The Marriage and the Marriage Supper

[Pastor_Bob]

The following Scripture posted earlier and which got no response, shows very clearly, at least to those who are not in the hole of dispensationalism, that the New Jerusalem is the Church, the bride of Jesus Christ, those whose Names are written in the Book of Life. That this Bride, this New Jerusalem, includes the redeemed of both the OT and NT is shown by the reference to the 12 Apostles and the 12 Tribes.

No, sir, it does not show it clearly at all. What the Bible does show clearly is that the the New Jerusalem is the city in which the Bride of Christ, the Church, will dwell for all of eternity. All of the redeemed from ever age will live there as well, but not all will be a part of the Bride of Christ - that special distinction belongs only to the church. This, of course, is after the marriage and the marriage supper take place in heaven during the Tribulation Period.

The church is made up of all those saved during the church age. Call it dispensationalism if you like, but there can be no disputing the fact that God has now opened the door for Gentiles to be grafted in to the spiritual lineage of Abraham. The very passage you mentioned earlier supports this:
Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Also:
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles [the church age] be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

 

[OldRegular]

No, sir, it does not show it clearly at all. What the Bible does show clearly is that the the New Jerusalem is the city in which the Bride of Christ, the Church, will dwell for all of eternity. All of the redeemed from ever age will live there as well, but not all will be a part of the Bride of Christ - that special distinction belongs only to the church. This, of course, is after the marriage and the marriage supper take place in heaven during the Tribulation Period.

The church is made up of all those saved during the church age. Call it dispensationalism if you like, but there can be no disputing the fact that God has now opened the door for Gentiles to be grafted in to the spiritual lineage of Abraham. The very passage you mentioned earlier supports this:
Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

I thought you said there was no mention of the Church in the Old Testament. So Old brother James was correct after all when he said And to this agree the words of the prophets.

Also:
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles [the church age] be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The Deliver came out of Sion or Zion 2000 years ago! He turned away ungodliness for the elect of God amongst national Israel.

If you, or any other who holds to dispensational error, could show a single verse of Scripture that teaches a "snatching away" of the Church prior to any so-called great tribulation you might, just might have a case of two peoples of God, otherwise no!

************************************************************

Of course we should all note that it was not just a portion of Israel that was saved in the Old Testament but all whose names were written in the Book of Life: There were all the people before the flood; some of Noah's people; Job and some of his, though his wife did give bad advice; the people of Nineveh to whom Jonah reluctantly preached; those of Salem at the time of Melchizedek; and I am sure there others not mentioned. As Brother James told us, or rather God through that Brother: Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

 

[OldRegular]

A little useful information for all to consider.

John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]. Before presenting Walvoord’s remarks concerning this question it is worthwhile to consider the definition of the Church as presented in The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000.

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

“If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.”

We see from the definition of the Church as presented in the Baptist Faith and Message and the remarks by Walvoord that the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture of the Church contradicts current Southern Baptist Doctrine as well as historic Baptist Doctrine. But that dispensational error is rampant in the SBC!

Furthermore I suppose the converse is true. Since the Church is not going to be "snatched away", at least no one can prove it by Scripture, all the redeemed are members the Church, also called the body and the bride of Jesus Christ. Now I realize that not all on this BB are SB, in fact some don't even like the SBC but they got it right in 2000.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I thought you said there was no mention of the Church in the Old Testament. So Old brother James was correct after all when he said And to this agree the words of the prophets.

Part of the problem seems to be that you are not reading my posts clearly enough and I am forced to go back and repeat myself.

The Old Testament prophesied that Christ would suffer (Isa 53) and that Christ would reign (Isa 9:6,7). Nothing is mentioned about a period of time in between in which God temporarily set aside Israel and build a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

If you, or any other who holds to dispensational error, could show a single verse of Scripture that teaches a "snatching away" of the Church prior to any so-called great tribulation you might, just might have a case of two peoples of God, otherwise no!

