ANy others here hold To Tulip, yet Still remained a Dispensationalist?

[webdog]

Don't know what you mean by "spiritualize" but dispensationalists are not consistent literalists. The Scripture that shows this most clearly is John 5:28, 29:

28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Now this passage clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment of all the dead consistent with the scene of the Great White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20. Yet dispensationalists either ignore this passage or try tto make the nonsensical argument that because it says good and evil the hour does not mean "the hour" and all does not mean "all".

I hate to use this analogy on a Christian forum but it is like Clinton saying: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' 'Is'?

By the way if one is God dependent they will recognize that Salvation is all by the Sovereign Grace of God. If you want to give that truth the name Calvinism so be it. I sometimes call dispensationalists Darbyites or Scofieldians.

The hour simply means "the time", even in the literal sense. You must be selective in how you choose to define terms to come to your view. As a literal dispensationalist I see that text stating there is a time when everyone to be resurrected to stand before the Lord. You have to read into it that this is at the exact same time (which you do in your loose rendering of defining "the hour")

 

[OldRegular]

The hour simply means "the time", even in the literal sense. You must be selective in how you choose to define terms to come to your view. As a literal dispensationalist I see that text stating there is a time when everyone to be resurrected to stand before the Lord. You have to read into it that this is at the exact same time (which you do in your loose rendering of defining "the hour")

You are just as entitled to be wrong as every other dispensationalist.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Thayers' Greek Lexicon gives the usage of the Greek word for hour as follows:

wra hora ho'-rah

apparently a primary word; TDNT - 9:675,1355; n f

KJV - hour 89, time 11, season 3, misc 5; 108

1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year
1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter
2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day
3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)
4) any definite time, point of time, moment

Really it makes no difference whether you call it hour or "time" the passage gives the same message.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28. Marvel not at this: for the "ωρα" is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The phrase "in the which" clearly shows that Jesus Christ means the same time, hour, whatever makes you happy. The point is there is only one more resurrection of the dead. that occurs at the end of time as we know it when Jesus Christ returns in power and Glory when every eye shall behold Him.

Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Scripture. There are no Scripture that support the varied resurrections loved by dispensationalists.

 

[webdog]

You are just as entitled to be wrong as every other dispensationalist.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Thayers' Greek Lexicon gives the usage of the Greek word for hour as follows:

wra hora ho'-rah

apparently a primary word; TDNT - 9:675,1355; n f

KJV - hour 89, time 11, season 3, misc 5; 108

1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year
1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter
2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day
3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)
4) any definite time, point of time, moment

Really it makes no difference whether you call it hour or "time" the passage gives the same message.

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28. Marvel not at this: for the " " is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The phrase "in the which" clearly shows that Jesus Christ means the same time, hour, whatever makes you happy. The point is there is only one more resurrection of the dead. that occurs at the end of time as we know it when Jesus Christ returns in power and Glory when every eye shall behold Him.

Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Scripture. There are no Scripture that support the varied resurrections loved by dispensationalists.

And not to disappoint, you again resort to begging the question. You butchered that text.

 

[thomas15]

...Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Scripture. There are no Scripture that support the varied resurrections loved by dispensationalists.

Kids do say the funniest things don't they?

 

[OldRegular]

With all due respect I'm very correct, you sir are not. And for you to fret about dispies having any kind of influence on US foreign policy is, to be quite blunt absurd on at least 10 levels, maybe more.

All due respect or not error is error or worse. Dispensational doctrine is nothing more than eisegesis perhaps designed to support Margaret MacDonald's supposed vision.

There are two serious implications of dispensationalism:

1, It has influenced this country's foreign policy toward Israel because of the dispensational belief that the Jews are still God's chosen people and no one must offend the Jews under threat of eternal punishment.

2. The atrocious dispensational doctrine that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom but the Jews rejected Him and He established the Church instead. This Bride of Jesus Christ is called a parenthesis by some dispensationalists [Walvoord] and an intercalation by others [Ryrie] and an interruption of God's program for Israel [Pentecost]. Following this line of thinking, particularly that of Pentecost , the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ, seems to be thought of as a stepchild???????

Of course dispensationalists are usually not very vocal on the accusation that Jesus Christ had to establish His Church or be considered a failure. They do get all excited about the pre-trib Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Millennial reign on earth, and especially the Jews as God's #1 chosen people.

Thankfully there is a movement away from classic dispensationalism called progressive dispensationalism. They are moving toward covenant or historical premillennialism and are particularlytaking a Scriptural view of the Church as does covenant premillennialism.

Of course classical dispensationalists like Ryrie look down their nose at hyper-0dispensationalists, extreme or just hyper.

 

[OldRegular]

Kids do say the funniest things don't they?

Yes you do. I thought you were rather juvenile.

 

[OldRegular]

And not to disappoint, you again resort to begging the question. You butchered that text.

Webdog's supreme offense "You are begging the Question".

 

[webdog]

Webdog's supreme offense "You are begging the Question".

