What Dispensationalism Provides?

[canadyjd]

...Now back to my hibernation ...

You didn't address my previous post concerning the word 'olam from the Jeremiah passage.

'olam (#5769) concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; gen. time out of mind (past of future), i.e. (practically) eternity; always, continuence, eternal, everlasting, long (time)....without end. From: A concise dictionary of the Hebrew Bible...by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D.

The "natural" way to understand the word is eternal. The one defintion that is not mentioned is the one you hold to, i.e. for 1000 years. Saying something is a "long time", does not mean 1000 years.

The passage says the city of Jerusalem will never again be destroyed after it is rebuilt.

You have suggested I am reading into the text certain presuppositions. Please consider the possibility that you have your own presuppositions that are dictating your understanding of the passage.

peace to youraying:

 

[Pastor Larry]

You didn't address my previous post concerning the word 'olam from the Jeremiah passage.

Post #89 addressed it. I will take a moment and address it more explicitly to save you from doing the work.

The "natural" way to understand the word is eternal. The one defintion that is not mentioned is the one you hold to, i.e. for 1000 years. Saying something is a "long time", does not mean 1000 years.

Where did I say it meant 1000 years? I don't recall saying that. I say it means a long period of time.

Let's examine these verses, all of which have the word, and none of which I imagine you want to use your meaning for:
Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Exodus 12:14 'Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.
Exodus 21:6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
Leviticus 3:17 'It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'"
Leviticus 25:32 'As for cities of the Levites, the Levites have a permanent right of redemption for the houses of the cities which are their possession.
Jeremiah 5:15 "Behold, I am bringing a nation against you from afar, O house of Israel," declares the LORD. "It is an enduring nation, It is an ancient nation, A nation whose language you do not know, Nor can you understand what they say.
Jeremiah 20:17 Because he did not kill me before birth, So that my mother would have been my grave, And her womb ever pregnant.
Amos 9:11 "In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old;


And this isn't even scratching the surface. Do a OT search on the Hebrew word and just start browsing. You will see that it doesn't always mean "forever" as in unending. It means a long period of time. And though I haven't looked at every occurrence, I think that is what it always means with respect to the land.

The passage says the city of Jerusalem will never again be destroyed after it is rebuilt.

Yes. Study the idea of destruction in the OT and particularly in the prophets and you will see that it primarily has to do with destruction by enemies in judgment.

Please consider the possibility that you have your own presuppositions that are dictating your understanding of the passage.

I have tried to honestly wrestle with that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are wrong again. John F. Walvoord in his book Major Bible Prophesies states on page 279, as follows

I had forgotten that, but I think Walvoord's methodology and yours are two different methodologies, at least as I understand what he is saying and what you are saying. I would not argue that the biblical word translated as "dispensation" is key to dispensational theology, though some would. Walvoord is saying that if Rev 4-18 has reference to the church, it would be strange not to have the church mentioned. You are saying that the absence of "dispensation" in the OT means that dispensationalism is false. I may be misunderstanding, but these seem to be very different methodologies.

FTR, I am not convinced Walvoord's argument is a good one. I think the argument for pretribulationism lays more strongly elsewhere.

Now Pastor Larry you have implied in the past that I am either lying or being disingenuous when I have referenced this book by Walvoord.

I think what I said was that you were misrepresenting Walvoord and Chafer. Turns out I was right and I proved it by quoting from both Walvoord and Chafer. You never responded to take responsibility for it. Regardless of Walvoord in this case, you clearly misrepresented what he and Chafer said in other places.

You have also on several occasions stated that I am implying that God is lying because I do not bow to the dispensational error.

I believe I plainly said that I don't think you believe God lied, but I think you have some major obstacles. I still believe that. I think you hold your position in honesty and integrity. I don't think you intentionally believe error (if it is error). I don't ascribe the kinds of motivations to you that you seem to ascribe to us, and quite frankly that is disturbing to me. We agree on the main things, and you are taking very harsh shots over these things. As I said before, we are on the same team.

You repeatedly call dispensationalism error, but you have yet to prove that. That is a problem for you. All you have shown is that you disagree on some passages. That doesn't make dispensationalism wrong.