Would it really do any good to offer any scripture?

How about I Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul is clearly writing to the church at Thessalonica. This phrase "caught up" is the same phrase used in Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

I Cor. 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Mat. 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[OldRegular]

Part of the problem seems to be that you are not reading my posts clearly enough and I am forced to go back and repeat myself.

The Old Testament prophesied that Christ would suffer (Isa 53) and that Christ would reign (Isa 9:6,7). Nothing is mentioned about a period of time in between in which God temporarily set aside Israel and build a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Sadly dispensationalists seem to neglect what Paul is really saying. He cannot be saying that he was the sole recipient of the revelation that Gentiles would be included in the same body as the elect of Israel. You would do well to careful consider the following statement by Paul. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; It is that little word AS that dispensationalists ignore.

Apparently you are not reading my posts. I pointed out above the large number of people other than some of Israel who were saved. I would also note that Jesus Christ Himself preached the Gospel to the despised Samaritans. Furthermore both Peter and Philip preached the Gospel to Gentiles prior to Paul and I have already posted the remarks of James concerning the OT prophecy regarding Peter and the Gentiles.

Would it really do any good to offer any scripture?

You could present Scripture proving a pre-trib "snatching away" of the Church!

How about I Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul is clearly writing to the church at Thessalonica. This phrase "caught up" is the same phrase used in Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

That doesn't establish anything approaching the "rapture". Paul is simply comforting the believers at Thessalonica regarding the resurrection of those who have died.

I Cor. 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Again that has nothing to do with a pre-trib "snatching" of the Church. That is the general resurrection at the "SEVENTH AND LAST TRUMPET". That resurrection occurs concurrent with the following:

Revelation 11:15-19
15. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17. Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
19. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Note the sounding of the last trumpet!

Mat. 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I never argue with Scripture. That will surely happen but that is the general resurrection not a "snatching away" of the Church.

When you can talk God into removing John 5:28, 29 from the Bible then perhaps you might be able to establish the "snatching away" of the Church but I doubt it. It is incredible that those people who insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture twist or ignore the following Scripture to fit their erroneous doctrine.

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.

That Scripture clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment yet the dispensationalists simply ignore or twist that Scripture to satisfy their twisted eschatology and worse still their doctrine of the Church which they make a "parenthesis" in Gods plan for Israel. Israel was chosen for the simple purpose of bringing Jesus Christ into the world. Once that happened and the leaders had colluded in His sacrificial death they had accomplished their part in God's purpose to redeem His Elect.

 

[OldRegular]

I thought the following introduction to The Song Of Solomon from the Original Scofield Bible would be of interest to some of the dispensational brethern on this BB:

Bible Study ToolsOur LibraryCommentariesScofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)
Song of Solomon - Introduction


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).

http://www.biblestudytools.com/comm...-of-solomon/song-of-solomon-introduction.html

I took the liberty of emphasizing part of the Introduction for those who insist the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Obviously Scofield, the granddaddy of dispensationalism in this country did not agree! It is my understanding that this introduction has been modified in more recent editions!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Obviously Scofield, the granddaddy of dispensationalism in this country did not agree!

I depend on the Scripture, not Scofield.

 

[OldRegular]

I depend on the Scripture, not Scofield.

Do You? Really? Do you believe John 5:28, 29 which clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment? I repeat, it is incredible that dispensationalism, which insists on literal interpretation of Scripture, rejects the clear teaching of Jesus Christ in John 5:28, 28.

No, you cannot believe Scripture rather than Scofield, not if you believe in the pre-trib Rapture of the Church. That error is basically the invention Of John Darby; Scofield was his disciple and Scofield's reference Bible is the source of the widespread acceptance of dispensational error in this country. Sadly I doubt that more than 10% realize that dispensationalism teaches a "parenthesis" Church. Jesus Christ died, not for a "parenthesis", but for the Church. I read nowhere that he died for ethnic or national Israel.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Do You? Really? Do you believe John 5:28, 29 which clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment?

