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

The above is a very arrogant statement but that is quite common from dispensationalists. If one doesn't accept dispensational error they are considered to be either liberal or Biblically illiterate.

 

In my early twenties, I was rebuked in front of the whole church assembly by the dean of the bible department of a SB college because I shared with a group about the rapture, the tribulation, the return of Christ as King of Kings, the Millennial reign, followed by the great white throne judgment, lake of fire and the New Heaven and earth.

He rejected it all because he was amillennial as were many of his age that taught in the schools and seminaries. He actually taught that the world would get better and better and transition into the New earth at Christ's return.

Are you saying the "historic/covenant" pre-millenial view is similar???


I don't see any difficulty with the believers ruling and reigning with Christ, just as He indicated that we would.

Having made that statement, I suppose it appropriate that the Asian nations would be ruled by Asian believers, the African nations by African believers, the South American, Europeans, North Americans, Australians, and so forth. Only the island nations are left out - they don't exist at the time of the millennium. So, it is likely that Israeli believers would get to "Lord it over" the stiff necked in their land, too. I am sure Christ has it all figured out.

 

Remove post for additional editing!

 

No, it is not a matter of arrogance.

In all my dealings with various views, it is the dispensationalists and especially Calvinistic thinking dispensationalists that I have found follow the Scriptures most closely.

For instance. Look back at my original post on this thread.

I posted the context of the Scriptures the posts were using, and showed step by step the Lord's expressions and what was meant.

Your posts on the Scriptures did not account for the context and as a result I consider it was possibly why the conclusions you drew were skewed.

I don't think you are Biblically illiterate, in fact, just the opposite. I was somewhat amazed that in the posting of John you missed the mark. That is why I posted my reply in ways that would let you rethink your work on that passage.

 

The problem is context and how you are missing the mark.

Look again at Acts 3.

17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

(Prophets for told the suffering Messiah – something to this day the Rabi rejects)

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom 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.

(Note the words, “restitution of all things” this is the second part that the prophets saw – the restitution of Israel and the King of Kings being enthroned.)

22 For 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.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye 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.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.



This is where Peter is showing the Jewish leaders how they were actually fulfilling what the prophets said would be done to Christ on the cross.

I don’t see Peter discussing the church age anywhere in this passage.

Certainly he mentions "all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" but to the typical Rabi of then and even now, they would align that promise to Abraham with Ge 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

The Jewish leaders of that day as this day, would see no church age implied or suggested by the prophets nor any grafting in of the gentiles.

Briefly he states to the Jewish leaders, the prophets told of a suffering Christ. You fulfilled that prophecy by crucifying Christ, and now he wants to bless you in turning you away from your iniquities.

Not one mention of gentile believers.

Beside this, it wasn't until Peter was shown three times, that he even considered bringing the gospel to gentiles. Later, Paul rebuked Peter for ignoring the gentiles and acting like he didn't fellowship with gentiles if Jewish folks happened to be around.

 

Well, Jesus stated this, "My Kingdom is not of this world, except My servants fight." I paraphrased that, so it probably isn't verbatim. So, I'll take His word on this.

Also, the very elements of this earth are going to melt with fervent heat.

 

Christ said, "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

 

Just to help steer this along better, the OP is not about the validity of dispensationalism. The OP was about the possibility of blending a calvinistic soteriology w/ a dispensational ecclesiology/eschatology.

Is it possible to get back on track???

 

I posted no Scripture in opposition to the Millennial reign. The so-called millennium is now, Jesus Christ is reigning now. Don't you believe that?

Goodness gracious agedman, Jesus Christ in the above Scripture [John 5:24] is talking about passing from spiritual death into spiritual life, no condemnation for the believer. He expands on this in verses 25,26, and 27. That Scripture has nothing to do with the so-called rapture. You are engaging in gross gross eisegesis agedman.

Jesus Christ is talking about the new birth, regeneration, the same as in verse 24.

You correctly state that the resurrection of John 5:28, 29 above is not the same resurrection spoken of in verse 25. In Verses 24 and 25 Jesus Christ is speaking about a spiritual resurrection, the new birth.

Got one thing correct agedman!

You are mistaken agedman, I did not err in the use of the word hour. It was webdog who said the word should be time not hour. I then posted from Thayer's regarding the Greek word "ωρα". Even if webdog were correct and the word should be "time" the same passage states that the resurrection of the good and the evil occurs at the same time. This passage clearly teaches a general resurrection and a general judgment.

You err again agedman. Nothing I said could be construed by an impartial observer to mean soul sleep. My initial post was as follows:

You see agedman, nothing at all about soul sleep. I am continually amazed at how you are able to read things into words that are not there such as the rapture in 5:24!

You just can't seem to understand agedman. Did Jairus's daughter die again; did the widow's son die again; did Lazarus die again . Yes, Yes, Yes. They all died again. They were not resurrected as Jesus Christ was, The only resurrection that has occurred to date and the only one that will occur until the general resurrection is that of Jesus Christ.

You got one more correct.