I had quit responding to anything you posted for this reason

It is unfortunate that you quit responding because you misunderstood what I said. I have tried to be very gracious to you and those who agree with you. As I said, we are on the same team. I don't care whether we agree or not. It's fine to disagree with me (and wise in many cases). I don't like the rancor you have brought to the discussion. That bothers me.

As I said, I am cutting back my participation here for the sake of time and priorities, but I think it important to address some of these things along the way.

 

[canadyjd]

Where did I say it meant 1000 years? I don't recall saying that. I say it means a long period of time.

You said:

Originally Posted by Pastor LarryFirst, (to repeat myself) 'olam doesn't mean unending. Just get out a lexicon and look it up. I think even something as basic as Strong's will show this by looking up the passages. It can mean a very long period of time, which the MK certainly has.

Does MK refer to Milennial Kingdom?

Let's examine these verses, all of which have the word, and none of which I imagine you want to use your meaning for:
Genesis 6:4 Exodus 12:14 Exodus 21:6 Leviticus 3:17 Leviticus 25:32 Jeremiah 5:15 Jeremiah 20:17 Amos 9:11

All words have meaning in context. The context of the Jeremiah passage makes the most natural understanding of 'olam to be "eternal".

Yes. Study the idea of destruction in the OT and particularly in the prophets and you will see that it primarily has to do with destruction by enemies in judgment.

That doesn't change the meaning of 'olam.

I have tried to honestly wrestle with that.

Again, I appreciate the conversation.

peace to youraying:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Does MK refer to Milennial Kingdom?

Yes, my point is that the MK can be described as 'olam.

All words have meaning in context. The context of the Jeremiah passage makes the most natural understanding of 'olam to be "eternal".

I think the context of the Jeremiah means that it is for a long time, not necessarily eternal. That is really the only thing that makes sense.

Perhaps we can say it this way: You want to equivocate on the physical landmarks/descriptions and say they really refer to something in the eternal state, yet I don't know of any lexical support or textual support for that. I would rather say that 'olam means "long period of time," something that is clearly testified to in the lexicons and in the text. To me, that seems the best conclusion.

That doesn't change the meaning of 'olam.

Right, but it does explain how a future destruction of the whole planet does not break God's promise here.

It is curious to me (as always with no prejudice intended) that you are concerned with God's promise not to destroy it, but not as concerned with his promise to restore it in the first place. I think both can be met by my position.

Again, I appreciate the conversation.

Me too ... Now, quit talking to me so I will quit responding ...

 

[canadyjd]

Yes, my point is that the MK can be described as 'olam.

My point is that Jeremiah did not use it that way. That definition has to be forced on the text.

I think the context of the Jeremiah means that it is for a long time, not necessarily eternal. That is really the only thing that makes sense.

It only makes sense if you view it through the eyes of dispensationalism.

... Now, quit talking to me so I will quit responding ...

OK, no more to say.

peace to youraying:

 

[OldRegular]

Regardless of Walvoord in this case, you clearly misrepresented what he and Chafer said in other places.

That is not true and you know it!

 

[Pastor Larry]

That is not true and you know it!

No, it is true. I quoted them both and gave clear references including titles and page numbers to prove it. You were simply wrong. You should own it, and admit you made a mistake. It doesn't destroy your position.

 

[Pastor Larry]

My point is that Jeremiah did not use it that way. That definition has to be forced on the text.

Not at all. Look again at the text. V. 38 references landmarks in the earthly city. Those landmarks don't exist in the heavenly Jerusalem. They were landmarks given for a reason.

It is your definition that is forced on the text, and it makes no sense in the text.

It only makes sense if you view it through the eyes of dispensationalism.

Of course if you hold your position it won't make sense because it contradicts your position. That's my point ... you start with your position and then go to the text to try to support it. I start the other way around: "Let's see what the text says first, and then form our beliefs from that."

As I say, you want to change the reference of the landmarks with no textual warrant to do so. I want to hold to the meaning of 'olam and I do have clear textual warrant to do so, and could list many verses in support of it. So I think we look at the pattern of Scripture in this matter and it weighs against you, in my view.