Uh ... no.

Here's John Gill's commentary on v. 29:

All will rise, but with a difference; the dead in Christ will rise first, in the morning of the resurrection, in the beginning of the thousand years, and therefore are here mentioned first; the rest the wicked, will not rise until the evening of that day, till the thousand years are ended, and therefore are spoken of last. The former will rise by virtue of union to Christ, the other by his power, and both at hearing his voice; the saints will rise with bodies glorious, powerful, and spiritual; and wicked men, though with bodies immortal, yet vile, and dishonourable: the one will rise to a life of joy and happiness that will last for ever, and which will be properly life; the other, though they will rise and live for ever, yet in misery and woe, and which will be the second, or eternal death; see a like distinction in ( Daniel 12:2 ) , to which there seems to be some reference here.

You might also note, Gill predates Scofield by about 150 years.

 

[OldRegular]

Uh ... no.

Here's John Gill's commentary on v. 29:You might also note, Gill predates Scofield by about 150 years.

I am somewhat familiar with Gills view on John 5:28, 29. However, Gill says nothing about a pre-trib rapture. His resurrection of the Saints is at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, not seven years prior. However, borrowing a comment from PB I believe Scripture rather than Gill, especially when it is so clear. I would also note that Gill's idea of the millennium is in no way comparable to that of the dispensationalist or for that matter the covenant premillennialist. If you are interested you might check his Body of Divinity. or http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_7/book7_08.htm

But why not present all that Gill has to say about John 5:28, 29.

Ver. 28. Marvel not at this, &c.]Either at the cure of the man that had been diseased thirty and eight years, as some think; or at the Son of God being also the son of man, as the Syriac version suggests; or rather at the dead hearing the voice of the Son of God, and living upon it; and at his having authority to execute judgment upon all, to govern and defend his own church and people, and in the last day acquit them, and to take vengeance on his and their enemies, both now and hereafter:

for the hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice. This respects the general resurrection; for there will be a resurrection both of the just and unjust, of all that are in their graves; and though all that are dead are not in graves, or interred in the earth, as some are in the sea; yet, because the greater part are in graves, this phrase is chosen to express the universality of the resurrection: and this is also a proof of the resurrection of the same body; for what else are in the graves but bodies? and what else can come forth from them but the same bodies? and the time is hastening on when these bodies shall be quickened, and hear the voice of the Son of God; which whether the same with the voice of the archangel in 1Th 4:16; and whether an articulate voice, or a violent clap of thunder, which is the voice of God, or only the exertion of Christ's mighty power is intended, is not easy to determine, and may be needless to inquire. Certain it is, that this voice of Christ will be attended with almighty power, as the effect following upon it will show. The Jews observe {g}, that

``there are three things which do not come into the world
but "by voices"; there is the voice of a living creature,
as it is written, Ge 3:16, "in sorrow thou shalt bring
forth children", and as it is written, Ge 30:22, "and God
hearkened to her"; and there is the voice of rains, as it
is written, 1Ki 18:41, "for there is a voice of abundance
of rain", and it is written, Ps 29:3, "the voice of the
Lord is upon the waters"; and Mytmh tyyht lwq, "there is
the voice of the resurrection of the dead", as it is
written, Isa 40:3, "the voice of him that crieth in the
wilderness";''

but that was the voice of John the Baptist. It will be the voice of the Son of God that will quicken and raise the dead.

