Anti-Dispy?

If you want to stay in the premill domain, check out the charts and tables at http://www.lasttrumpet.com

There is some good stuff at the Partial preterist archive

If all you want is a pretty picture, may I suggest this one and this one for a simple graph of the amill view.

I used to have my own charts on the web of the various rapture and millennial views, I can supply them if you want them.

[ October 15, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Ken, Larkin is hardly the posterboy for dispensationalism.

I heard the White Horse Inn's program relating to dispensationalism. It was another pooling of ignorance and misrepresentation. People that listen to them and don't know what dispy teaching is would obviously be against dispy teaching. Please tell me that you don't agree with their representation of dispy teaching. If you do, it is no wonder you are against it.

Also, I don't need a chart for my own belief. I could however, walk someone through the Bible and form my own without any problem.

BrianT, keep in mind that not every who claims a particular theological persuasion really understands it and represents it accurately. Larkin would be such a person.

Sheeagle, a word of advice, stay away from datesetters. I know the chart provided didn't specify, but according to his chart, Christ should have raptured the church in 1996 (since our current calendar system is 4 years off).

Bottom line: people are anti-dispy because of ignorance. Some are anti-dispy willfully. These people though are lost.

[ October 16, 2002, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]

 

Keep in mind that there is no "accurate" description of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism covers a wide range of minor differences between individual believers. I think Larkin is fairly typical, and if you disagree, please explain how his explanation of dispensationalism is not "accurate".

 

1) Yes, I do agree with the group on the White Horse Inn concerning dispensational theology. They do not misrepresent this scheme as I have heard dispy scheme, for example, refer to the church as God's Plan B.

2) I, for one, am hardly against the dispy scheme because of ignorance. I, for one, am against the dispy scheme quite willfully. And, fortunately, you are not my judge as to whether I am lost or not.

Have a great day.

Ken

 

I like dispensational theology as it gives space for God to fulfill all the promises He made in the Old Testament to the Israelite. I don't want a God Who lies or says one thing when He means another.

From what I see, and granted I am still learning, other systems of belief have to metaphorically interpret much of Scripture where they have no indication to do so.

Just wanted to add a word to Mr Ken. The Scripture does not teach the church to be God's plan "b". Some dispensationalists may say that but they are very wrong. That idea is fraught with theological heresy. Paul speaks of the church being a mystery of God. Something previously not known or understood but revealed in the New Testament.

[ October 18, 2002, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: M Wickens ]

 

Do you mean like when John's "come up hither" is really the rapture, or the "last" trump is not the last, or the "second" coming is really the third, or the "first" resurrection is really the second, or a promise to the Philadelphians is really for end time Christians, or Christ's answer to the *apostles* is really not for the church at all, or the "glorious" return is really invisible, or the seven churches are seven church ages, etc, etc? All views have some scripture they don't take at face value, but must "metaphorize" to get their system to work.

 

A most excellent point!! Have NEVER seen a suitable (IMHO) explanation for this point.

No argument that EVERY DETAIL of any end-time philosophy(?) is not there, BUT, again IMHO, the least questionable is dispensationalism.

Much of the others seem to me to use the same tactics that the liberals do to "prove" that
1 the Word is not literal
2 alternate(?) lifestyles are acceptable
3 a fetus is not a baby etc. etc.

I'm not accusing any of you of going to this extreme, but the basic approach seems to be typical; allegorize, spiritualize, metophorize, rather than accepting literally EXCEPT where usage and/or context dictate otherwise.

 

You mean dispys don't believe that the locusts in Revelation are literal locusts and that Satan is literally a large red dragon that literally drags stars out of the sky.

Sorry, but dispys can lay no better claim to deciding what is literal and what is not literal than can historical premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists.

 

"My" theology? Can you provide examples of how metaphors ARE the system of "my" theology? I would like to correct them, if there are any. I believe scripture should interpret scripture. I do believe that sometimes scripture supports understanding a passage as being metaphorical or spiritual, but I don't just pick these cases at random.

