Dispinsationalist vs. Preterist

[Grasshopper]

If you enjoy debates, I think you'll enjoy this lengthy one(approx. 2 and a half hours):

http://www.blubrry.com/player/?e=239874&p=2840

http://www.blubrry.com/player/?e=239875&p=2840

 

[skypair]

Grasshopper,

Brother Bob would be proud. :laugh: The preterist's antagonist was ill-prepared to enter into "intellectual and spiritual combat."

But the true dispensationalist paradigm never got presented.

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper,

Brother Bob would be proud. :laugh: The preterist's antagonist was ill-prepared to enter into "intellectual and spiritual combat."

But the true dispensationalist paradigm never got presented.

skypair

I must agree, he didn't know what hit him. Reminded me of Dave Hunt trying to take on a Calvinist.:laugh:

 

[skypair]

I must agree, he didn't know what hit him. Reminded me of Dave Hunt trying to take on a Calvinist.:laugh:

Now, now, grasshopper. Be kind.

IMO, the whole thing could have been resolved in the first 15 minutes when the preterist quoted Jesus saying "not one jot nor tittle of the old covenant shall be removed until all be fulfilled." And, yes, that means blood sacrifices for sin because the law will be fully functional as the debate brought out. The thing that wasn't seen is that the old and new covenants would operate literally/physically "side-by-side" -- "in parallel."

The old covenant of the law is still applicable today but the place of the sacrifice has been taken away! When the church is taken out, that place of sacrifice will be restored (Rev 11) and the old covenant functional in bringing Israel to Christ's MK! And when that is fulfilled that Satan is "released AGAIN" (it's called "dual application" -- once for Israel and once for the church), then Christ will rapture believers again and all the "old" will be replaced by the "New."

The debate about "new heavens and new earth" between Isa 64-66 and Rev 21-22 is, again, "dual application." The Isaiah's instance of it will be "new" to Israel to bring them under that NEW covenant while we who are already "new cov kids" go to "New Jerusalem" in heaven.

The Preterist gives a compelling case but he could not explain why there was sickness, corruption, and death in one NH/NE and not in the other. It's simple, really. Two covenants -- two peoples -- two dispensations through two sets of eyes/revelations.

skypair

 

[JDale]

SP:

I don't know who's Preterist, and who's not on this board or in this thread -- but could SOMEBODY find a way to at least SPELL "DISPENSATIONALIST" right!?! That just drives a reall Dispensationalist like me CRAZY! :BangHead:

JDale

 

[Grasshopper]

SP:

I don't know who's Preterist, and who's not on this board or in this thread -- but could SOMEBODY find a way to at least SPELL "DISPENSATIONALIST" right!?! That just drives a reall Dispensationalist like me CRAZY! :BangHead:

JDale

Sorry, I didn't know you were a "reall" Dispensationalist.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sorry, I didn't know you were a "reall" Dispensationalist.

I'm a Real Dispensationalist. Only if I stay up too late at night surfing Facebook, I become a Reallll Dispensationalist

Here is Ed's Bible view of Dispensations:

Dispensation in the NT, KJV1769 family of editions (bolding by Ed):

1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
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 (KJV1769):
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:

Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
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 Holy Spirit hasn't shown me a lot more than is here. I do know the Greek word being translated here as 'dispensation' is the Greek word from which we get 'economy'.

I do know (IN SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE off the top of my head) that this is what the conomy of God is like:

Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time
'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years
'½-week' = 3½-years
'1 day' = 'week' = 7 years
'month' = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time

Other 'economy of God facts':

the blind see
the dead live
the deaf hear
the lame leap like deer
the first is last
the last is first
Jesus Saves (totally!)
God Rules!!

Frequently the Bible discusses:

What is to be is discussed in either present tense (is done) or past tense (done already done). So a study of Greek tenses is generally frustrating. Us people can only do one day at a time. God can do everyday at a time - I think God may have invented all the days at the same time?

-----------------------------------------------
Any other view of Dispensation just isn't mine.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I don't think there are any preterists left on BB. Skypair, the Calvinist Dispy, whipped them and sent them packing. Ed, the Arminist Dispy, whipped them and sent them packing.

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't think there are any preteristsleft on BB. Skypair, the Calvinist Dispy, whipped them and sent them packing. Ed, the Arminist Dispy, whipped them and sent them packing.

Still here and still waiting on skypair to show me those "memorial sacrifices" in Eze. 40-48.