Ver. 29. And shall come forth, &c.] Out of their graves, as Lazarus came forth from his at the word of command, and as the bodies of the saints did after the resurrection of Christ, when their graves were opened:

they that have done good; which none of Adam's posterity naturally do, or can do of themselves: such are designed here who believe in Christ, which to do is the work of God, and the greatest and best of worlds; and without which it is impossible to please God in any; and indeed, whatever is not of faith is sin, and cannot be a good work: a good work is that which is done according to the will of God, from love to him, in faith, and with a view to his glory; and those that do such works shall come forth

unto the resurrection of life; that is, unto everlasting life, glory, and happiness; this is the first and better resurrection; and those that have part in it, over them the second death shall have no power. All shall rise to life, to an immortal life, so as never to die more; yet only good men shall rise to enjoy an happy and glorious life; which will lie in communion with God, angels, and saints, and in conformity to Christ, and in the everlasting vision of him:

and they that have done evil; who give up themselves to work wickedness; whose continual employment, and the business, series, and course of whose lives it is to commit sin; who are slaves unto it, and vassals of it, and are properly workers of iniquity; otherwise there is no man but what does that which is evil, and that daily: these shall come forth

unto the resurrection of damnation; that is, to everlasting damnation, shame, and reproach; they shall be condemned by the Judge of the whole earth, and shall be pronounced cursed; and shall be ordered to go into everlasting fire, and shall go into everlasting punishment; which will be a punishment both of loss and sense: they will lose, or be deprived of, the presence of God, and feel his wrath in their consciences. All will rise, but with a difference; the dead in Christ will rise first, in the morning of the resurrection, in the beginning of the thousand years, and therefore are here mentioned first; the rest the wicked, will not rise until the evening of that day, till the thousand years are ended, and therefore are spoken of last. The former will rise by virtue of union to Christ, the other by his power, and both at hearing his voice; the saints will rise with bodies glorious, powerful, and spiritual; and wicked men, though with bodies immortal, yet vile, and dishonourable: the one will rise to a life of joy and happiness that will last for ever, and which will be properly life; the other, though they will rise and live for ever, yet in misery and woe, and which will be the second, or eternal death; see a like distinction in Da 12:2, to which there seems to be some, reference here. And he at whose voice all this shall be, must be equal to God.

 

[OldRegular]

In the above post I noted that Gill's view of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ was in no way comparable to that of the dispensationalist or for that matter the covenant premillennialist. In fact there is absolutely nothing resembling the millennial reign of the dispensationalists in which blood offerings in a rebuilt temple will be offered.

But as for the personal reign of Christ with his saints, that will be on the new earth, wherein will "dwell righteousness," and that only; that is, Christ, who is the Lord, the Righteousness of his people; and they who are made righteous by him (2 Pet. 3:13), so the new heavens and new earth John had a vision of, are, according to that vision, the seat of the new "Jerusalem," or church of God, and of Christ, who will there tabernacle with them (Rev. 21:1-3), and then the Lord will be King over all the earth; there will be no offset; there will be one Lord, and his name one (Zech. 14:9).

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_7/book7_08.htm

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But why not present all that Gill has to say about John 5:28, 29.

Primarily because of space, and the fact no one reads such a lengthy quote/post. However, there is nothing in why you posted form Gill that denies the dispensationalist view. That he doesn't mention the Rapture here still does not negate his very dispensationalist view. Or perhaps you don't really understand that view? Further study might be in order.

You might also be interested in his work, An Exposition of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Dr. John Gill was brilliant as a theologian, commentator on Scripture, and as I've noted before, preceded Charles Spurgeon in the London pulpit by nearly a century. In this work he made this statement, referring back to the fourth chapter of Thessalonians, in commenting on Revelation 4:1:

... here Christ will stop and will be visible to all, and as easily discerned by all, good and bad, as the body of the sun at noon-day; as yet He will not descend on earth, because it is not fit to receive Him; but when that and its works are burnt up, and it is purged and purified by fire, and become a new earth, He'll descend upon it, and dwell with his saints in it: and this suggests another reason why He'll stay in the air, and His saints shall meet Him there, and whom He'll take up with Him into the third heaven, till the general conflagration and burning of the world is over, and to preserve them from it...

Both he and Philip Doddridge used the term "rapture" in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the Earth and Jesus' second coming. 'Nuf said?