It's not my offense...I'm not the one employing the fallacy on an "oldregular" basis

 

[OldRegular]

It's not my offense...I'm not the one employing the fallacy on an "oldregular" basis

Don't worry webdog. You start with the faulty doctrine of dispensationalism what can on expect.

 

[webdog]

Don't worry webdog. You start with the faulty doctrine of dispensationalism what can on expect.

...and you do it yet again proving my point.

 

[jbh28]

Why don't we just cool it with the rude remarks. There are many people that disagree over this issue. Support your view with Scripture, leave out the personal comments.



as for the OP, I lean towards a dispensational view, but I'm still studying. I find flaws that are an issue for me. John MacArthur is dispensational and definitely a Calvinist.

 

[Iconoclast]

I wait with bated breath!:laugh:


Hold on there a minute MB, hold on there a minute. Just where did I say that John 5:25, the passage you post, had anything to do with the general resurrection?



No! You are imposing dispensational error on a very clear passage of Scripture.

It reads:

John 5:28, 29 KJV
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Now to point out a few things. Jesus Christ, My Lord and My Savior, states ever so clearly:

1. the hour Not two different time periods but one which He clearly calls the hour.

2. in the which In the WHAT? In the hour Now I could look up the Greek for hour and spout off about that but to no avail. You have imposed your dispensational mythology on this passage of Scripture and that trumps everything. But to continue:

3. in the which all Who? ALL All you say? NO, ALL said Jesus Christ. You going to dispute My Lord and My Savior? ALL who?

4. all that are in the graves What about ALL that are in the graves you ask?

5. shall hear his voice ALL shall hear his voice! All means all. Whose voice you ask? My Lord and My Savior I reply. How many voices you ask? ONE VOICE Scripture replies! And then what, you ask?

6. ALL shall come forth ALL shall come forth. When shall ALL come forth. When My Lord and My Savior speaks; not when Darby speaks, or Scofield, or MacDonald, or Ryrie, or Walvoord, not even MacArthur!




No MB you are totally, absolutely deluded. The passage in question speaks of only one resurrection when ALL that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth! Any rational reading of the text indicates a general resurrection and general judgment.




Imagine what? The word dispensation does not occur in the Old Testament, imagine that! Dispensationalism is the invention of John Darby and that is the truth. Sadly Scofield and his Bible popularized it is this country.

But again I say that the worst thing about dispensationalism is that it teaches Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, the Jews rejected Him and He established the Church instead, a fallback position. Never mind the fact that a mob of Jews wanted to make Him king!!Imagine that!

The Bible is not a hodge-podge record of God's dealing with mankind. The Bible is a unified story of the outworking of the Grace of God in the Salvation of His people. The initial promise of redemption is recorded in Genesis 3:15 long before God called out Abraham.

:thumbs::wavey: Thanks for another solid and biblical post.....glad you are posting truth ...it makes the site more solid:thumbs:

 

[agedman]

OldRegular err in John

First, I am Calvinistic in thinking.

Second, I hold to much of the dispensation view because I find it the most consistent view in which the total of Scriptures are held in more literal and of higher consistency than other views I have explored.

Now about the Scripture that OldRegular is posting in opposition to a millennium reign of Christ.

OldRegular uses John 5:28, 29, but lets expand his selection so that the context can clearly be seen.

John 5: 18 – 30:

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things so ever he does, these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them; even so the Son quickens whom he will. For the Father judges no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which hath sent him."

(The underlined areas refer to the power over death, just who gives life, and an indication that "every knee shall bow.")

John continues:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

(NOTE: Here is an illusion by Christ of the BOTH his bride and the rapture - NOT God's great white throne judgment! He never spells it out plainly for remember the “mystery” church was not revealed as we now have until after the cross. Prophets of old saw the suffering Christ, the King Christ, and Israel returned - but not the church.)


John continues:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

(Note: This is a THIRD "verily, verily" Jesus uses. It is most important that one note that each time "verily, verily" is used that it indicates new point. That new point is not a restatement of the first and not a clarification of the other "verily, verily" statements. The third statement IS the great white throne judgment. There is judgment. This is not the same resurrection that he spoke just a sentence or two earlier.)

John continues:


"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”



Here is a list of errors that OldRegular is making and an answer for each from the Scriptures.

First, he errors in the use of the word “hour.” It does mean hour. It doesn’t mean day, month, minute, or year. It means the promise of judgment is sure and certain. I won't bother restating the breakdown of the word that others have posted. Read previous posts as to the word and how it is used in the Scripture.

Second, OldRegular errs because carefully reading and extrapolating fully his statement would place him in agreement with “soul sleep” advocates - which I would think he does not hold. However, this (soul sleep) is disproved by such Scriptures as presented in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 (absent from the body…present with the Lord.” The only condition in which believers are “resurrected” at the great white throne judgment is if there is in fact a tribulation and a millennium, and the resurrection judgment are those saved that have died during the tribulation and millennium. There is no dispute about those who are condemned.

Third, OldRegular (as already indicated) errs in the use of the word hour as referring to only the great white throne judgment resurrection. However, the dead did and do hear His voice, Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son, Lazarus, … were dead and yet heard His voice.



