Going going gone ..

[Darrell C]

Since you act like an uncivilized person, and you don't even understand what ad hominem means, I've had to add you to the ignore list.

Like I figured, another person who just likes to talk bad about people but has nothing to back up what they are saying.

At least some amillenialists try, lol. They don't usually last long, but seldom do they run away like this...


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

A dispensationalist "literal" view of the end times:

Those who base their doctrine on disliking what others believe will never embrace a position through study. They will adopt arguments that sound good to them, and essentially have no faith of their own, they just borrow someone else's.


As that great thinker Jackie Gleason use to say, "Ad Homina homina homina homina..."


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

In conversations with Baptists of many persuasions I find a growing neglect or even rejection of Dispensationalism. Having been trained in a Baptist school in such and more solid than ever in those convictions 45 years later I can't help but think of at least a few reasons why. Your thoughts?

There are many Baptists who are rediscovering their Calvinistic roots, and they are now looking into Covenant Theology instead of being strictly Dispy, and also other end times are now being emphasized, not just all pretrib rapture only!

 

[HankD]

LOL, still no answer to whether you believe in a literal 1000 year reign on earth.
The progressive Dispensationalist view believes "All Israel" refers to all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. chosen under the Old and New Covenants.

Yes I believe a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and saints upon the earth.

 

[atpollard]

God bless.

Thank you, He has.

I notice that nothing in that long post of yours actually addresses the ‘1000 year reign’ (which is what your statement and my response was about).

I will take your advice and bow out ... this looks like a Proverbs 26:4 argument rather than any sort of discussion.

 

[HankD]

Dispensational Theology is by far the best System to embrace. It does not reject the Prophecy of Scripture as most Systems do. It does not spiritualize everything to the point where we wonder how those who do so think they can even rely on Scripture.



Why would differing views among adherents make it "cluttered?"

Often "differing views" help to point out what is not solid, which makes for a stronger system.

But can you give a couple specific examples of what it is that makes it seem "cluttered" to you?


God bless.

I am not going to parse the word "cluttered" for you.

You can do that.
It is an intuitive word.
Here is a head start:
Mostly 1, 5 and 6.

clutter
verb (used with object)
1.to fill or litter with things in a disorderly manner:
All kinds of papers cluttered the top of his desk.

verb (used without object)

2.British Dialect. to run in disorder; move with bustle and confusion.

3.British Dialect. to make a clatter.

4.to speak so rapidly and inexactly that distortions of sound and phrasing result.
noun

5.a disorderly heap or assemblage; litter:
It's impossible to find anything in all this clutter.

6.a state or condition of confusion.

the definition of clutter

 

[Revmitchell]

Many would disagree..

No no, only some would disagree. The gap theorists are few and far between.

 

[Darrell C]

Thank you, He has.

May He continue to do so.

I notice that nothing in that long post of yours actually addresses the ‘1000 year reign’ (which is what your statement and my response was about).

Long? That was a brief intro to a short statement that could be...long.



But to set matters straight, my post addresses exactly what you mentioned:

Is it the LITERAL interpretation of a vision that also includes a dragon attempting to eat a woman and her child?

Why would I address something you claim not to embrace?

I am not Amillenial, but I hope you have something outside Revelation to hang such an emphatic opinion on, because I strip gears trying to follow the shifts from verses in Revelation that people say MUST be literal to verses that cannot be anything but symbolic (and the whole thing is a vision, after all).

Are you saying that believing in the thousand years mentioned in Revelation is a weak reason to believe there will actually be a thousand year rule of Christ?

Well, going outside of Revelation we have the testimony of much Old Testament Prophecy, as well as Christ's teaching concerning the Kingdom that is going to come.

You know, that physical Kingdom everyone was expecting, literally, based on Old Testament Prophecy and Promise?


Acts 1:4-7
King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

I will take your advice and bow out ... this looks like a Proverbs 26:4 argument rather than any sort of discussion.