 

[OldRegular]

Primarily because of space, and the fact no one reads such a lengthy quote/post. However, there is nothing in why you posted form Gill that denies the dispensationalist view. That he doesn't mention the Rapture here still does not negate his very dispensationalist view. Or perhaps you don't really understand that view? Further study might be in order.

You might also be interested in his work, An Exposition of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Dr. John Gill was brilliant as a theologian, commentator on Scripture, and as I've noted before, preceded Charles Spurgeon in the London pulpit by nearly a century. In this work he made this statement, referring back to the fourth chapter of Thessalonians, in commenting on Revelation 4:1:Both he and Philip Doddridge used the term "rapture" in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the Earth and Jesus' second coming. 'Nuf said?

I don't doubt that Gill was premillennial. However in his concept of the millennium only Christ in glorified bodies dwelt with Jesus Christ as I showed in post #31. There is absolutely no justification for calling Gill and Spurgeon dispensationalists. They certainly did not believe in a "parenthesis" Church! There is absolutely no indication that they believed in a pre-trib "snatching away" of the Church. In fact you are the only dispensationalist I have seen dragging Gill and Spurgeon in to support your debate.

Some remarks by Spurgeon on dispensational error:

“Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God!

We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about.

These who saw Christ’s day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body.

Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall”

https://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/spurgeon-and-eschatology/

In the above post I noted that Gill's view of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ was in no way comparable to that of the dispensationalist or for that matter the covenant premillennialist. In fact there is absolutely nothing resembling the millennial reign of the dispensationalists in which blood offerings in a rebuilt temple will be offered.

But as for the personal reign of Christ with his saints, that will be on the new earth, wherein will "dwell righteousness," and that only; that is, Christ, who is the Lord, the Righteousness of his people; and they who are made righteous by him (2 Pet. 3:13), so the new heavens and new earth John had a vision of, are, according to that vision, the seat of the new "Jerusalem," or church of God, and of Christ, who will there tabernacle with them (Rev. 21:1-3), and then the Lord will be King over all the earth; there will be no offset; there will be one Lord, and his name one (Zech. 14:9).

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...7/book7_08.htm

The following post contains more by Spurgeon on Dispensational error!

 

[OldRegular]

The following remarks contain more by Spurgeon on Dispensational error!

THE SWORD AND THE TROWEL
VOLUME 1
by C.H. Spurgeon

pp: 345-350





“IF YE. BE. CHRIST’S, THEN ARE YE ABRAHAM’S SEED, AND HEIRS
ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE?’

An error of an opposite kind has attained some notoriety in our day. The Gentile element is predominant almost to exclusiveness in the Christian Church. Occupying a place of privilege which our forefathers knew not, there have arisen among us certain brethren who stealthily at first, and afterwards more boldly, have disparaged the Jewish patriarchs, and vaunted for themselves a superior claim to the love of God, and a higher place in the destinies of heaven than they deem it possible for the saints of the pre-Christian era to inherit. Profane rivalry! not more pretentious than unwarranted; not more audacious than unscriptural.

Does the proposition admit of debate, or is it necessary to do more; than refer every inquirer to the plain, unequivocal testimony of the New Testament? So we thought at first, as our spiritual instincts revolted at the heresy. In obedience to the divine counsel—” foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strife “—we would have contented ourselves with warning the flock we delight to feed.

For divers reasons, the obligation of another article is forced upon us. We give place to no one in the intense sympathy we feel with the honest scruples of every soul that conscientiously seeks the light of truth. It’ he be a penitent who has stumbled on the very threshold of revelation, or if he be a believer who has fallen into the hands of unsafe guides, and become embarrassed in the effort to find his way into the deeper mysteries of its inner courts, we would offer our prayer to God for the Spirit of wisdom that shall enable us to direct him aright.

