Pre-millenial dispensationalism - Baptist?

Primitive Baptist, the angel told Mary in Luke 1 (I think that is the reference) that the Christ child would sit upon his father David's throne.

The only way for your theology to gel would be to make David the same person as God the Father. I know you did not mean such a thought.

Given time and study, all people will be premillenial.

 

It is a prophetic vision. It means something.

[/b]The whole thing is about the millennium. There is no legitimate way to say that it is not even mentioned. That is like saying sports aren't mentioned in Sporting News.

The express purpose of God is for the sacrifices to be reinstituted. When God says it, you cannot say that it is against the express purpose of God. The sacrificial system has no problem being reinstituted because it does not compromise the once for all atonement of Christ. That is merely a misunderstanding of the sacrificial system and what premills teach about it.

There is not one bit, not even one iota of NT evidence that we should take the words of this vision (or any other) and make them mean something besides what they say. You require that the language mean nothing. We reject that. We believe that God meant to communicate something to us and the NT confirms that for us. The only thing supporting a spiritual view of this prophecy is your system.

Flat out wrong.

Every truth about a doctrine is not mentioned every time the doctrine is mentioned. This is the weakest argument you have used yet. This would be like saying that because Gen 1:1 doesn't mention Jesus, he didn't exist in Gen 1:1. It is faulty thinking and weak argumentation.

 

Pastor Larry,

you say,

HOW do you can prove Ezekiel 40-48 talk about "Millennium"????

 

Later, I will discuss on the sacrifices already put away by Christ by read in the Book of Hebrews.

 

By looking at the context and understanding that it is talking about the end time temple in the kingdom of God, which is what the millennium is.

You really need to read "The Greatness of the Kingdom" by Alva J. McClain. It would clarify a lot of these things from a premillennial viewpoint.

As for discussing Hebrews and the sacrifices, I agree with what Hebrews says. But I do not believe that Hebrews contradicts Ezek. I believe both passages stand as they are. Your view of sacrifices seems limited to less than what the OT describes them as being.

 

Matt:

Matt said:

You talking about a Pre-Trib Rapture? Nah..they weren't the first. I've got some notes on it at home..give me a little time and I'll post the info.

Steve

 

PrimitiveBaptist,

While you got your fingers in the book of Hebrews and you want to talk about Priests...let's look at Chapter 3...The whole chapter is about Jesus is greater than Moses.

Chapter 4 states Jesus is the High Priest
Chapter 5 states he's in the Line of Melchizedek.
Chapter 6 talks about the relationship of Abraham & Melchizedek.
Chapter 7 states in verse 1 that Melchizedek was a KING and a PRIEST.

the rest of chapter 1 discusses how Melchizedek is superior to the Levites because Abraham gave him tithes...while Levi was still in his loins.

So Christ is a KING and a PRIEST...superior to David AND the Levites. He holds both offices. So will we as inheritors during the Millenial Kingdom.

When Peter is quoting Psalm 2... who do you think is talking in Psalm 2? Respectfully...I don't think you know the players of the conversation in Psalm 2. Its a trialogue between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

DeafPostTrib,

You think its impossible for the Sons of Zadok to be restored?

mmm.

Considering there is already DNA evidence of a black Jewish tribe in Africa (Senegal I think...there was a PBS documentary on it) I would disagree with your statement.

I'm not sure if the ones in Ethiopia have been checked out...but they claim they are a Levitical tribe. Could be...Moses had an Ethiopian wife.

 

FOR EVERYBODY... RE: THRONE OF DAVID

This is sort of in response to PrimBapt's point of using the term of "David" idiomatically through out the O.T and the N.T.

Ever wonder why you never read "The Throne of Solomon"?

I mean...Solomon's reign was grander...more presitigous, he even had a Temple.

Yet nothing about Solomon in the New Testament..seems very good. The only comparison between Jesus and Solomon I can find is that Jesus is stated to be wiser. Solomon doesn't even measure up to the Lillies of the Field.

I have my own thesis about this...just wanted to hear ya'lls first.


Steve

 

DNA...Priesthood...Africa

getting back to finding Priests:

emphasis added

Its from a link on PBS' NOVA program...I watched the program...interesting. Here's the link:

Black Jews of Southern Africa

Here's a transcript of the program...it has a link to the main site:

The Lost Tribes of Israel (transcript)

 

Matt,

Hey...while I'm looking...is there anybody else you want to disqualify?

As long as we're picking and choosing... I'd like to disqualify anything inspired by Origen, Westcott & Hort & Augustine.

Oh...but that would pretty much delete Amillenialism.