 

[OldRegular]

Looking back over my notes I find that the following quotes are the sum total of those I have posted by either Walvoord or Chafer since I reentered the Forum some weeks ago. I have rechecked the sources Major Biblr Prophecies by John F. Walvoord and Dispensationalism by Charles E Ryrie.

My introductory words to the following quotes may not be identical to those posted but the quotes are accurate regardless of what anyone else on this forum may post. Anyone who speaks to the contrary must provide proof or admit to falsehood.

Walvoord teaches in Major Bible Prophecies that David will reign as coregent with Jesus Christ in the millennial kingdom. He writes Major Bible Prophecies,page 393: Though many have tried to explain away this passage [Ezekiel 37:24-25], it obviously requires the Second Coming of Christ, the establishment of David’s kingdom on earth, the resurrection of David, and David’s sharing the throne of Israel as coregent with Christ.

Of course if dispensationalist John Walvoord is correct perhaps there will need to be signs since he writes in Major Bible Prophecies [pages 283, 293] that the time lapse between “the Rapture” and the “Second Coming” will be more than seven years


John F. 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.


John F. Walvoord in his book Major Bible Prophesies states on page 279, as follows: In the entirety of Revelation 4-18, no mention of the church on earth is found. Instead, believers are referred to as believing Gentiles or believing Jews but never as the church. The total absence of any reference to the church is difficult to explain unless the pretribulationists are correct that the church is in heaven and not on earth during this period.

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, quoted by Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 39]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book writes about the above statement [Dispensationalism, page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

 

[OldRegular]

Part #2

The following information is excerpted from John F. Walvoord’s Major Bible Prophecies, page 376ff.

The Origin of the First Resurrection

The term “the first resurrection” is found in Revelation 20:5-6: “[The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.] This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.”

Theologians who attempt to put all the resurrections together into one grand resurrection at the end of the present age find in the expression “the first resurrection” sufficient proof that there is no previous resurrection. It does not take much investigation of Scripture, however, to find that this is a false deduction. Several resurrections precede that which is called “the first resurrection.” This becomes evident when the order of the various resurrections is laid out.

The Order of Resurrections

Though there are numerous restorations to life in both the Old and New Testaments, resurrection in the sense of being given a resurrection body that will last forever did not occur until Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. His resurrection is the first resurrection [Matthew 28:1 -7; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18].

The second resurrection is recorded in Matthew 27:50-53. The Scriptures declare that when the earthquake occurred at the time of Christ’s resurrection, tombs were broken open and bodies of holy people who had died were raised to life. Later, after Christ was raised from the dead, a number of these individuals were seen in Jerusalem. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people [vv 51-53]. The sequence of events seems to be that at the time of the earthquake when Christ died the tombs were broken open - that is, unsealed. The resurrection and the appearance of the people who were raised from the tombs, however, did not occur until after Jesus’ resurrection.

The third resurrection will occur in connection with the rapture of the church [1 Thessalonians. 4:13-18; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:50-53]. At the Rapture “the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” [1 Thess. 4:16-17]. This resurrection apparently refers to everyone who is baptized into the body of Christ from the Day of Pentecost until the Rapture. Old Testament saints seem to be resurrected at a later time.

The fourth resurrection is prophesied in Revelation 11. Two witnesses who will be killed for their testimony will be left lying in the streets of Jerusalem and will be raised from the dead on the third day [v. 8]. “After the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here.’ And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on” [vv, 11-12].

The fifth resurrection is described in Revelation 20:4-6. As the context indicates, this resurrection has to do with the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation. John wrote, “And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years” [v. 4]. If the resurrection at the Rapture covers all of the saints of the present age since Pentecost, this resurrection relates to the saints who will die in the period between the Rapture and the Second Coming. This will include the martyred dead that are mentioned here specifically. It is amazing how scholars have ignored the plain statement of this passage and tried to make it a general resurrection of all the dead or even make it a reference to the new birth of the believer at the time of his faith in Christ.

The Scriptures here show plainly that this resurrection refers to a particular class of people who will be raised in connection with the Second Coming of Christ.