From the tenor of the correspondence we have received, we infer that there are not a few such sincere believers in Christ, who have had their minds unhinged by the various tracts and publications which have been, for the most part, anonymously put into circulation. Their question is—” In view of the various dispensations under which it has pleased God to gather an elect and faithful people out of the world, has it not been reserved to the Christian dispensation to furnish the privileged company which, in their unity, is called · the Church,’ ‘ the bride of Jesus,’ the Lamb’s wife?’“ We have already refuted this notion. Still it appears that stumbling-blocks have been laid in the path of those who diligently search the Scriptures, which, by the grace of God, we will endeavor to remove.

And first of all, do not, we beseech you, be cajoled by any appeal to “God’s dispensational arrangements,” knowing that, however various they may have been, his covenant has endured the same through them all. It is a mere trust- that Abel was not circumcised, that Noah did not observe the passover, and Abraham was not baptized.

//Snip//

Let the Plymouth Brethren define “the church” from which, by injunction or consent of their leaders, Abraham, Moses, David, and others, “as individual servants,” are to be kept aloof. Their “plain papers” will tell us, “it is the actual living unity with Christ and with each other of those who, since Christ’s resurrection, are formed into this unity by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven.” Turn aside now and see this great sight. Where is it to be beheld? In the ecumenical church of Rome! In the Episcopal church of England, by law established! In the sections of Presbyterianism! Among the Methodist societies! Among the Congregationalists! Or is it, after all, among the Plymouth Brethren themselves, whose diversities and disunion are so notorious?

We venture to suggest that the church, which is the bride, has not her counterpart on this earth. While Christ who is our life is: absent, the life of the saints is hidden—hid with Christ in God. The new Jerusalem is out of sight The Epiphany of the church is a feast yet to be celebrated. That fair damsel has not yet (in the language Of courtly fashion) come out. She has not been introduced. Her appearance will be the signal for nuptial festivities Not all who claim to be church-members on earth, because they live under this dispensation, will be acknowledged in the day of the Lord. Nor will the accident or circumstance of having lived before this dispensation, preclude the recognition of any saints in living unity with Christ at his appearing.

Who hath bewitched you, ye simple-hearted Christians, that ye should depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits? There be some that trouble you. Do not these crudities proceed from individual professors of an unincorporated society, which has not at present sufficient development to be reckoned in law, in equity, or in reason among the sects or sections of the: visible church? If they have any organization, is. it not of the lowest type—based upon the incipient pre-Pentecostal model of discipleship?


More at:
https://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/2007/05/13/spurgeon-and-this-new-thingdispensationalism/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is absolutely no justification for calling Gill and Spurgeon dispensationalists.

I didn't say Spurgeon was a dispensationalist, only that Gill preceded him in the London pulpit. And there is every reason to classify Gill as a dispensationalist. His commentary on the eschatological passages lines up perfectly with premillennial dispensational teaching.

They certainly did not believe in a "parenthesis" Church!

That's an epithet used by those who don't understand the nuances and meanings for the church in dispensational theology. It betrays a very shallow and cursory investigation of the concepts included in dispensationalism, and -- sorry to say -- indicates you aren't qualified to argue the merits, or as you see them, lack thereof, of dispensationalism. There is no "parenthetical" church <--- (proper terminology for such an insult, by the way) in dispensationalism.

In fact you are the only dispensationalist I have seen dragging Gill and Spurgeon in to support your debate.

And yet again, you are the one who took a casual remark used in establishing Gill's ministry and writing time frame and ran off akilter with it to claim I was making Spurgeon a dispensationalist! Is that how you have chosen to discuss this, with misleading and irrelevant drivel? There is a definitive separation found in Scripture between the Church and Israel, a separation that is accurately described only through Dispensational Theology. Gill has been claimed by historical premillennialists, but his writings indicate a dispensational bent, and I am more than accurate in using him to support these arguments.

 

[OldRegular]

Primarily because of space, and the fact no one reads such a lengthy quote/post. However, there is nothing in why you posted form Gill that denies the dispensationalist view. That he doesn't mention the Rapture here still does not negate his very dispensationalist view. Or perhaps you don't really understand that view? Further study might be in order.