Steve

 

DeafPostTrib,

RE: Sacrifices

Your problem in dismissing the reality of sacrificial offerings resuming...comes from Gabriel's words to Daniel in chapter 9 verse 27.

emphasis added

Now...how is this Anti-christ dude gonna make the sacrifices cease...unless they are going on?

 

It is not the expressed or unexpressed purpose of God for animal sacrifices to be reinstituted.

Today, we regard those who practice such a thing to be pagans, Satan worshippers, etc.

The animal rights crowd would never go for such a thing to take place. And I am quite certain that millions and millions of those of us who are not animal rights people would protest such a thing taking place. The Jews have enough problems with world opinion and anti-Semites trying to kill them now. They don't need an added burden such as this hung around their necks. I think anyone advocating that the Jews reinstitute animal sacrifices is doing them a great disservice and ought to be ashamed of himself.

 

Matt,

OK...got my notes.

These were compiled by Dr. Chuck Missler for his lecture entitled "The Rapture: Christianity's Most Preposterous Belief."

You can purchase it in download form for $7.95 at the online store of www.khouse.org.

Here we go:
________________________________

Pre-Trib Eschatology supported by:

The Epistle of Barnabus (A.D. 100)
Irenaeus in " Against Heresies "
Hippolytus (Irenaeus' student 2nd Century
Justin Martyr " Dialogue with Trypho "
Ephraem the Syrian (4th Century)

Quote from Ephraem of Nisbis (306-373 A.D.):

Now you said "Pseudo-Ephraim" so I'm not sure if these two are the same...or different, regardless of that however its a 4th century document that precedes any White Surpemacy movement which began in Pulaski, Tennessee in the mid 1860's by Nathan Bedford Forrest (born in Chapel Hill, TN --see my location, I know what I'm talking about) ..who soon renounced the movement when it became violent.

_________
Let's continue:

Pre-Trib eschatology was espoused in the works of these folks:
Peter Jurieu- 1687 The Approaching Deliverance of the Church
Philip Doddridge - 1738 Commentary on the New Testament
Dr. John Gill - 1748 Commentary on the New Testament
James MacKnight - 1763 Commentary on the Apostolical Epistles
Thomas Scott - 1792 Commentary on the Holy Bible

Pre-Trib popularized in the 1800's by:

Emanuel Lacunza (Ben Ezra) - 1812
Edward Irving - 1816
John Darby - 1820
Margaret McDonald - 1830

________________________________

Ok...in summary, we have at least 10 different writings before Darby and McDonald...and an additional 2 persons who were teaching it prior to Darby and McDonald.

So can we put this idea that Pre-Trib Rapture belief didn't start until 1830 in the trash now?

Steve

 

To the Angel Gabriel:

According to Mr. KenH...you should be ashamed of yourself.

I would appreciate a response.

mmm... do I gotta do the 21 day fast thingy?

Steve

 

Nope. The angel Gabriel never gave voice to an unBiblical scheme such as dispensational premillennialism.

 

Hey Ken...

The topic was Sacrificial offerings and your offense to it.

Don't change the subject.

Steve

 

Hebrews 9:24-28 (ESV)
[24]For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. [25] Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, [26] for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, [28] so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Jesus is not coming back to deal with sin which is what the animal sacrifices are about. Nowhere in the Bible are they described as a being a memorial to my Lord's once for all time sacrifice.

Hebrews 8:5-7 (ESV)
[5] They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." [6] But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

The animal sacrifices were part of the first covenant which has been replaced by the second covenant. To reinstitute animal sacrifices would be to return to "copy and shadow".

 

He is the one who said it, not me. Why would express something that was not his "expressed will"?? It is your side who must do away with the text of Scripture on this one, not ours.

"Today" we would. But that is today, not the Millennium and there is a big difference.

"Ashamed of himself"??? What kind of language is that Ken?? What kind of approach is that. I have tried to carry on a civil conversation and you pull this ... Why???

As for what animal rights activists will do and say, who cares?? Why are we, as biblical Christians, concerned with what animal rights activists say?? We are talking about something much more sacred. This is an end-time reinstitution that will take place after the return of Christ. By that time, the unsaved will be gone and there will be no misunderstanding. If you had that part of your theology right, you would have seen this answer coming .

In the bottom line, Ezekiel 40-48 talks clearly of the reinstitution of the sacrifices in the end-time. Why not simply debate what that means without trying to change it and pretend like its not there. Most of us dispensationalists are solidly rooted in the biblical text. We have good and strong biblical reasons for what we believe. In fact, on an exegetical level, covenantalism cannot compare with dispensationalism. Get past treating us as if we are blind and stupid. Study the reasons and arguments and start asking the tough exegetical questions. Do not simply assume that because the text says one thing that it must mean something else. Ezek 40-48 in no way contradicts or compromises the teaching of Hebrews.