Dispensationalism

God shows us that He is love and mercy. Jonah was a Jew, he was bitter with Nineveh. Nineveh was a Gentile city. God told Jonah, go and preach to them, He will destroy city in 40 days. Jonah refused go, so God sent whale to shallow Jonah into. God taught Jonah a lesson, that he have to obey God's command. Joanh came to Nineveh, and preached to them. There was about 120,000 people of Nineveh repented. God saw them, and He didn't destroy that city. Jonah was angry at God for not destroy Nineveh. But, God shew him, that He is mercy and love toward Nineveh.

Jonah warned to Ninevhe was part of the gospel.

But, during Old Testament period, people were not understand what the gospel means, because it was mystery to them.

But, there is the same plan of salvation both in Old Testament and New Testament base upon the faith only, even also grace too.

Noah was a Gentile, and he was saved by faith and found God's grace too. Same with Abraham, he was a Gentile. He was saved by the faith and found God's grace.

The true defintion of gospel means good news of Jesus Christ - death, buried, and resurrection - 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

During Old Testament period, the gospel was mystrty to people. But now, the mystery revealed to people by through Calvary.

I am sure that many Gentiles were saved during Old Testament period, but there were more Jews saved than Gentiles, that does not mean Gentiles were excluded from the tree(Romans 11) during that period. During that period, the gospel was mystery to the Gentiles. Now, the mystery revealed to Gentiles, we are grafted into the tree join with believing Jews together.

The only way we can understand Bible, by reading Old Testament books talk about the prophecies of Messiah, and Calvary. New Testament fulfilled Old Testament by through Calvary.

Now, there is no longer distinction between Israel and Church, but we are spiritual Israel through our faith upon Jesus Christ, and share on the same tree (Romans 11).

Actually, church was already exist during Old Testament period. Church means God's people.

Interesting, during 1604 Council of Trenton, King James I told to translators, that he wanted 'church' to be penned in the New Testament books. Strange, there are no word, 'church' in the Old Testament book. Actually, 'church' is found in Old Testament books - about 70 times. That word is 'gathering' or 'congregation'. There is no difference between 'congregation' & 'church', both are same meaning.

Does that mean there is proved of Dispensationalism, because word, 'church' is not find in the Old Testament books? No. That was King James' commanded. 'Church' in the Old Testament books were already there. Early Saints, understood, that both Old Testament saints and New Testament saints are on the same boat because of their faith base upon Jesus Christ through Calvary. Also, Early saints understood there is the only one plan of salvation for both Old Testament and New Testament period base upon faith only.

Galatians chapter 3 explains about faith. It tells us, both O.T. saints and N.T. saints are all children of God because of their faith base upon Jesus Christ through Calvary.

There is no division among God's children in heaven. God only have one family in heaven. We only have one Saviour, Father which is in the heaven. Very simple and plain.

Sorry I seems off the track, but I am trying to explain what the Bible really teaching us all about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

HOw does this answer my objection? You are the one who applied it ot the "church at Thessalonica" (see post from 10:18). That is impossible. It has to be the church at large.

All SCripture is to be taught to the church, but some Scripture doesn't address the church. In the context of Matt 24, it seems to me to be clearly talkin gabout hte nation of Israel, not the church.

The DOL begins with the Tribulation and includes the Millennium. It is both judgment and blessing. This goes back to doing the hard work of exegesis rather than simply deciding what you want a text to say. REading about the DOL in teh OT clearly shows it is both judgment and blessing ... tribulation and the earthly reign.

Actually read the passage. The people at Thessalonica are confused because they are being told that the tribulation they are in is the DOL. Why would they be confused at that? Obviously because Paul taught them that they would be gone before the DOL started. Paul taught them pretrib, and these guys using Paul's name were teaching them they were in teh trib. That is why they were confused. Paul corrected them by saying that the DOL hasn't started yet, and the tribulation they are in is not the Tribulation of the DOL.

Not at all .. but this is where actual exegesis comes into play. It admittedly is hard work to work through the passages in depth. But it is rewarding. When the texts are actually exegeted, the pretrib position becomes very clear.

You brought your posttrib presupposition to the text. Go back and look at why you brought it up. You brought it up to prove a posttrib position. That is, by definition, bringing your presupposition to the text. You assumed what it said. You didn't prove it by any means.

On this you are correct. The historical grammatical hermeneutic doesn't support any eisegetical dispensationalism. It does however support biblica dispensationalism and since that is what I hold to, you assertion has not relevance to me.