The sixth resurrection will be that of the Old Testament saints: “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” [Daniel 12:2]. Though the fact that all people who die will be raised is commonly assumed in the Old Testament, there are relatively few references that speak specifically of their resurrection. This is one of the major passages.

A second major prediction of this resurrection is found in Isaiah 26:19: “But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the clew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.”

A third major reference is found in Ezekiel 37 in connection with the restoration of the children of Israel. Though the figure is largely that of the restoration of the nation of Israel, bodily resurrection is also mentioned in verses 13-14: “Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.”

According to Daniel 12:1, this resurrection will come at the close of the tribulation period described in Daniel 11:36-45: “There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered”. The resurrection is mentioned specifically in the verse that follows. Though the chronological arrangement of this passage in relation to the resurrection of the Tribulation dead is not given in Scripture, it is probable that this will follow the resurrection of the Tribulation dead, and the Old Testament saints, accordingly, will be in the sixth and final resurrection of the righteous.

The last resurrection has to do with the judgment of the Great White Throne as recorded in Revelation 20:11-15. In this resurrection all the wicked dead, who up to this time have been in Hades, will be resurrected and cast into the lake of fire.

The order of these seven resurrections should make plain that the resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 is not first in the sense of being before all previous resurrections. If that is not the meaning, what does the term “the first resurrection” mean?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Looking back over my notes I find that the following quotes are the sum total of those I have posted by either Walvoord or Chafer since I reentered the Forum some weeks ago.

Your notes are deficient. You neglect to mention that you cite Chafer in the opening post of the thread What happens to Jews after the millennium? In post #14 of that thread on page 2, after you launched into some personal attacks against me, I showed that you in fact did misrepresent Chafer about the particular matter at hand.

As to your post here about Walvoord and the first resurrection, you maintained that “Walvoord agrees with [OR] that the first resurrection is that of Jesus Christ. The resurrection which [PL] insisted is the first [Revelation 2:5], time and again and then again a few more times, Walvoord calls the Fifth resurrection.” (12:16, 6:46 p.m.).

However, in subsequent posts in that thread, I showed that Walvoord believed that "the first resurrection" of Rev 20 took places in stages. What you enumerated was the stages. I showed from Walvoord's own writings that he agreed with me, not with you. You had misrepresented him by too narrowly defining "first resurrection" and ignoring what else he had written on the matter.

In neither case did you admit your misunderstanding even after being shown the clear evidence against you.

So we see that you in both these cases, you were in fact incorrectly representing what Walvoord and Chafer believed, and when you were shown that (with references for you to check), you did not admit that you were wrong.

My introductory words to the following quotes may not be identical to those posted but the quotes are accurate regardless of what anyone else on this forum may post.

I don't think the accuracy of your quotes was ever questioned. (I am not sure I even looked them up to check them.) What was questioned was whether or not your properly understood what Walvoord and Chafer were saying. On that point, you seem clearly to have not understood (since I don't think you would purposely misrepresent them).

Honestly, OR, I am not sure you understand enough about dispensationalism to recognize that you misrepresented them. A lot of people don't, and there are certainly many things that I don't understand, so I am not slamming you for it. But seriously, to be as dogmatic as you are, you should probably understand a little more than you seem to.

Anyone who speaks to the contrary must provide proof or admit to falsehood.

The proof was provided weeks ago and you ignored the proof.

Here's the thing: I don't care whether you agree with dispensationalists or not. I really don't. It doesn't bother me that you disagree. But when you cite someone, it is important to represent them properly. In this case, your comments about Walvoord and the first resurrection were seen to be clearly wrong by putting your selective quote in the broader context of his writings. Same thing with Chafer. Again, I gave the sources so you can look them up if you wish.

Having been shown to be wrong about 1) the extent to which you cited Chafer and Walvoord and 2) the meaning of the citations you gave, will you now admit it?

To sum up, Walvoord believes that the first resurrection of Rev 20 takes places in stages (just as I said ... he doesn't agree with you against me), and Chafer believes that the Jews and Gentiles will both be in the new heavens and new earth.