As for you:

Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time

What "appropriate time" was John speaking of in the 1st century?

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years

So these are actually years?

Dan 12:11 And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand and two hundred and ninety days.

Or is this to mean 3,000 years?

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Grasshopper: //What "appropriate time" was John speaking of in the 1st century?//

Which reference.

In General, 'appropriate time' means the time of God's choosing, not Brother Grasshoppers's time.

 

[skypair]

Still here and still waiting on skypair to show me those "memorial sacrifices" in Eze. 40-48.

Actually, after hearing that debate, I am in full agreement with the preterist that the sacrifices are not "memorial." It would destroy the whole "motif" of the dispensations of Israel and of the law for them to mean anything other than what they did in the OT.

Having said that... in the OT they didn't do anything in heaven for sin either as Paul tells the Hebbrews 9:13. Blood only "sanctifieth to the purifying of the FLESH." The flesh of the Ezek 40-48 "millennial kingdom" is not ready for the coming of the "eternal kingdom" of Rev 21-22.

I would encourage you to realize what the preterist didn't understand (and what the dispie couldn't explain) ---- the old covenant was INTERRUPTED, not terminated. That is why the church looks not at all like Israel. That is why the covenant promises to Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, etc.) have yet to be fulfilled to Israel. That is why you can read about a different "new heavens and new earth" in Isa 64-66 than the one described in Rev 21-22.

We are living in a "new covenant" period in the spiritual sense only and that is why dispies call it the "church age." The next thing for us is NOT to be "hunkered down" in Jerusalem awaiting Satan's final assault (Rev 20:8-9) but our evacuation at the completion of the INTERRUPTION to New Jerusalem in heaven! Then the old covenant is RESUMED beginning with the rebuilding of the trib temple in Jerusalem where sacrifices will be offered right up to the midtrib placing of the "image of the beast." And then, after 1150 days, it will be cleansed in time for the AC's attack in 1260 days the purpose of which is to keep Messiah from returning to His temple.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I don't think there are any preterists left on BB.

Check out BrotherBob and grasshopper, Ed. :thumbs:

skypair

 

[J.D.]

I thought this one was pretty interesting too.

http://www.blubrry.com/player/?e=169564&p=2840

Preston makes a startling statement - [dispensationalists] apply the same hermaneutic as the Jews did in rejecting Christ. Think about it - a literal kingdom under the conquering Messiah is what they were looking for. How does that differ from the dispensationalist viewpoint?

I understand now why Hagee says "Jesus did not come the first time to be the Messiah", for if he had, He would have accepted the earthly kingdom his disciples were prepared to fight for. The Jews looked for a literal messiah and a literal kingdom that fights literal wars and possesses literal lands. Jesus offered none of this. The scriptures that a dispensationalist uses to prove a future literal kingdom are the same scriptures a Jew will use to justify rejecting Christ.

Hmmm....this preterism stuff is starting to make sense...

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards: //I don't think there are any preteristsleft on BB.//

Check out BrotherBob and grasshopper, Ed. :thumbs:

skypair

God must love preterists - He made so many of them :godisgood:

God must love dispies - He made more of them :applause:

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper: //What "appropriate time" was John speaking of in the 1st century?//

Which reference.

Perhaps the one I quoted the first time:

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

What last "appropriate time" is John referring to in the 1st century?

 

[Grasshopper]

Ed Edwards: //I don't think there are any preteristsleft on BB.//



God must love preterists - He made so many of them :godisgood:

God must love dispies - He made more of them :applause:

Then he really loves Mormons and Muslims.

 

[Grasshopper]

[skypair]Actually, after hearing that debate, I am in full agreement with the preterist that the sacrifices are not "memorial." It would destroy the whole "motif" of the dispensations of Israel and of the law for them to mean anything other than what they did in the OT.


So then I was right all along, glad you have changed since this exchange when you said this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=50287

"Your MISunderstanding of the purposes for them in the MK. They will be "remembrances" and worship -- just like our communion -- just like the "new song" or "song of Moses" in heaven, Rev 5:9 -- or like the celebration of the Passover. Do you get the picture?"

Now since Eze 40-48 speak of sin atonement sacrifices what does that do to Christ's everlasting sacrfice of sin if these are still future?




I would encourage you to realize what the preterist didn't understand (and what the dispie couldn't explain) ---- the old covenant was INTERRUPTED, not terminated.

The reason the preterist didn't understand is because the view that the Old Covenant is interrupted is foreign to scriptures. That is the same reason the dispie couldn't explain it.