You might also be interested in his work, An Exposition of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Dr. John Gill was brilliant as a theologian, commentator on Scripture, and as I've noted before, preceded Charles Spurgeon in the London pulpit by nearly a century. In this work he made this statement, referring back to the fourth chapter of Thessalonians, in commenting on Revelation 4:1:Both he and Philip Doddridge used the term "rapture" in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the Earth and Jesus' second coming. 'Nuf said?

Then you might be interested in Dr. Gill's comment on Revelation 6:2. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

Ver. 2. And I saw, and behold a white horse, &c.] Representing the ministration of the Gospel in the times of the apostles, which were just now finishing, John being the last of them, who saw this vision; and the "horse" being a swift, majestic, and warlike creature, and fearless of opposition and war, may design the swift progress of the Gospel in the world, the majesty, power, and authority with which it came, and opposition it met with, and which was bore down before it; and its "white" colour may denote the purity of Gospel truths, the peace it proclaims, the joy brings, and the triumph that attends it, on account of victories obtained by it, and which is afterwards suggested: white horses were used in triumphs, in token of victory {n}; a white horse, in a dream, is a good sign with the Jews {o}; and Astrampsychus says {p}, a vision of white horses is an apparition of angels; and so one of those angels which the Jews suppose to have the care of men, and the preservation of them, is said {q} to ride by him, and at his right hand, upon a white horse; but the rider here is not an angel, but the head of all principality and power:

and he that sat on him had a bow; with arrows; the bow is the word of the Gospel, and the arrows the doctrines of it; see Hab 3:9 Ps 45:5; so called for their swift motion, sudden and secret striking, piercing, and penetrating nature, reaching to the very hearts of men; laying open the secret thoughts and iniquity thereof; wounding, and causing them to fall, and submit themselves to the sceptre of Christ's kingdom:

and a crown was given unto him; by God the Father; expressive of Christ's regal power and authority, of his honour and dignity, and of his victories and conquests:

and he went forth, conquering and to conquer; in the ministration of the Gospel, which went forth, as did all the first ministers of it, from Jerusalem, to the several parts of the world; from the east, on which side of the throne was the first living creature, who called upon John to come and see this sight, as the standard of the tribe of Judah, which had a lion upon it, was on the east side of the camp of Israel; and out of Zion went forth the word of the Lord, which was very victorious, both among Jews and Gentiles, to the conversion of thousands of them, and to the planting of a multitude of churches among them, and to the setting up and advancing the kingdom of Christ; but inasmuch as yet all things are not made subject to him, he is represented as going forth in the Gospel, still conquering, and to conquer, what remain to be conquered: that Christ is designed by him that sat on the white horse, and is thus described, is evident from Re 19:11-13; with which compare Ps 45:3,4, though as this emblem may respect the Roman empire, the white horse may be an emblem of the strong, warlike, and conquering state of it; and the rider which a bow and crown may design Vespasian, whom Christ made use of as an instrument to conquer his enemies the Jews, and who, in consequence thereof, had the imperial crown put upon him; and it may be further observed, that though his conquest of them was a very great one, yet they afterwards rose up in the empire, in great numbers, rebelled, and did much mischief, when they were entirely conquered by Trajan and Hadrian, who seem to be intended in the next seal.

{n} Victor Aurel. de Viris Illustr. in Fur Camill.
{o} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 93. 1.
{p} In Oneiro Criticis, apud Mede.
{q} Shaare Zion, fol. 102. 2.

You and dispensationalism would have us believe that the Church disappeared from the earth following Chapter 3 of the Book of Revelation yet here Dr. Gill pictures the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the spread of the Christian Faith.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Then you might be interested in Dr. Gill's comment on Revelation 6:2. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.



You and dispensationalism would have us believe that the Church disappeared from the earth following Chapter 3 of the Book of Revelation yet here Dr. Gill pictures the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the spread of the Christian Faith.

