Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

[John of Japan]

Jesus said that "you will see", and they did. This gives a time reference for the "soon".

It would help if you gave your references. Are you referring to Luke 21:20? If so, I believe that refers to AD 70. But the word "soon" occurs nowhere in that passage. So I don't think you've made your point at all here, whatever it was.

To flip this around, many "futurists" have no problem with a 2,000 year "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Preterists fail to understand that kind of logic. What is your view on that, if I may ask?

You've changed the subject. So you won't answer my point that preterists have just a big of a problem with the time statements as futurists?

But anyway, I have no problem with making the future tribulation the 70th week of Daniel and don't think this to be an illogical position. It's based squarely on a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Much that God does is illogical to us anyway.

 

[John of Japan]

Another branch of dispy I totally reject is the false "seven church ages" doctrine, begun in the 1600s by a mystic named Jane Leade, spread to Darby, and spread in the USA by the charlatan William M. Branham. While this false doctrine is seemingly harmless in itself, it IS a lie added to the body of Christian faith/worship, yet another of Satan's attempts to dilute the Gospel. Such a doctrine is found nowhere in Scripture. The seven churches of the Revelation all existed at that time, and types of them have existed continuously ever since.

Just to be clear, I agree with you here, and actually have a lecture against this view in my class on "Dipensational Theology." It is not an important issue in revised dispensationalism, but peripheral.

 

[John of Japan]

To @John of Japan, @asterisktom, @robycop3, et al on this post - I not feeling well, so I won't be responding any more today. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I might be back tomorrow. Seems to be a bad chest cold. Anyway, I'm signing off for now.

Take care of yourself.

 

[John of Japan]

And there'll only be four of them altogether. Before Israel's exodus from Egypt, we see the faithful knew God's basic laws against murder, theft, sexual sin, etc. & that continued with the Old Covenant, given only to Israel. And it remained so til Jesus came & put the New Covenant into effect. That time is still ongoing, and will be til Jesus returns.

You lost me. Are you saying that you accept a system of 4 dispensations, but not the Scofield/Ryrie model of 7?

 

[John of Japan]

How is this view of four periods NOT dispensationalist? I'm not trying to be difficult; just trying to understand the view. Are there other "dispy" views besides the "7 ages" view?

I'm sure Roby will answer this, but yes, there is progressive dispensationalism with only 3 dispensations (depending on what you read. Ultra dispensationalism has more than 7, I believe. (I'd have to look that up.) Even covenant theology recognizes that there are dispensations.

 

[The Biblicist]

Most of the time, when anti-preterism material is posted here or on other sites, most of the prets immediately holler that the "dispys" are at it again, & that their view is wrong.

I am anti-preterism. Does that make me a duspy? In a word, NO.

Dispensationalism is the belief that God has "dispensed" the manner in which He reveals Himself & administers the world in several distinctive ages or periods of time. A close examination of His administration shows four periods: the time of the Old Covenant, made with Israel only, the New Covenant, for all mankind & now in force, the millenium, which will begin with Jesus' return, and the new world which will come when the millenium ends.

Actually, I, and most other anti-prets are FUTURISTS, that is, we believe that the prophesied eschatological events have not yet occurred, but they WILL occur, and fulfill the prophecies to the letter. I believe we have the support of history and reality as shaped by Scripture as proof that this view is correct.

In and others, have asked many prets to supply some **PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION** that show the events they SAY have happened, actually HAVE happened, but their answers are all opinion, imagination, and guesswork - no PROOF! Either that, or they say, "Those Scriptures are SYMBOLIC." or, they say, Here's what that verse REALLY MEANS...". and provide a hastily-invented incorrect answer.

Another branch of dispy I totally reject is the false "seven church ages" doctrine, begun in the 1600s by a mystic named Jane Leade, spread to Darby, and spread in the USA by the charlatan William M. Branham. While this false doctrine is seemingly harmless in itself, it IS a lie added to the body of Christian faith/worship, yet another of Satan's attempts to dilute the Gospel. Such a doctrine is found nowhere in Scripture. The seven churches of the Revelation all existed at that time, and types of them have existed continuously ever since.

In short, preterists, knowing they cannot prove their claims, seek to impose some sorta guilt trip upon those of us who reject their pret hooey and call them down over it.

I am not a Preterist and I am not a dispensationalist but I do believe in the future salvation of Israel as an Ethnic Nation at the Post-trib coming of Christ. And no, I am not a Pretribber.

 

[robycop3]

You lost me. Are you saying that you accept a system of 4 dispensations, but not the Scofield/Ryrie model of 7?

Correct. I see two dispensations in history so far, the Old Covenant & the New Covenant. Now, there WERE changes during the Old Covenant. For example, all Israel was at first required to worship at the Tabernacle, then, at the temple in Jerusalem, but by the time Jesus came, there were synagogues in almost every town where some Jews lived. And Jesus gave legitimacy to synagogues by attending some of them Himself.

And I believe the millenium will be another dispensation, & the world after the M is over will be the fourth, and permanent one.