Because of the length of this pose, and because I have already dealt with the word "all" - it always means, all - I won't respond at this time to the off handed remark he gave about those who don't think all mean all.

This agedman does. All always means all.

 

[agedman]

All due respect or not error is error or worse. Dispensational doctrine is nothing more than eisegesis perhaps designed to support Margaret MacDonald's supposed vision.

There are two serious implications of dispensationalism:

1, It has influenced this country's foreign policy toward Israel because of the dispensational belief that the Jews are still God's chosen people and no one must offend the Jews under threat of eternal punishment.

The prophets did not see nor consider the church age. It was (as the Apostle indicated) a mystery not revealed to them. What the prophets saw cannot by the law of a true prophet be speaking about the church nor about a Israeli church.

2. The atrocious dispensational doctrine that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom but the Jews rejected Him and He established the Church instead. This Bride of Jesus Christ is called a parenthesis by some dispensationalists [Walvoord] and an intercalation by others [Ryrie] and an interruption of God's program for Israel [Pentecost]. Following this line of thinking, particularly that of Pentecost , the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ, seems to be thought of as a stepchild???????

Of course dispensationalists are usually not very vocal on the accusation that Jesus Christ had to establish His Church or be considered a failure. They do get all excited about the pre-trib Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Millennial reign on earth, and especially the Jews as God's #1 chosen people.

Thankfully there is a movement away from classic dispensationalism called progressive dispensationalism. They are moving toward covenant or historical premillennialism and are particularlytaking a Scriptural view of the Church as does covenant premillennialism.

Of course classical dispensationalists like Ryrie look down their nose at hyper-0dispensationalists, extreme or just hyper.

I would disagree about dispensationalists considering Christ a failure in any measure or from any point in Scriptures.

"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" was no reference to the new heaven and new earth. And it certainly has not occurred from Adam to now. The ONLY place that part of the prayer can be fully realized is in the millennium.

 

[agedman]

And to add to this most excellent post:

Matthew 25:31-46

Problem is you neglected to view your passage from the questions the Apostles asked.

Do not ever neglect to read "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

These are three different questions that Christ dealt with in the instructions he gave. Questions, that unless continually in the mind of the reader can leave one to a false conclusion.

 

[OldRegular]

agedman

Most confusing to say the least and that is the most I can say!

 

[agedman]

But again I say that the worst thing about dispensationalism is that it teaches Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, the Jews rejected Him and He established the Church instead, a fallback position. Never mind the fact that a mob of Jews wanted to make Him king!!Imagine that!

I won't restate what I stated already in answer to the John passage.

However, I do want to remark about your thinking of Israel.

The Prophets did not lie, and could only speak as they were given it by God. Therefore, if we accept that they indicated a suffering Christ, and a King Christ, why do you reject a suffering Israel and a restored Israel?

Either you accept as literal all that pertains to Christ and Israel, or you place Christ and Israel as figurative.

I prefer the most literal reading and rendering of the Scriptures as can be made. Certainly there is figurative and pictorial parts. But were it concerned Christ and Israel, they are very few and not to be spread around like hot butter on pancakes.

I don't know that I have ever considered nor heard anyone state that the pre-mil. view was based upon a "fall back position" based on Israel rejection. Messianic kingdom with Israel restored and acknowledging Christ, yes.

The Bible is not a hodge-podge record of God's dealing with mankind. The Bible is a unified story of the outworking of the Grace of God in the Salvation of His people. The initial promise of redemption is recorded in Genesis 3:15 long before God called out Abraham.

I agree with this statement. It is most certain and sure true.

 

[agedman]

agedman

Most confusing to say the least and that is the most I can say!

What part or which post is confusing.

In the first post, I took the passage others posted from John and expanded it to the context and then broke it down into sections to show how, with EACH "verily, verily," Christ presented a new point to his overall theme.

If you would, please reread it and let me know what part is confusing or what format I should use in posting to make it more comprehensible.

I tend to get a bit long, but when trying to post Scriptures and extrapolate the points made, it can get overwhelming by shear number of words.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't know that I have ever considered nor heard anyone state that the pre-mil. view was based upon a "fall back position" based on Israel rejection. .

I must take exception to the dispensational use of only the term "pre-mil" to describe their doctrine. There is a world of difference between the doctrine of the dispensationalist and the historic/covenant premillennialist. The latter reject the dispensational claim that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, the pre-trib rapture, and the 7 year great tribulation. Actually the only similarity between the two is the millennial kingdom. However, the millennial kingdom of historic premillennialism is a kingdom in which the Church, not the restored Jewish nation, rules with the glorified Saviour.

 

[Iconoclast]

aged man

The prophets did not see nor consider the church age. It was (as the Apostle indicated) a mystery not revealed to them. What the prophets saw cannot by the law of a true prophet be speaking about the church nor about a Israeli church.

The church was not a mystery....the mystery was that gentiles would come in on equal footing with the jew........

consider.....

20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

In Acts 3 ..we are told that all the prophets foretold of these days......it is just they had a wrong view of it....the mystery was described in eph 2...one new man In Christ....

10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.