Yes, to the Jews who will believe, and any Gentiles that will also. How is that so hard for you to grasp?

This isn't the "church" -- this is the gospel being spread by the 144,000 Jewish evangelists appointed by God to do just that.

Revelation 7, NASB
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea,
3 saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads."
4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
-----
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, " Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,
12 saying, " Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen."
13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." [Emphasis added]​

Just because the church is gone doesn't mean the gospel won't continue to be preached. If you had actually studied the theology you so adamantly criticize, you would know that. Or worse, you do know that and deliberately ignore it in order to dishonesty disparage it, using alleged contradictions that you already know are answered in examining the rest of dispensationalism.

I pray it is the former, but I sadly am beginning to suspect it is the latter, as I look back through the posts today and note that there are several challenges I've made to your point of view that you have ignored or have refused to make a response.

 

[OldRegular]

This isn't the "church"

You need to read a more carefully. Gill says it is the Church.

this is the gospel being spread by the 144,000 Jewish evangelists appointed by God to do just that.

Were they like Paul and given the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Divine revelation?

 

[OldRegular]

I didn't say Spurgeon was a dispensationalist, only that Gill preceded him in the London pulpit. And there is every reason to classify Gill as a dispensationalist. His commentary on the eschatological passages lines up perfectly with premillennial dispensational teaching.

That is false. Gill says nothing about a Jewish millennium. His concept of the millennium is composed of none but the redeemed.

But as for the personal reign of Christ with his saints, that will be on the new earth, wherein will "dwell righteousness," and that only; that is, Christ, who is the Lord, the Righteousness of his people; and they who are made righteous by him (2 Pet. 3:13), so the new heavens and new earth John had a vision of, are, according to that vision, the seat of the new "Jerusalem," or church of God, and of Christ, who will there tabernacle with them (Rev. 21:1-3), and then the Lord will be King over all the earth; there will be no offset; there will be one Lord, and his name one (Zech. 14:9).

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...7/book7_08.htm

That's an epithet used by those who don't understand the nuances and meanings for the church in dispensational theology.

Then it is an epithet coined by dispensational theologians.

It betrays a very shallow and cursory investigation of the concepts included in dispensationalism, and -- sorry to say -- indicates you aren't qualified to argue the merits, or as you see them, lack thereof, of dispensationalism.

I know gross misrepresentation of Scripture when I see it, Dispensationalism in an invention of John Darby and a faction of the Plymouth Brethern. It is highly likely that Darby was influenced by the supposed vision of Margaret MacDonald. She is said to provide additional revelation which can only be heretical since the Revelation was closed with the compilation of the Canon.

There is no "parenthetical" church <--- (proper terminology for such an insult, by the way) in dispensationalism.

Walvoord in the Millennial Kingdom, page 230, states: "The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine."

Pentecost in Things to Come, page 201, states: "The church is manifestly an interruption of God'`s program for Israel"

Ryrie in Basis the Premillennial Faith, page 136 states: The Church Age is not seen in God's program for Israel. It is an intercalation."

And yet again, you are the one who took a casual remark used in establishing Gill's ministry and writing time frame and ran off akilter with it to claim I was making Spurgeon a dispensationalist! Is that how you have chosen to discuss this, with misleading and irrelevant drivel? There is a definitive separation found in Scripture between the Church and Israel, a separation that is accurately described only through Dispensational Theology. Gill has been claimed by historical premillennialists, but his writings indicate a dispensational bent, and I am more than accurate in using him to support these arguments.

There is certainly a definitive separation between ethnic Israel and the Church. The Church constitutes the people of God, ethnic Israel is not now and never will be as a group. Israel, then Judah, was used by God to bring Jesus Christ into the world and then collude in His murder. They served their purpose in God's plan and Jews or Israelites are saved one at a time just like all the elect!

One thing is certain. Mention the "parenthesis" church concept taught by leading dispensational theologians and most dispensationalists sure get their shorts in a bind!