 

HOw does this answer my objection? You are the one who applied it ot the "church at Thessalonica" (see post from 10:18). That is impossible. It has to be the church at large.

All SCripture is to be taught to the church, but some Scripture doesn't address the church. In the context of Matt 24, it seems to me to be clearly talkin gabout hte nation of Israel, not the church.

The DOL begins with the Tribulation and includes the Millennium. It is both judgment and blessing. This goes back to doing the hard work of exegesis rather than simply deciding what you want a text to say. REading about the DOL in teh OT clearly shows it is both judgment and blessing ... tribulation and the earthly reign.

Actually read the passage. The people at Thessalonica are confused because they are being told that the tribulation they are in is the DOL. Why would they be confused at that? Obviously because Paul taught them that they would be gone before the DOL started. Paul taught them pretrib, and these guys using Paul's name were teaching them they were in teh trib. That is why they were confused. Paul corrected them by saying that the DOL hasn't started yet, and the tribulation they are in is not the Tribulation of the DOL.

Not at all .. but this is where actual exegesis comes into play. It admittedly is hard work to work through the passages in depth. But it is rewarding. When the texts are actually exegeted, the pretrib position becomes very clear.

You brought your posttrib presupposition to the text. Go back and look at why you brought it up. You brought it up to prove a posttrib position. That is, by definition, bringing your presupposition to the text. You assumed what it said. You didn't prove it by any means.

On this you are correct. The historical grammatical hermeneutic doesn't support any eisegetical dispensationalism. It does however support biblica dispensationalism and since that is what I hold to, you assertion has not relevance to me. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry's answer is so befuddled it hurts to read it.

2 Thess. 1:6-10 was written to the church at Thessalonica and has relevance to the church at large. The church finds relief from trials when Christ appears in blazing fire with his powerful angels. This is clearly, from the text, not the rapture Larry holds to. On this issue, case closed. Larry has nothing to offer in defense of his position.

Where does Jesus address the nation of Israel in Matthew 24? Larry "seems" to think that it does. But the text is clear. He is addressing his disciples, the founders of the church who are to fulfill the Great Commission. On this issue, case closed. Larry has nothing to offer in defense of his position.

The Day of the Lord does not include the tribulation. The disciples would know about the prophecy of Zechariah 14. Zechariah clearly teaches that the Day of the Lord begins at Armageddon, when he gathers "all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it" (v. 2) and the "LORD will go out and fight against those nations" (v. 3) and "on that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives" (v. 4). Once again, the Bible is clear. The Day of the Lord begins at the return of Christ to earth! On this issue, case closed. Larry has nothing to offer in defense of his position.

The Thessalonian church is confused because someone is telling them that the day of the Lord has already come. Paul reminds them that the day of the Lord cannot come until after the lawless one is revealed. He reminds them that the day of the Lord cannot come until they are gathered to Christ and he returns to earth to destroy the lawless one by the splendor of his coming and the breath of his mouth! Obviously, these folks had not yet been gathered to Christ, therefore his coming to destroy the lawless one could not have taken place. On this issue, case closed. Larry has nothing to offer in defense of his position.

The historical-grammatical "literal" hermeuntic so thoroughly refutes Larry's eisegetical dispenstaionalism that it hurts to watch him try to defend his views. Larry then accuses those who actually teach a passage of Scripture literally with having a presupposition.

The text says what it says. No interpretation on my part. I'm just letting the text speak for itself. Something Larry cannot do, because his position doesn't square with the literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic he claims he holds to.

[ June 27, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

Larry,

You saying, Matthew 24 seems apply to nation of Israel, not Church. That is what many pretribs teaching today.

Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples, he said, 'ye', 'you' about 19 times in the context of Matthew 24. Not just for 12 disciples of Christ only, also, it apply to us as believers, that Christ give us the warnings, and do be deceived.

Also, you see, Matthew 24 speaks of the only one future coming of Christ at the end of the age. There is no hint of split comings find anywhere in the context of Matthew 24.

Bible teaches us, that we must go through much of tribulations, trials, persecutions to into the kingdom - Acts 14:22.

There is no promise that we shall escape from tribulations, trials, and persecutions. We shall have tribulations, we should be joyful and cheerful, because Christ already overcome them - John 16:33.

The Christians of Thessalonica were confused about the rumours of the timing of Christ's coming. They were not discuss about tribulations, persecutions. They already know that they are appointed for tribulations according 1 Thess. 3:3-4. 1 Thess. 3:3-4 does not discuss about the day of the Lord. It discussed that we are appointed for tribulations, because Christ suffered on the cross for our sins, so, therefore we ought follow Christ's example - 1 Peter 2:21.