First, "literal" and "spiritual" are not opposites - many Biblical truths are both at the same time. Second, the ones that I see as "spiritual" I label so because *scripture indicates this*. If you want to discuss any specific examples, I'd be glad too, but it's hard to respond to a vague generalization.

 

By the way, the whole dispensational approach, especially as presented in the chart that was posted that started this thread, is the result of a huge underlying allegory and is even explicitly referenced in the chart: that all of human history is the 7 "days" of the week, with the millennium being the Sabbath, and eternity being the "day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week, Matt 28:1-6". The entire view *is* an allegory of the seven days of creation. Now, I am fully aware of 2 Pet 3:8, but nothing there says this is how to understand all of history.

 

BrianT, I do not have the specific example in front of me, but we have statements from the Chruch fathers where they said similar statements (regarding the 7 "days" of human history). Personally, I don't have a problem with it and don't preach it. It is just an interesting thought. Btw, Larkin is a bad picture of dispensationalism. We aren't all sensationalist just because he is.

 

Just because they used the "7 days" in a similar fashion doesn't mean it's not an allegorical approach.

I don't think Larkin is a sensationalist, nor a misrepresentation of the dispensational view. With the exception of him expecting the second coming at or near the year 2000, where do you think he significantly differs from the rest of dispensationalism?

 

BrianT, my apologies, I should not have directed the post toward you as I don't fully know what you believe. I humbly ask for your forgiveness. No offense was meant.

However, anyone who holds to an amillennial view must spiritualize substantial amounts of Scripture without justification for doing so.

In relation to someone else's that spoke of the 7 days of creation being the basis of dispensationalism, um, that is a load of garbage. It certainly may be an argument but it is not the basis. The whole canon of Scripture is my basis for dispensationalism.

 

And from the non-dispy side - anyone who holds to a dispy view must read substantial amounts of apocalyptic Scripture as headline news without justification for doing so.

[ October 19, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Hi,

What exactly do you all mean by "dispensationalist"? I use the term to describe myself, because I believe in a literal, future, 1000-year kingdom of Christ and the Jews on earth, with bucket-loads of prophecy being literal (as opposed to the Reformed idea of allorgarising it), along with a (partial) pre-trib rapture. However, I don't divide history into seven ages where men get saved by different amounts of faith and works, I don't buy "the church isn't explicitly called that, so the rapture must have happened" theory, and I don't think you can read the EU or helicopters or tanks into the book of Revelation. So am I "dispy" or not???
But one thing's for sure: I spend most of my time arguing with people on here that they should take the Bible more literally.

Literalists all the way!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

None was taken. I just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing against me for something I don't intend on defending. Personally, I am on the fence between amill and premill.

The more I study amill, the more I discover that statement to be false. There is some spiritualizing, but never without justification. The spiritualizing of certain passages is the result of other scriptures making that likely. For example, amill always gets knocked for spiritualizing the kingdom. Yet even Christ, when asked when the kingdom would come, said "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

The seven "dispensations" are modelled after the seven "days". It is trying to find a parallel with the week of creation that led to the definition of seven dispensations.

Scripture does talk of dispensations, but not in the way modern dispensationalism defines them.

 

The Patristics did speak of "dispensations," but this is not in the same classification as "Dispensationalism" of the Darby / Scofield sort. Apples and oranges. In fact, today there are many in non-Dispensational circles who speak of "dispensations" - read some of the Reformed theologians who are ardently Amil.

Rev. G

Rev. G

[ October 20, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

 

A few comments: Larkin is not dispensationalism. He is a dispensationalist with whom many of us disagree. It is important to distinguish between what the sine qua non of dispensationalism are and what some dispensationalists believe.

The seven days have nothing to do with dispensationalism. That is based on an unsupported understanding of years and time. The seven dispensations are based on recognizable workings of God in human history. It is basedon the idea of progressive revelation revealing how God works in different times.