As I see the Scofield/Ryrie model, while it mentions some changes, the basic overall dispensation remained the same, changing only when Jesus proclaimed the New Covenant.

And yes, I've seen many other views of the number of dispensations that supposedly have existed. But it doesn't really matter; as the song goes, "Love the one you're with!" and we are "with" the New Covenant, the "Age of Grace" in which Jesus saves all who come to Him in repentance, belief, and submission, having faith in Him though they've never seen nor heard Him. As Paul wrote, faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God.

 

[John of Japan]

Just to be clear, I agree with you here, and actually have a lecture against this view in my class on "Dipensational Theology." It is not an important issue in revised dispensationalism, but peripheral.

Last night one of the preachers in our conference (an old friend) who is a dispensationalist preached in part of his sermon against the 7 churches=7 ages view. His point was that those who say we are in the Laodicean Age, usually say that it is an age of apostasy, and revivals are impossible. He (and I) and many other dispensationalists object strongly to that view.

 

[John of Japan]

Correct. I see two dispensations in history so far, the Old Covenant & the New Covenant. Now, there WERE changes during the Old Covenant. For example, all Israel was at first required to worship at the Tabernacle, then, at the temple in Jerusalem, but by the time Jesus came, there were synagogues in almost every town where some Jews lived. And Jesus gave legitimacy to synagogues by attending some of them Himself.

The definitions of covenant and dispensation are so different that I fail to see how you arrived at this view.

And I believe the millenium will be another dispensation, & the world after the M is over will be the fourth, and permanent one.

By any definition of the of the eternal state, it cannot be a dispensation.

As I see the Scofield/Ryrie model, while it mentions some changes, the basic overall dispensation remained the same, changing only when Jesus proclaimed the New Covenant.

There are enough differences between Scofield and Ryrie that Scofield's view is called classic dispensationalism and Ryrie's is revised dispensationalism.

And yes, I've seen many other views of the number of dispensations that supposedly have existed. But it doesn't really matter; as the song goes, "Love the one you're with!" and we are "with" the New Covenant, the "Age of Grace" in which Jesus saves all who come to Him in repentance, belief, and submission, having faith in Him though they've never seen nor heard Him. As Paul wrote, faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God.

But again, covenant and dispensation have completely different meanings.

 

[robycop3]

Last night one of the preachers in our conference (an old friend) who is a dispensationalist preached in part of his sermon against the 7 churches=7 ages view. His point was that those who say we are in the Laodicean Age, usually say that it is an age of apostasy, and revivals are impossible. He (and I) and many other dispensationalists object strongly to that view.

As do I.

A look at history shows that the "ages" are 'WAY off in their supposed time frames. For instance, during the "Philadelphian" age, there was the Crimean War, the American Civil War, in japan, the Boshin war with the Meiji restoration, the Taiping rebellion in China with great loss of life, the Reconstruction and rise of the Mormon, SDA, & JW cults in the USA, and the Azusa St. "revival".

Now, all 7 types of churches Jesus cites in Rev.1 have existed since the apostles were alive, & I believe that's why Jesus preserved His messages to those early churches to be read by us today.

 

[robycop3]

The definitions of covenant and dispensation are so different that I fail to see how you arrived at this view.
By any definition of the of the eternal state, it cannot be a dispensation.
There are enough differences between Scofield and Ryrie that Scofield's view is called classic dispensationalism and Ryrie's is revised dispensationalism.

But again, covenant and dispensation have completely different meanings.

I see your point. But I don't believe in a whole slough of dispensations despite being against both "types" of preterism.

 

[robycop3]

I am not a Preterist and I am not a dispensationalist but I do believe in the future salvation of Israel as an Ethnic Nation at the Post-trib coming of Christ. And no, I am not a Pretribber.

I believe God will make Judah (modern Israel) and the other tribes of Israel one nation again, as Scripture is very clear on this. And it won't be because they deserve it, but it'll be because God made all Israel His "peculiar" people & will restore their fortunes despite themselves.

However, each individual will still need to come to Jesus in belief, repentance, & submission, same as anyone else,

BTW, I believe the rapture will occur after the "beast" comes to power, but before the great trib hits full-force.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe God will make Judah (modern Israel) and the other tribes of Israel one nation again, as Scripture is very clear on this. And it won't be because they deserve it, but it'll be because God made all Israel His "peculiar" people & will restore their fortunes despite themselves.

However, each individual will still need to come to Jesus in belief, repentance, & submission, same as anyone else,

Me too!

 

[Lodic]

No, they didn't see cuz it aint happened yet!

What's the difficulty there? What Scriptures deny such a gap? God mentions several times that He's in no hurry as we see it.

Actually, there are no scriptures that prove a gap.

 

[John of Japan]

Actually, there are no scriptures that prove a gap.

I lost track, but you're talking about the 70th week of Daniel, right? The gap is inherent in the fact that Daniel divides between the 69th and 70th week: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" (9:25).