I understand clear that the Apostle Paul tells us the day of Lord/day of Christ shall come is at the second advent at the end of the age for to judge the world.

Bible never saying, day of the Lord is part of trials, persecutions, & tribulations. Often in the Bible mentioned on day of the Lord is the day of God's wrath judge on the world shall be occured at Lord's coming at the end of the age, not 3 1/2 or 7 years earlier before second advent, but at the very last day of the age. - John 5:27-29; John 6:39,40,44, & 54.

Proving pretrib rapture in the Bible is difficult, because the Bible does not show them clear, it is flaw.

Matt. 24:29-31 telling us very, very, very clear that Jesus will come back right after tribulation, not before tribulation. So, therefore we must go through much tribulations first before Christ comes according Acts 14:22; 1 Thess. 3:3-4, and more...

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Paul33,

Amen.

 

Good point DeafPosttrib, on 1 Thess. 3:3-4. This is especially relevant because it is from the first letter to the Thessalonians!

 

You make me laugh Paul ... Seriously, you do. I am not trying to offer a defense of those passages necessarily. That would take more time than I have to put into it. I was merely pointing out that your interpretation is far from the only possible one, and in fact involves a lot of assumptions that we don't bring to the text. This discussion is not new, nor will it go away. I will continue to study the issue and hope that you will.

I will gladly admit that pretribulationism is a construct built from assembling certain passages of Scripture. Posttribulationism is exactly the same thing. As it mid Trib and Prewrath. The Bible does not give explicit teaching on the rapture, so it is overboard to be calling someone names or insinuating something about their exegetical ability over that particular issue. But let's be honest with the text. Don't read into it things that aren't there in an effort to support your position.

In all of these passages you are reading things in that aren't there. I can't do that. There is nothing in 2 Thess 1 that requires your "immediate judgment" interpretation. You read that in. There is nothing in Matt 24 that requires that apply to the church. You read that in. You can't do that ... well, you can ... but you shouldn't. It leads to an inadequate position that doesn't deal with all of Scripture.

 

Exactly ... You have to realize that the experience of "tribulation" and "affliction" does not equal the Tribulation to which "pretrib" or "posttrib" refers. You are slyly changing referents. If you want to talk about the tribulation of the church, we are all posttrib. But that is not what this discussion is about.

 

Larry, its fun to watch you squirm!!!

We're not talking about the many possible interpretations. We're talking about the historical-grammatical interpretation of these passages which clearly refute your positions!

And, of course, like usual, you are wrong when you say that I brought assumptions to the text. I merely cited them and let them speak for themselves. Something you cannot do!

Larry has not pointed out one presumption that I brought to the text. And he gets it wrong when he tries to describe my position. I did not give an "immediate judgment" position to 2 Thess. 1:6-10. In fact, I clearly stated that some die at Armageddon, others live under the iron scepter of Christ, but ultimately all unbelievers will be raised to life, judged and cast into the lake of fire at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ. So yet again Larry is left dangling in the wind.

The idea that Matthew 24, taught by Jesus to his disciples, is not for the church is laughable, especially in light of Matthew 28:18-20.

 

Exactly ... You have to realize that the experience of "tribulation" and "affliction" does not equal the Tribulation to which "pretrib" or "posttrib" refers. You are slyly changing referents. If you want to talk about the tribulation of the church, we are all posttrib. But that is not what this discussion is about. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, if you would set aside your "a priori" presupposition that the church and Israel are completely distinct and separate, you would be able to see the point DPT is making.

The church at Thessalonica knew they would suffer trials, persecutions, tribulations. Therefore, experiencing these trials didn't make them think they were in the day of the Lord.

The literal words of Scripture are so plain and evident it is amazing that you allow your "a priori" presuppositions to dictate the plain reading of Scripture.

 

Where did you see me do that?

Only if one shares your presuppositions, which violates the whole hermeneutic. It is hard to believe you that believe what you are saying about the hermeneutic. I think you know better. These passages don't "clearly refute" my position apart from the presupposition that my position is wrong. It seems you haven't actually done the work on them.

Paul, Paul ... YOu know better. The whole reason you brought those texts up is because of your presuppositions. You can't read them for what they say because your position won't allow you to.

Yes I did. Your presupposition is for posttribulationism. You brought that to the text.

All I can say is "Do the homework without your presuppositions."

The distinction is not an a priori assumption. It is a conclusion drawn from the Scriptures using the historical grammatical literal hermeneutic. There is no way to sustain an identity of the two from the text. It has to be carried into the text.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you,

Clearly, Paul wrote to address their concern that they were already in the DOL.