 

Hello agedman

You correctly mentioned the Abrahamic promise.....all the kindreds of the earth.......there are your gentiles....the church....

off course the jewish leaders did not see it.....that is why they rejected Jesus.

they were supposed to see it...they did not.that is why they were wrong.
the prophets were loaded with verses about gentiles coming in;

 

That is a very reasonable desire,however the recent posts seemed to have taken a life of their own.

 

Maybe you really are blind to the truth. You take verses 28 &29 out of text to avoid the whole truth to make your point. It didn't work. The whole of what is said here starts with verse 25.
Joh 5:25 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.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 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 addition of verses 25,26 change nothing regarding the interpretation of verses 28, 29 which teach a general resurrection and general judgment. In fact John 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. is an excellent lead in to the passage which prophesies a general resurrection and a general judgment.

Verses 25 and 26 simply amplify the meaning of John 5:24. These verses are teaching a spiritual resurrection, the new birth.

Dispensation as used by the Apostle Paul means stewardship. Look at these passages of Scripture and see if they support dispensational error.

1 Corinthians 9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Ephesians 1:10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Ephhesians 3:2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

The answer is NONE!

I don't hate dispensationalists MB. I hate the doctrine because it is false. As far as Calvinism and dispensationalism you will have to take that up with someone like "agedman' or "Dr. Bob". I am neither a Calvinist nor a dispensationalist!

I did not say Jesus Christ taught that he came to establish the Messianic kingdom. I said that is what dispensationalism teaches. Most are quite about that now but it is a fact.

As for dispensationalism i suggest you read Dispensationalism by Ryrie and the section on Dispensatuionalism by Hoyt in The Meaning of the Millennium. The discussion of the Messianic kingdom Jesus Christ supposedly came to offer is too long to quote but Hoyt states [page86]: Having rejected the King, the nation israel rejected the kingdom Christ came to establish.

Jesus Christ did not come to establish any earthly Messianic kingdom. He came to establish a spiritual kingdom, the Kingdom of God, and He did.

I didn't realize that I quoted any Scripture that the Apostle Paul wrote. I certainly don't disagree with him. In fact since I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture so I believe all of it.

Just what is your point here, MB?

 

I guess you could say my point is I don't believe one thing you have said about dispensationalist. Nor do I see your view as biblical at all. Like I said earlier you should study dispensationalism so that you can know what you are objecting to. You might also study scripture because your view is completely off the mark. There is no such thing as a genral resurrection spoken of in scripture. That is clearly in your imagination.
MB

 

A little tidbit for dispensationalists

Given that dispensationalists insist that the Church is not included in prophecy it is worthwhile to note that the Scofield Bible of 1917 includes the introduction to the Song of Solomon by Scofield, as follows :

http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=so&chapter=000

"Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)

Book Introduction - Song of Solomon

Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, while the saintliest men and women of the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. That the love of the divine Bridegroom should follow all the analogies of the marriage relation seems evil only to minds so ascetic that martial desire itself seems to them unholy.

The interpretation is twofold: Primarily, the book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained of God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust--the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. The secondary and larger interpretation is of Christ, the Son and His heavenly bride, the Church (2 Corinthians 11:1-4 refs).":BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

Old regular;
Keep banging your head against the wall eventually you'll figure it out.
MB

 

Give heed one and all! The Granddaddy of dispensationlism in America has spoke!

 

In a perfect situation in a debate with adults this would be easy however....

OK, speaking as a dispy who by the way finds nothing of value in your anti-dispensational rants, I, thoms15 will tell anyone who asks that Jesus Christ is the second person of the triune God and that it was Jesus who "In the beginning" spoke all things into existance. He is God in the fullest sense, the One True God, Jehovah himself. To Him I owe everything.

Before Jesus went to the cross he is God and after He rose from the dead He is God. At no time in eternity past, present or future is Jesus anything other than God Almighty, creator and sustainer of all things. Jesus is, has and always will be in control of all things. Jesus is in heaven, in the throne room in heaven and in control of all things.

Now, as to the kingdom promised in the Bible. The Bible talks about this kingdom, one place of note is Daniel chapter 2 verses 44-45. This kingdom will follow in order after other earthly kingdoms and it will crush them, put an end to them and will take over the whole earth. This kingdom is totally and completly of God.

In Revelation chapter 19 verses 15-16 that Jesus will strike down the nations in agreement with Daniel ch 2, Jesus will then rule with a rod of iron and judge men in divine rightneous.

Again, in a debate with adults, a dispy could say that there are some elements of the kingdom of Christ in the church age but it is difficult to see how in a Biblical sense we are in the kingdom at this time. The Bible speaks much about the kingdom, I barely scratched the surface here but even a half-wit would have to agree that there are a lot of kingdom details missing from the church. You of course disagree and that is your right and privledge but your little game of trying to paint dispies into a corner so that you can accuse them of denying the diety of Christ because we will not agree with the reformed a-mil position that we (members of the NT church) are in the kingdom is wrong and unbiblical.

As I have stated numerous times with little satisfaction, the real arguement is covenant vs. dispensational theology. The irony is that covenant theology is based on the covenants of works, redemption and grace which are covenants not taught in the Bible. Dispensationalism is based on actual covenants Jehovah made with sinful men, Abrahamic, Davidic and New.