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

[OldRegular]

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

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.

 

[agedman]

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.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

Remove post for additional editing!

 

[agedman]

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.

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.

 

[agedman]

aged man



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

consider.....


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....

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.

 

[convicted1]

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.

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.

 

[agedman]

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."

 

[Greektim]

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???

 

[OldRegular]

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.”

Got one thing correct agedman!

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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!

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.

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.

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.

You got one more correct.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello agedman

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.

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.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

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;

5And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

6And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

1Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
2Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

3For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

4Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

5For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

1Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

2For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

3And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

 

[Rippon]

Just to help steer this along better,...

Is it possible to get back on track???

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

 

[MB]

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?

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.

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.

Old testament doesn't speak about them but Paul did.
Dispensations are spoken of in 1st Cor 9:17,Eph 1:10 &3:2 and in Col 1:25. This is what you can't seem to get pass. That is that dispensations do exist in scripture, thus dispensationalist.
You hate dispensationalist because they expose Calvinism for what it is. That is man made doctrine, made by men, for men, who reject the truth of scripture. Truth doesn't support what is man made does it?.

But again I say that the worst thing about dispensationalism is that it teaches Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom,

Wrong this is what these Jews expected. Not what Jesus taught. You really should study dispensations that way you'd know what your talking about. All you know is what you think you know, which isn't the truth.

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!

Actually the Jews rejected Christ because they didn't believe Him.

Then you disagree with scriptures writen by Paul. I'm sorry that you object to Paul's writings. I wonder if you don't believe that Paul wrote the truth. Why believe anything he wrote?

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.

If you truly believe this then why object to the presenting of the rest of the passage that you left out of your post. Which the beginning of was verse 25. Was it because you wanted to make it seem to support your objection?.
MB

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I wait with bated breath!


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?

Response posted by MB
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.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
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.

Response posted by MB
Old testament doesn't speak about them but Paul did.
Dispensations are spoken of in 1st Cor 9:17,Eph 1:10 &3:2 and in Col 1:25. This is what you can't seem to get pass. That is that dispensations do exist in scripture, thus dispensationalist.

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!

Response posted by MB
You hate dispensationalist because they expose Calvinism for what it is. That is man made doctrine, made by men, for men, who reject the truth of scripture. Truth doesn't support what is man made does it?.

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!

Originally Posted by OldRegular
But again I say that the worst thing about dispensationalism is that it teaches Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom,

Response posted by MB
Wrong this is what these Jews expected. Not what Jesus taught. You really should study dispensations that way you'd know what your talking about. All you know is what you think you know, which isn't the truth.

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.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
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!

Response posted by MB
Actually the Jews rejected Christ because they didn't believe Him.

Then you disagree with scriptures writen by Paul. I'm sorry that you object to Paul's writings. I wonder if you don't believe that Paul wrote the truth. Why believe anything he wrote?

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.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
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.

Response posted by MB
If you truly believe this then why object to the presenting of the rest of the passage that you left out of your post. Which the beginning of was verse 25. Was it because you wanted to make it seem to support your objection?.
MB

Just what is your point here, MB?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Think have to see the difference between classic versions of it, and progressive forms of today...

Also, my problem is still not fully persuaded when the rapture will occur, but belive that its definitly pre Mil return of Christ!

 

[JesusFan]

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 would take that you believe as I do that one does NOT have to accept ALL tenants of cal in order to be a Cavisnist, at least in regards to Sotierology?

Unlife our reformed bethren who see it as being all or nothing?

 

[MB]

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

 

[OldRegular]

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:

 

[MB]

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

 

[OldRegular]

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:

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

 

[thomas15]

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?

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.