Here is your problem. There are many good scholars who put the rapture at the beginning or middle or end of the Tribulation. They still believe in the Tribulation, and they still believe in Millennial Kingdom. They don't dismiss dispensationalism. In fact, as your link proves dispensationalism started right back at Ireaneus, much farther back in history than Calvinism or your beloved Covenantal theology, especially the kind that teaches that the so-called "church" either is an extension of, or replaces Israel. It does neither.Pre-trib-dispensationalism started with Darby and so did the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis", an intercalation, an interruption in God's program for Israel! See the quote from the link below!
From: http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/short-history-of-dispensationalism
Notice that Watts was not a pre-tribber!
However, even your link proves that dispensationalism, per se, was believed by scholars all throughout the ages.
Darby is your problem not mine. I don't use him as an authority; you do. I don't quote from Darby; you do. Why do you quote from one who is a failure in your opinion?Scofield was a pre-trib-dispensationalist. Darby's problem was that He considered the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, a FAILURE!
Me? The Word of God is my authority. I have told you that many times.
If you are going to debate me, it will have to be on the basis of God's Word, not on the basis of whom you call "preeminent authorities in their fields." I don't really care about men's opinions. The question is: "What saith the Lord?" Do you care?I don't care whether you believe in a "parenthesis" Church or not. But according to Darby above and Walvoord in an earlier post, no "parenthesis" Church, no pre-trib-rapture.
Laugh all you will. The fact is that you are not quoting from the Word. You are quoting the words of men. In that you fail.The only authority I have provided are preeminent dispensational scholars, Thomas Ice and John Walvoord. I did on one post a quote from Scofield's remarks [Original Scofield Bible} that the Song of Solomon was about the love of Jesus Christ and His Church, even though the Church is not in the Old Testament, according to dispensationalism. :laugh::laugh:That remark was removed in more recent versions to make the Scofield Bible comport with dispensational truth!:laugh::laugh:
Perhaps I understand it more than you think.You do not understand the foreknowledge of God. And the only thing I accuse God of causing is the Salvation of the Elect!
I can know and understand what the Bible teaches. Just because you can't grasp some of these truths doesn't mean my understanding is as limited.You really cannot Know that! You may think you do! {But given some of the stuff you write perhaps He doesn't even know!}
Man is made in God's image. Part of that image is a free will to choose between good and evil. God does not force me to do anything, including typing the words that is in this box. What I type I do of my own free will. I can choose to yield to my flesh or yield to the Spirit. Paul said that:
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--This is a choice that every believer must make every day, and it is made freely with the mind. With the mind one chooses to serve the law of God. It is a choice that you freely make. No one forces you to do it. The choice is yours.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Can you support that assumption about time with Scripture?
God alone is immortal. He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.
So, yes:
"God is timeless. He sees outside the boundaries of time. He eternal. He created time for man's sake."
God created all things, including time, and therefore is not bound by time, but lives outside of its realm.
His knowledge does not cause things to come into being.
His creative word does.
This is what makes Calvinism in error.