This is borderline incoherent. You contradict yourself. The literal words of Scripture are plain and evident, and it is that that dictates my understanding. My "a priori" is taht Scripture means what it says. From that a priori comes the distinctions of Scripture between Israel and the church. There are passages that are meaningless if there is no distinction. Your hodge podge of theology is hard to reconcile with the text of Scripture.

But that's fine. We can disagree. I won't keep going around with you about it. I have made clear what I believe and why. I have discussed it ad nauseum and shown the exegetical support for it. If others differ, that is fine. Just be honest with Scripture, read it for what it says.

 

Larry, experiencing the trial didn't make them think they were in the day of the Lord. A letter, prophecy, or report alleged to have come from the Apostle made them think they were in the day of the Lord.

Once again, Larry fails to understand what someone else writes!

You think they thought they were in the day of the Lord because they were experiencing trials. We refuted that and said that they knew they would experience trials, therefore they didn't think they were in the day of the Lord for THAT reason.

The day of the Lord does not include the tribulation period as you think, having read it into the text because of your dispensational framework.

Larry, I don't have to come to the text with a posttrib presumption because the text speaks to that issue itself! Matthew 24, regardles of who you claim it addresses, teaches that the "elect" will be gathered together at the end of the tribulation when Christ returns. No presupposition there. You know why? Because the text itself states this!

Once again, Larry, you have come up short. This is too easy. It's like taking candy from a baby!

 

This is what all pre-tribbers finally resort to. They admit that no verse or text of Scripture supports their viewpoint. They admit that their viewpoint comes from their system. They admit that they have to find many isolated texts and then put them together in just the right way to come up with their pre-trib position. And then they claim that post-tribbers do the same thing.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

These single texts, by themselves, teach a post-trib return of Christ for his people. If I had only one of these texts, I would know the truth about the return of Christ and its post-trib orientation:

Daniel 12:1-12
Zechariah 12:1-14:21
Matthew 24
Mark 13
1 Thess. 4:13-5:11
2 Thess. 1:6-2:17
2 Peter 3:1-18
Revelation 19:1-20:6

Taken together, these texts conclusively prove that the people of God are delivered from persecution at the return of Christ to earth, that a great resurrection will take place of the elect, and that Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. The return of Christ is accompanied by blazing fire, the kind of fire that can melt the elements and lay the earth bare, like at Armageddon. The same kind of fire that will consume all nonbelievers who revolt at the end of the thousand years. After the final judgment, a new heaven and earth will be formed (Revelation 21) and eternity on earth will commence.

No where in these passages is there a "hint" of a pretribulation rapture of a segment of God's people called the "church."

These passages teach one thing only. Christ will return, the saints of all the ages will be resurrected, Christ will rule for one thousand years, and nonbelievers will be resurrected at the end of the reign of Christ.

Literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic!

 

Daniel 12:1-12
What is the "power of the Holy people" of Daniel 12:7? Is the "time of the end" mentioned in verses 4&9 the same end Peter speaks of in I Pet. 4:7?

Zechariah 12:1-14:21

Zech 12:10 was fulfilled at the cross. (Jn 19:37)
Zech 13:7 was fulfilled in the last day before the Cross. (Matt 26:31)
Zech 14:1,2 were fulfilled in AD70 (Luke 21:24)

Matthew 24 Mark 13

Destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. (Matthew Henry, John Gill etc..)

1 Thess. 4:13-5:11

Who is the "we" in verses 15&17 of I Thess 4?

2 Thess. 1:6-2:17

Did this have nothing to do with the Thessalonians? Did Paul give them a false hope? I guess they never received their "rest". If this is a message to the church in general, then why are they still here? Shouldn't they have been raptured out?

2 Peter 3:1-18

John Owen

'It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.

' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state

'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly." (Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11, Works, folio, 1721.).

Revelation 19:1-20:6

Is the "beast" of Rev. 19:19 the same "beast" of Dan. 7:23?

 

Grasshopper,

I appreciate your questions, but the line of arguement is that a "literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic" does not result in a pre-trib dispensational understanding of Scripture as Larry claims it does.

Some of your commentaries are using an allegorical approach to Scripture. Interesting but not germane.

 

"a "literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic" does not result in a pre-trib dispensational understanding of Scripture as Larry claims it does."

I would like to know what other position comes from this if not pre-trib. It must be a newer line of thought as even a covenent writer I read 20 years ago stated that if you use allegorical you were cov. and if literal, you would have to be pre trib.