You can make what you want of it, but if nothing else, anyone "bowing out" of ridicule of a System that is without question the best System men have been able to come up with...

...is okay with me.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I am not going to parse the word "cluttered" for you.

You can do that.
It is an intuitive word.
Here is a head start:
Mostly 1, 5 and 6.

clutter
verb (used with object)
1.to fill or litter with things in a disorderly manner:
All kinds of papers cluttered the top of his desk.

verb (used without object)

2.British Dialect. to run in disorder; move with bustle and confusion.

3.British Dialect. to make a clatter.

4.to speak so rapidly and inexactly that distortions of sound and phrasing result.
noun

5.a disorderly heap or assemblage; litter:
It's impossible to find anything in all this clutter.

6.a state or condition of confusion.

the definition of clutter

That's all very nice, but I was actually looking for an example of what is "cluttered" in Dispensational Theology.

Why would differing views among adherents make it "cluttered?"

Often "differing views" help to point out what is not solid, which makes for a stronger system.

But can you give a couple specific examples of what it is that makes it seem "cluttered" to you?

It's okay if you cannot think of anything. You have a right not to support your own statements.


God bless.

 

[HankD]

That's all very nice, but I was actually looking for an example of what is "cluttered" in Dispensational Theology.

It's okay if you cannot think of anything. You have a right not to support your own statements.


God bless.

Thank You but its still a cluttered theological view

One example of "clutter", Pre-trib, mid-trib (there are two views of mid-trib) post-trib, pre mil, post mil, with mixed permutations, etc, etc...

If you are really interested Darrell you can do your own research, its indeed a field too cluttered for me to do justice to it even in a whole forum item..

dispensational authors - Google Search

It's kind of like making an Italian sub,pick the cold cuts, onions, olives, whatever, cheese and ENJOY!
(Sandwich ingredients - metaphor for dispensational authors)

Have fun (or even intellectual stimulation)

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

 

[atpollard]

Are you saying that believing in the thousand years mentioned in Revelation is a weak reason to believe there will actually be a thousand year rule of Christ?

No. I SAID that someone believing that ‘any particular part of Revelation is not meant to be literal’ is a terrible reason to accuse them of rejecting the word of God. Revelation is a vision, so one can disagree on the correct interpretation without being a heretic.

 

[thatbrian]

Thank You but its still a cluttered theological view

One example of "clutter", Pre-trib, mid-trib (there are two views of mid-trib) post-trib, pre mil, post mil, with mixed permutations, etc, etc...

If you are really interested Darrell you can do your own research, its indeed a field too cluttered for me to do justice to it even in a whole forum item..

dispensational authors - Google Search

It's kind of like making an Italian sub,pick the cold cuts, onions, olives, whatever, cheese and ENJOY!
(Sandwich ingredients - metaphor for dispensational authors)

Have fun (or even intellectual stimulation)

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

When in doubt, just watch their official movie, "Left Behind".

 

[Darrell C]

Thank You but its still a cluttered theological view

Well thanks for giving me an idea why you think it is cluttered, unfortunately you don't seem to think there is a right view and an erroneous one. So to say because there are differing views that it is cluttered is not very logical. Can you show me a system where there are no differing views? Especially when we look at what the adherents actually believe?

One example of "clutter", Pre-trib, mid-trib (there are two views of mid-trib) post-trib, pre mil, post mil, with mixed permutations, etc, etc...

I was not aware that Dispensational Theology holds that all of these views are...right.

It is funny that when most people sneer at Dispensational Theology...they assume a Pre-Tribulation Rapture (which is the only view that fits within all Prophecy and prophetic events).

If you are really interested Darrell you can do your own research,

No, actually, not interested at all in extra-biblical mumbo jumbo. I'll leave that to you. I'll stick with Scripture and do my best to avoid getting caught up in the confusion the doctrines of men inevitably impose on men.

its indeed a field too cluttered for me to do justice to it even in a whole forum item..