 

[OldRegular]

Your notes are deficient. You neglect to mention that you cite Chafer in the opening post of the thread What happens to Jews after the millennium? In post #14 of that thread on page 2, after you launched into some personal attacks against me, I showed that you in fact did misrepresent Chafer about the particular matter at hand.

Following is the OP What happens to the Jews after the Millennium?

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ] Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

Assume that Chafer is correct. What happens to the Jews after the millennium? Scripture teaches [Revelation 20:11]

11. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Moreover, Scripture teaches that the New Heaven and New Earth are the home for the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Jesus Christ, the Church [Revelation 21:1,2]

1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Please note that the quote from Chafer is included in my earlier posts #130 &#131. That is the only quote I have used from Chafer so you see that you are wrong again. Also please note that I asked a question: Assume that Chafer is correct. What happens to the Jews after the millennium? Scripture teaches [Revelation 20:11]. You responded in post #14 as follows, quoting Chafer:

“Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created new. Every covenant or promise for the church is for a heavenly reality, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are recreated.”

The quote is cited in BSac 145 (July 88): 275. The Chafer quote is referenced to Chafer's Systematic Theology, 4:47.

If you will check you will see that I did not question your veracity in using that quote from Chafer.

All that being said I have this as my final word to you. When I was on this Forum a couple of years ago I found that discussion with you proceeded in the same manner as the past few weeks. Pastor Larry I believe that you are without doubt the most disingenuous person on this forum. In your response to my posts 130 &131 you attempt to exegete the quotation from Walvoord regarding the different resurrections [a quotation which is correct] and then have the gall to conclude: Having been shown to be wrong about 1) the extent to which you cited Chafer and Walvoord and 2) the meaning of the citations you gave, will you now admit it?

I have not misquoted anyone, not even you. To condend otherwise is a falsehood.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

The order of these seven resurrections should make plain that the resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 is not first in the sense of being before all previous resurrections. If that is not the meaning, what does the term “the first resurrection” mean?[/quote

'the first resurrection' = the first TYPE resurrection = the resurrection of the just (in Christ)

(implied only, not mentioned in the Bible)

'the second resurrection' = the second TYPE resurrection = the resurrection of the unjust (not in Christ)

Over here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1344339#post1344339

I just specify 5 resurrections, cause I wrote an evangelistic message and just needed five points. I don't have to be like Wol... and specify 7 resurrections

 

[Pastor Larry]

Please note that the quote from Chafer is included in my earlier posts #130 &#131. That is the only quote I have used from Chafer so you see that you are wrong again.

Fair enough. I missed it in the formatting. My apologies.

Also please note that I asked a question: Assume that Chafer is correct. What happens to the Jews after the millennium? Scripture teaches [Revelation 20:11].

My point was that what you were assuming about Chafer being correct was not even what Chafer taught, so far as I can tell. After the millennium, Chafer believed that the Jews would be in the new heaven and new earth.

Your response was unfortunate in its demeanor since all I did was question whether or not you were accurately representing Chafer. Go back and read the exchange and I think you will see that you overreacted to my open admission that I wasn't sure about what Chafer taught but I didn't think it was what you were saying.

If you will check you will see that I did not question your veracity in using that quote from Chafer.

I know. My veracity was neven in question. In fact, I don't think my veracity has ever been in question, but I could be wrong.

When I was on this Forum a couple of years ago I found that discussion with you proceeded in the same manner as the past few weeks. Pastor Larry I believe that you are without doubt the most disingenuous person on this forum.

That could not be more inaccurate. In my interactions with you I think I have been nothing but gracious and fair, even if direct. You have accused me of believing false doctrine, and being a false teacher (since I teach dispensationalism). I think I have been very restrained in keeping the focus on the issues. Whatever else I might be, I have never been disingenuous ... perhaps to a fault. I am so honest I have a hard time telling me 3 year old that his coloring papers look good.

This is a debate forum and it is about debate. You came in very harshly and in a very accusatory mode. I don't appreciate that and I don't find it a good way to debate, but I don't get bent out of shape about it. I realize that not everyone responds the way I do so I can live with it.