That is why the church looks not at all like Israel. That is why the covenant promises to Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, Palestinian, etc.) have yet to be fulfilled to Israel.

Israel was the imperfect type and shadow of the Church. In the same manner Christ's sacrifice far exceeds that of the Old Covenant.


Act 3:24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. (Church Age)

That is why you can read about a different "new heavens and new earth" in Isa 64-66 than the one described in Rev 21-22.

So the New Heavens and New Earth of Is. 65-66 are not the same as Rev 21-22? Which of the two does Peter speak of in 2 Peter 3?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Perhaps the one I quoted the first time:

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.

What last "appropriate time" is John referring to in the 1st century?

The Last Days spoken of by Joel & by Peter:

Act 2:16-21 (KJV1611 Edition):
But this is that which was spoken by the Prophet Ioel,
17 And it shall come to passe in the last dayes (saith God) I will powre out of my Spirit vpon all flesh: and your sonnes and your daughters shall prophesie, and your yong men shall see visions, and your old men shall dreame dreames:
18 And on my seruants, and on my handmaidens, I will powre out in those daies of my Spirit, and they shall prophesie:
19 And I wil shew wonders in heauen aboue, and signes in the earth beneath: blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke.
20 The Sunne shall be turned into darkenesse, and the Moone into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.
21 And it shall come to passe, that whosoeuer shall call on the Name of the Lord, shalbe saued.

Yep, this is the HOUR, THE LAST DAYS, THE AGE OF SALVATION
Started in AD 33, continues to 2008 so far (continues on until the next dispensation: the Physcial/Literal lMillennial Messanic Kingdom AGE) (Between the SAVED AGE and the MESSANIC AGE shall be a time known as the Tribulation Period, Tribulation Judgement, Daniel's 70th week, Great Tribulation upon the followers of the Antichrist, punishment upon a Christ Rejecting world. At the beginning of the Tribualtion Period Jesus will get those in-Christ (both the dead /resurrection/ and the living /rapture/ and take them to heaven for the 7-years of the Tribualtion Judgement. At the end of the Tribulation period Jeus will come judge the Antichrist and his followers damning them to hell for 1,000 years and to eternity in the Lake of Fire (AKA: bottomless pit).

But hey, I'm sure in 67-70AD when the Roman Legions under General Titus (later Emperor) killed a million Israel, enslaved a million Israeli, and left the other 3/4 to a million Israel living in poverty - that seemed pretty bad. But it was nothing like the 6-14 Million Jews killed by Hitler (who was waving the CHRISTIAN banner - every wonder why Jews don't like the term 'Christ'? - I'll just call "Jesus: the Messiah" or "Messiah Jesus".

 

[skypair]

So then I was right all along, glad you have changed since this exchange when you said this:

There is a rationale out there for 'memorial' sacrifices. You have blessed me with the truth of the matter.

Now since Eze 40-48 speak of sin atonement sacrifices what does that do to Christ's everlasting sacrfice of sin if these are still future?

Christ's sacrifice stands as it always did --- for the SPIRITUAL atonement for sin. You cannot be "justified" in soul nor "sanctified" in spirit without God's accepted Sacrifice. As you well know -- physical sacrifices are mere 'shadows' of spiritual truths.

The reason the preterist didn't understand is because the view that the Old Covenant is interrupted is foreign to scriptures. That is the same reason the dispie couldn't explain it.

Now, now. Let's don't go "basking in our own glory" to quickly. :laugh: Would you not say that the Abrahamic covenant has been "delayed" rather than "reneged on" by God? How about the Davidic covenant? The Palestinian covenant? Does God keep His promises?

Israel was the imperfect type and shadow of the Church. In the same manner Christ's sacrifice far exceeds that of the Old Covenant.

My! Aren't we proud of ourselves! Israel a "type" of the church, indeed! I suppose "lost" isn't out of the question for them then, eh?

So the New Heavens and New Earth of Is. 65-66 are not the same as Rev 21-22? Which of the two does Peter speak of in 2 Peter 3:7?

Did you not get that from the debate? The dispie said "How is it that there is no sickness, sin, death, etc. in one but in Isaiah they still exist?" Here's a dispensational truth you'd do well to consider: Israel was offered the kingdom WITH the "new heavens/new earth" 1000 year reign as a near immediate consequence. They REJECTED it.