Which field? Classical, Traditional, or Progressive? Three entirely different "fields."

dispensational authors - Google Search

It's kind of like making an Italian sub,pick the cold cuts, onions, olives, whatever, cheese and ENJOY!
(Sandwich ingredients - metaphor for dispensational authors)

You know, that seems an apt description for how you have concluded on Dispensational Theology.

Have fun (or even intellectual stimulation)

Can't have fun unless I run into someone who seeks to support the statements they make.

That is what I call fun.

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Not everyone, lol. Just those who aren't that interested in what the Bible might actually teach, and how that compares to the doctrines of men.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

No. I SAID that someone believing that ‘any particular part of Revelation is not meant to be literal’ is a terrible reason to accuse them of rejecting the word of God.

The problem is you are arguing with yourself. I have never said that there are not aspects of Revelation not meant to be taken literally. For example, Antichrist is not actually a beast, but a man.

Secondly, there is no question that men reject the Word of God when they reject what is stated. And they do this by creating a hermeneutic never seen utilized in Scripture, where even when figurative language is used...it still holds a literal teaching. There is nothing in Scripture to accommodate the thousand years in Revelation being figurative. So it is a point of debate which no amillennial can support.

Third, you said...

Is it the LITERAL interpretation of a vision that also includes a dragon attempting to eat a woman and her child?

I am not Amillenial, but I hope you have something outside Revelation to hang such an emphatic opinion on, because I strip gears trying to follow the shifts from verses in Revelation that people say MUST be literal to verses that cannot be anything but symbolic (and the whole thing is a vision, after all).

1. You mock the figurative language employed.
2. You have obviously not bothered to understand what is literal in the employed figurative language.
3. You claim you are not amillennial but seem set on defending their position.
4. You demand something "outside of Revelation" that I can "hang my emphatic opinion on," which implies REvelation is not enough.
5. You reject a literal aspect to that which "cannot be anything but symbolic."
6. You state "...and the whole thing is a vision, after all," which begs the question...

...what exactly do you mean by that?

Do visions hold less, or no instruction?

Did the vision of the sheet given to Peter not teach a literal lesson?

Do the visions of Revelation not describe events that will be fulfilled literally?

What exactly do you see visions being given for...for?

Revelation is a vision

And? Please inform me of exactly how you view visions and how they correlate to the Word of God? To that which God intends to instruct us in?

so one can disagree on the correct interpretation without being a heretic.

Depends on how you define heresy. I view a rejection of what Scripture teaches plainly as heretical. God shows us what is going to happen, and men say...that isn't going to happen."

That's not heresy?

And if you demand I show you why I think its going to happen just as God has shown us...I'll be glad to.


God bless.

 

[Van]

Yes I believe a literal 1000 year reign of Christ and saints upon the earth.

Thanks HankD for your clear statement of belief.
We both agree, Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years, but we disagree on saying Galatians 3:28-29 does not mean what it says.

 

[HankD]

Thanks HankD for your clear statement of belief.
We both agree, Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years, but we disagree on saying Galatians 3:28-29 does not mean what it says.

We are one. Just as God is one yet three distinct persons.
Plurality in distinction does not defeat unity in essence.

 

[Van]

Gotya HankD, no difference means difference, and heirs of the Promise means not really an heir.

That is why I am a progressive dispensationalist, I take all of God's word literally.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

All these insane trends or boxes you want to perfectly fit everything in. How about the Bible is for us and we are to follow what he teaches.....check out Steven Anderson on this subject. He is crystal clear.

 

[Reynolds]

No no, only some would disagree. The gap theorists are few and far between.

"Few" in Baptist circles. Very predominant in Charismatic circles.

 

[HankD]

Gotya HankD, no difference means difference, and heirs of the Promise means not really an heir.

That is why I am a progressive dispensationalist, I take all of God's word literally.

Great