However, it is unfortunate that you chose to respond as you did. I wish you would have responded differently so that the conversation could have been more productive. Even if it wouldn't have persuaded either of us, it would have helped to lay out some of the issues for others.

It In your response to my posts 130 &131 you attempt to exegete the quotation from Walvoord regarding the different resurrections [a quotation which is correct] and then have the gall to conclude: Having been shown to be wrong about 1) the extent to which you cited Chafer and Walvoord and 2) the meaning of the citations you gave, will you now admit it?

Your quotation was correct, but it was misleading. Walvoord agrees with me that the "first resurrection" takes place in stages, which is what I have said from the beginning. I think that's part of the problem. You don't seem to understand the issues.

First, you seem to think that the issue is me saying you misquoted people. I don't think I ever said that. I have no reason to believe you misquoted them. The issue is that you took good quotes and made them to mean something they didn't mean. You misrepresented them.

Second, you don't seem to understand that the issue I was pointing out was that what you said Walvoord believed was not actually what he believes. He believes that the "first resurrection" is not only the resurrection of Jesus (as you contend), but rather takes place in stages. Again I quote from Walvoord:

The idea that the first resurrection can be in more than one stage is taught in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Three stages (τάγμα) of the resurrection of the saints are included: Christ, first; those at His coming, second; and those at the end, third.(http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5541)

Accordingly, the term “first resurrection “applies to all the resurrections of the saints regardless of when they occur, including the resurrection of Christ himself” (Chafer and Walvoord, Major Bible Themes, p. 341).

So again, the fact is that you properly quoted Walvoord but inaccurately conveyed what Walvoord believed. That was what I was pointing out.

Walvoord believes, as do I, that the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 takes places in multiple stages and includes the total resurrection of the righteous. He does not limit the "first resurrection" of Rev 20 to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I have not misquoted anyone, not even you. To condend otherwise is a falsehood.

I never said you misquoted anyone to my knowledge. I said you misrepresented them, and you clearly did. There is no doubt about that. I have just shown it again.

Again, OR, it is unfortunate that the conversations here took the turn that they did. A more measured approach by you would have tremendously helped prevent that.

I would be very cautious of accusing orthodox people who disagree with you on eschatology of believing false teaching, error, and the like. It simply isn't productive, particularly when it isn't true. Assuming you are a believer (and I have no reason not to), we are on the same team. We are not enemies.

 

[gb93433]

You have accused me of believing false doctrine, and being a false teacher (since I teach dispensationalism). I think I have been very restrained in keeping the focus on the issues. Whatever else I might be, I have never been disingenuous ... perhaps to a fault.

I believe dispensationalism is a false teaching an it has changed since it inception which proves it lacks truth that is absolute and in agreement with scripture. The Bible has not changed but dispensationalsim has become more and more fragmented into various camps and different teachings. I simply cannot think of any . . .ism that is nothing more than man's attempt at a systematic theology to solve problems and organize a belief system.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe dispensationalism is a false teaching an it has changed since it inception which proves it lacks truth that is absolute and in agreement with scripture. The Bible has not changed but dispensationalsim has become more and more fragmented into various camps and different teachings. I simply cannot think of any . . .ism that is nothing more than man's attempt at a systematic theology to solve problems and organize a belief system.

You are welcome to try to show it. So far, I have been unconvinced because the arguments I see don't add up to Scripture. Scripture has to be the final arbiter. I am a dispensationalist because it describes what I see in Scripture. If I saw something else, I would abandon dispensationalism.

Of course your issue with labels is a red herring. We all do systematic theology. It is impossible not to. At least this time you can't claim it is following a man since the label has nothing to do with a man's name. But that really is a red herring. The label is simply short hand for what someone believes the Bible teaches.

 

[webdog]

Let's see...

Old Testament
New Testament

Seems to be at least 2 dispensations...

 

[gb93433]

You are welcome to try to show it. So far, I have been unconvinced because the arguments I see don't add up to Scripture. Scripture has to be the final arbiter. I am a dispensationalist because it describes what I see in Scripture. If I saw something else, I would abandon dispensationalism.