Enlighten me please, not the ten volume version the shortened readers digest version would do fine

 

Your comment that I fail to understand what someone else rights made me laugh yet again. Go back and read what I wrote. In fact, I will make it easy for you. Here it is from page 3:

Notice how I very clearly said that their confusion is because of what they were being told in "the letter, prophecy, or report alleged to have come from the Apostle" (to use your words). In other words, I say the same thing you do, and yet you say I am wrong and you accuse me of not reading carefully. How can you do something like that? Did you really not read that closely? It's fine if you didn't. We all make mistakes about what others say. But don't get on your high horse and pretend like I am the one not reading when you didn't read what I wrote and in fact tried to make me appear as believing something I don't.

Nope, not at all. The DOL clearly involves judgment and blessing. This is taken from teh complete biblical revelation on the matter from OT to NT. Consider for instance 1 Thess 5;2, an virtually insurmountable pretrib passage. When the DOL comes in a time of "peace and safety" it comes with "sudden destruction." That is the tribulation, and it is the wrath from which we have been saved. It is completely incompatible with a posttrib DOL where it would come after the sudden destruction. Who would be saying "peace and safety" in the Tribulation? No one. Even your pet passage of Matt 24 places the Tribulation in the DOL.

And you think I disagree? I don't. The elect will be gathered there. But the elect of what? It is clearly not all the elect of all time, but the elect that are on the earth. I can't believe you missed that.

Do you really think your arguments are that good? They strike me as coming from one who hasn't really interacted beyond a very basic level with the issues. I don't know. Perhaps you have read and studied more than you are letting on here, but it seems like you have at best a very cursory knowledge of the issues involved in the DOL discussion, and the whole rapture timing debate.

 

I am editing this post because it was the same as the next post except I added a few comments to the next one. But I will say here that I am going to bow out of this conversation most likely. I long for the day when exegesis of the text becomes the rule of our lives and theology. I strive for that, and my exegesis has led me to a certain position because of what I believe about the words themselves (my hermeneutic). If others differ in good conscience on these matters that are not clearly revealed, I can live with that. Just don't expect an invitation to come preach at my prophecy conference ... ... In fact, I think I will just cancel that for this year ...

 

That is a gross distortion of what I said and you know it. The truth is that there is no verse that specifically defines the rapture timing with respect to the tribulation. Everyone knows that … or virtually everyone. I know there are some dolts out there who don’t, so I won’t include them.

Not apart from the presupposition. I can take everyone of those texts and show that they are not a posttrib position. Dan 12 for instance addresses Israel, not the church. Therefore, it doesn’t say anything about the rapture of the church. Same with Zech 12 and Matt 24. 1 and 2 Thess are very clearly pretrib if you do the exegesis and plug in the historical context and teaching of the rest of Scripture. Just read 1 Thess 5 and see the relation of peace and safety to the coming destruction that the church is saved from. It requires great hermeneutical gymnastics to get around it. 2 Thess 2:1ff are very clearly pretrib. Why would the believers be worried about being in the DOL if Paul had told them they would be? The truth is that there were expecting to be gone before the DOL because as v. 5 says, Paul had been telling them these things.

Yes, but not with reference to the church. The people of God who are on earth will experience the deliverance at that time. Your failure of exegesis has led you to miss that point.

Do the homework. You will see it just fine. Admittedly, it takes some work, but it is worth it.

There are so many mistakes in your post, it is impossible to address them all. But having done the homework, I can assure you that the ease with which you present your “solution” is far from the ease with which it actually exists. Reading the passage without your presupposition will show something very different than you are presenting. And I think you know that. The literal grammatical historical hermeneutic leads to a fundamental dichotomy between the church and Israel. It is impossible to consistently use the hermeneutic without arriving at that dichotomy and that is where much of your problem lies. When you miss the biblical distinctions, you end up with the wrong conclusions because you think God is talking about somethign he isn't.

 

Larry, I appreciate your sweetness and attempt to be reconciling. But these matters are clearly revealed when a literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic is applied consistently.

You can protest all you want that I and others haven't exegeted the text properly, but in your one attempt to exegete 2 Thess. 1-2 you gave us nothing but assumptions that aren't found in the text and eisegetical comments as to why the church thought they were in the "Day of the Lord/Tribulation" after being taught "pre-trib" by the Apostle Paul.

The "clear" teaching of Scripture is that Christ will return at the end of the tribulation for all his saints!

I, too, will leave off this discussion, because there is only so much a person can do to point out the Scriptural texts. The rest you will have to do with God's help.