 

[Lodic]

It would help if you gave your references. Are you referring to Luke 21:20? If so, I believe that refers to AD 70. But the word "soon" occurs nowhere in that passage. So I don't think you've made your point at all here, whatever it was.


You've changed the subject. So you won't answer my point that preterists have just a big of a problem with the time statements as futurists?

But anyway, I have no problem with making the future tribulation the 70th week of Daniel and don't think this to be an illogical position. It's based squarely on a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Much that God does is illogical to us anyway.

I'm finally back after a bout with bronchitis and the flu, and I'm trying to catch up on some responses. In the Olivet Discourse, the "time references" are more along the line of "when you see these things happening". Anyway, I don't see where preterists have any problems with the time statements.

 

[Lodic]

I lost track, but you're talking about the 70th week of Daniel, right? The gap is inherent in the fact that Daniel divides between the 69th and 70th week: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" (9:25).

My apologies for the delayed response - I thought I was over this bronchitis, but not quite yet. Also, I apologize for going off on rabbit trails. I'm not sure how I wound up with the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Guess it's easy for a discussion regarding the "End Times" to go all over the place, and I am no exception.
I am familiar with the why / how "futurists" believe there is a gap between weeks 69 & 70, but I don't believe it is inherent. The 70 weeks are "modeled" after the 70 years of captivity, right? There was no gap in the Judean captivity. Daniel's prophecy doesn't even hint at a gap of time. As I'm sure you agree, the time starts with the decree to restore Jerusalem in 458 B.C. (Ezra 9:9). It ends with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in 33 A.D., which is 490 years. The Crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm finally back after a bout with bronchitis and the flu, and I'm trying to catch up on some responses. In the Olivet Discourse, the "time references" are more along the line of "when you see these things happening". Anyway, I don't see where preterists have any problems with the time statements.

Glad to hear you're better.

At this point your perspective on the "time statements" is quite different from that of the typical preterist, so I'll have to know more of what you mean before answering you. Can you give me an example of a "you" passage?

I'm actually kind of bemused here. No one objects to the "you" statements (14 verses) of the Sermon on the Mount as not applying to anyone but the disciples (except maybe some hyper-dispensationalists), and there are only 6 you/ye verses in the Olivet Discourse.

As for preterists not having any problem with the time statements, they usually deny it--and often do not answer me when I point out the problem.

P.S. Okay, I just through the six you/ye statements of the Olivet Discourse, and have no clue what you mean. Matt. 24 has two generic statements that are no problem to my position. Matt. 25 has one statement that is in a parable, and three statements in the passage about the judgement of nations that are not aimed at the disciples.

 

[Lodic]

Glad to hear you're better.

At this point your perspective on the "time statements" is quite different from that of the typical preterist, so I'll have to know more of what you mean before answering you. Can you give me an example of a "you" passage?

I'm actually kind of bemused here. No one objects to the "you" statements (14 verses) of the Sermon on the Mount as not applying to anyone but the disciples (except maybe some hyper-dispensationalists), and there are only 6 you/ye verses in the Olivet Discourse.

As for preterists not having any problem with the time statements, they usually deny it--and often do not answer me when I point out the problem.

P.S. Okay, I just through the six you/ye statements of the Olivet Discourse, and have no clue what you mean. Matt. 24 has two generic statements that are no problem to my position. Matt. 25 has one statement that is in a parable, and three statements in the passage about the judgement of nations that are not aimed at the disciples.

Thank you, Brother John. I appreciate that.

I was surprised that my perspective on the "time statements" is not a typical preterist view. In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces 7 "woes" upon the Scribes and Pharisees - "woe to you". He tells them "your house is being left desolate" (v. 38). Continuing on into chapter 24, Jesus is leaving the temple. When His disciples pointed out the temple buildings, Jesus predicted their destruction. Explaining further, Jesus tells them "you will hear of wars and rumors of wars", "they will deliver you to tribulation", "when you see the Abomination of Desolation". After describing more details, He says "Behold, I have told you in advance". My main point is that every time "you" is used, it refers to the immediate audience.

 

[John of Japan]

My apologies for the delayed response - I thought I was over this bronchitis, but not quite yet. Also, I apologize for going off on rabbit trails. I'm not sure how I wound up with the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Guess it's easy for a discussion regarding the "End Times" to go all over the place, and I am no exception.
I am familiar with the why / how "futurists" believe there is a gap between weeks 69 & 70, but I don't believe it is inherent. The 70 weeks are "modeled" after the 70 years of captivity, right?

Never heard that one. In my view, the two 70s are not connected (except for being 70).

There was no gap in the Judean captivity. Daniel's prophecy doesn't even hint at a gap of time. As I'm sure you agree, the time starts with the decree to restore Jerusalem in 458 B.C. (Ezra 9:9). It ends with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in 33 A.D., which is 490 years. The Crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week.

No, the crucifixion is not in the middle of the 70th week. Don't know how you arrived at that, but it certainly was not the "abomination of desolations" that is definitely in the middle of the 70th week.