Therefore, the church is shown it as the eternal kingdom but Israel as a time of sin and death. Notice: Israel's "new heavens/new earth is ended with the releasing of Satan from the pit and the surrounding of Jerusalem. But for the church's "New Heavens/New Earth," Satan is in the eternal lake of fire rather than the "bound in the pit."

There are WAY too many contradictions of scripture in the preterist's scenario, grasshopper. Yeah, if you have a vivid human imagination and everything has some mystical rather than literal meaning, I suppose it is "doable." But do you want God to literally keep His promises to you or "spiritually )but I may not know what I am getting myself into)" keeping of His promises? What, by your standards, would the "rapture" mean? What do you expect "new heavens/new earth" to be --- corruptible or incorruptible? What do you expect when you read scripture saying that Christ is coming again -- a "type" of coming or a "literal" coming?

I can empathize with you in your confusion. My pastor/nephew -- well educated -- cannot sort out The Revelation. He practically "throws his hands up" whenever the book is mentioned! "How," he asks, "can anyone separate the symbolic from the literal?"

You, like him, are merely in that 'territory' where you can't do that for yourself either because you are trying to "nail down" the "deckchairs" on the "Titanic." :laugh: The 'ship' you have chosen is like Jonah's. It can NEVER get to the destination God intended for YOU.

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

There is a rationale out there for 'memorial' sacrifices. You have blessed me with the truth of the matter.

Christ's sacrifice stands as it always did --- for the SPIRITUAL atonement for sin. You cannot be "justified" in soul nor "sanctified" in spirit without God's accepted Sacrifice. As you well know -- physical sacrifices are mere 'shadows' of spiritual truths.

Yes,Old Covenant Israel was a type of New Covenant Israel(the Church).

Now, now. Let's don't go "basking in our own glory" to quickly. :laugh: Would you not say that the Abrahamic covenant has been "delayed" rather than "reneged on" by God? How about the Davidic covenant? The Palestinian covenant? Does God keep His promises?

Preterism is the only system that says God did keep His promises. Your system says not yet.

My! Aren't we proud of ourselves! Israel a "type" of the church, indeed! I suppose "lost" isn't out of the question for them then, eh?

Under the New Covenant all Israel is saved.

Did you not get that from the debate? The dispie said "How is it that there is no sickness, sin, death, etc. in one but in Isaiah they still exist?" The dispie couldn't understand therefore just says the New Heaven and Earth of Isaiah and Revelation are two different things. His literalism forces such a view, as does yours.

Here's a dispensational truth you'd do well to consider: Israel was offered the kingdom WITH the "new heavens/new earth" 1000 year reign as a near immediate consequence. They REJECTED it.

Where is this found?

Therefore, the church is shown it as the eternal kingdom but Israel as a time of sin and death. Notice: Israel's "new heavens/new earth is ended with the releasing of Satan from the pit and the surrounding of Jerusalem. But for the church's "New Heavens/New Earth," Satan is in the eternal lake of fire rather than the "bound in the pit."

I don't think dispies even agree with that.

There are WAY too many contradictions of scripture in the preterist's scenario, grasshopper. Yeah, if you have a vivid human imagination and everything has some mystical rather than literal meaning, I suppose it is "doable." See Hal Lindsey.
But do you want God to literally keep His promises to you or "spiritually )The two are not mutually exclusive.but I may not know what I am getting myself into)" keeping of His promises? What, by your standards, would the "rapture" mean? What do you expect "new heavens/new earth" to be --- corruptible or incorruptible? What do you expect when you read scripture saying that Christ is coming again -- a "type" of coming or a "literal" coming?

I can empathize with you in your confusion.I'm not confused. My pastor/nephew -- well educated -- cannot sort out The Revelation.More progress, you no longer call it Revelations. He practically "throws his hands up" whenever the book is mentioned! "How," he asks, "can anyone separate the symbolic from the literal?" He should read the OT for many of the symbols then he won't have to have locusts actually mean Cobra Helicopters as dispies do. But the simple concepts of when the events were to occur should be taken at face value.

You, like him, are merely in that 'territory' where you can't do that for yourself either because you are trying to "nail down" the "deckchairs" on the "Titanic." :laugh: The 'ship' you have chosen is like Jonah's. It can NEVER get to the destination God intended for YOU.

Yet you still can't give a straight answer on why there are sin atonement sacrifices in Eze. 40-48. Your entire argument was based on these sacrifices being "memorial" in nature yet you toss them aside,finally, when it becomes apparent how ridicoulous it is.

skypair

.........................