First of all, I became convinced when I was going to a church which taught dispensationalism and asked questions of quite a number of those who had graduated from Biola, Talbot Seminary, and Masters Seminary when not one of them had answer to my questions. So I began to wonder why. I noticed that all of them did the same thing in trying to answer my questions. I noticed that they would try and go back to what dispensationalism taught rather than explain the passage in light of its historical context.

Then I bought Chafer's systematic theology and study each passage given in thsoe books. I also bought all of the books written by Larkin. I even bought a Scofield Bible. At the time I had finished my first two years in Physics. The study of physics brought me to the point where I knew that the universe had order, consistency, and balance. That is when I came to the conclusion that God existed and he made the universe in all of its complexity, yet, with such balance.

When I began to study the languages I came to some different conclusions that answered my questions.

There were several things upon which I came to the conclusion that dispensationalism did not agree with.

Over and over I was taught by dispensationalists that the Bible could be explained rationally if one were to study hard enough and long enough. So I thought that if I studied hard enough and long enough I would get the answers I was looking for. (When I studied the spiritual gifts I came to the conclusion that was not true). In my quest, I once asked a person who I heard teach that, to explain God. He looked at me with a blank face. I asked him the same question about three times. aftre that I asked some more people who taught dispensationalism. God cannot be explained rationally. Later in my study of history I realized that dispensationalism came on the heels of German rationalism.

Iwas also taught that there was no need for the OT and that it was done away with because we are no longer under the law, but under the dispensation of grace. When I read what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." I realized that I had listened to people who did away with the law and the prophets but Jesus did not. When I studied Greek and then studied the same passage I realized that what I had been taught was not correct.

The first time I remember hearing about "The Gap Theory" I was surprised. The only place I had heard that from was from a man I knew who was a Christian. I had never heard or read that from any science book or magazine. When I read what Scofied I wrote about it I found it hard to believe. When I studied the passage I found it even harder to believe. When I studied Hebrew I found it even harder to believe.

When I studied church history and met students from other countries I realized that dispensationalism was mostly limited to America.

When I began to study the historical context of the books of the Bible I began to realize that the answers lied within having a clear understanding of the historical context. I also realizeed that having a clear undertsanding of what scxripture taught was not found in any systemtic theology. What I found in the systematic theologies I read I did not always find in scripture. They were essentially of no value in helping me. When I studied scripture and began to understand the historical context I also understand the Bible better. Not one of my questions were answered through any systematic theology I read.

I have never seen any systematic theology explain God's character in light of found in Is. 45:7, Lam. 3:38, and Amos 3:6.

The dispensationalism of Darby (which Scofield promulgated), McIntosh, and Larkin.
Then later the dispensationalism of Ryrie, etc.
Then later the dispensationalism of the progressive dispensationalists of today.

Each of the different camps hold a different view on dispensationalism.

I guess one could say that dispensationalists of the past are truly dispensational. Every change incorporates a new time period in dispensationalism's history.

I just cannot think of any _______ism in the church that is nothing more than man's attempt to organize a theology. It is a futile attempt which falls far short of the totality of scripture. Scripture is still inspired by God. Nothing else even comes close.

The various _________isms being taught will come and go like a merry go round but God's word is eternal. God's word remains the same while all others are found false.

 

[gb93433]

You are welcome to try to show it. So far, I have been unconvinced because the arguments I see don't add up to Scripture. Scripture has to be the final arbiter. I am a dispensationalist because it describes what I see in Scripture. If I saw something else, I would abandon dispensationalism.

Ryrie does not agree with Larkin. McIntosh does not agree with Walvoord. The progressive dispensationalists today do not agree with Walvoord.

At best one could be right and at the worst all can be wrong. All of them are different.

Some believe in 2 dispensations.
Some believe in three dispensations.
Some believe in five dispensations.
Some believe in six dispensations.
Some believe in seven dispensations.
Some believe in eight dispensations.
Some believe in nine dispensations.
Some believe in twleve dispensations.
Some believe in fourteen dispensations.
Some believe in eighteen dispensations.

Source: http://www.theologue.org/DispensationsChart.html

Dispensationalism is a filter by which those who adhere to it interpret scripture.