath as poured out upon the world as never before experienced.

The argument seems to be that such will be the experience of the world during the tribulation and God would be obliged to remove the church.

Then there is 2 Thess. 2 which Paul discusses the events and removal of what restrains evil. Something (or someone) is removed that restrains evil. What could it be? Some say, the Holy Spirit, some the church, some the Scriptures, some ...

But, (imo) Dispensation thinking does not "depend" on one single event. One can move or even remove the rapture the basic structure of the view remain.

What I consider a violation of the scheme is isolating the church into some saved holy huddle of exclusion and authority separate from that of what God presented in covenant to Israel. God did not change salvation, He changed focus (direction) of the salvation so the Gentiles could be included into Israel. (Romans 11)

 

I agree, and have pointed out that passage more than once on the BB as one area in which I do not agree with the typical "Darby dispensation" folks.

Romans and John (including the letters) are especially potent in helping the student of Scriptures to not chase after being either 100 % dispensational or 100% covenant. Both tend to place Israel as either a "parenthesis" or "replaced."

 

Short answer, yes.

More than one pastor that I have visited with is pre-tribulation rapture hopeful, but knows if it doesn't happen the way they desire, God is still faithful.

But for the readers, there is an excellent article on Theopedia which explains different "rapture" views, and documentation. Here is the link.

Just as "rapture" is only suggested in the Scripture, so to are some items held by covenant theology, and both the dispensation and covenant systems are undergoing modifications.

I predict that a single systematic approach will emerge in which the camps will find great agreement.

But, these remarks are my opinion only, and far from the purpose of the OP.

 

What makes you think that Paul wrote the letter? There is no other place in which the "man of lawlessness is revealed" is used. Would Paul write such a peculiar statement and not have it occur in some other known letter?

I'm teasing. Although there are a few (imo) on the "fringe" folks that do regard this second letter as either co-authored, actually coming from someone who accompanied Paul and sent after his permission, or from one who was not part of Paul's entourage.

But of no consequence, the letter was written (as best I can figure) around 51-53.

So just what was Paul talking about?

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God....
And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; ​

I don't see those events as ever occurring in Jerusalem pre- 70 AD. After 70 AD there was no longer a temple in Jerusalem. So, the Lord's second coming has not yet occurred, the lawless one has yet to ascend to the seat, and the apostasy is just beginning (imo).

So, exactly when did the Lord slay the lawless one if not yet to be in the future just as it was pointed out to be in the future for the Thessalonians?