Featured What does Amillennialism /Postmillenial offer compared to what premillenialism offers?

But you and the others can't even define "dispensation" correctly.

That post is pure baloney, and full of false charges. I have never avoided Scripture.

I've noticed that when people run out of logic, they revert to personal attacks.

The sad thing is, you don't even know you are doing allegorical interpretation. And you're the guy who was so up on fake scholar Chilton, who at least knew he was doing allegorical interpretation, since he uses the term allegory seven times in his commentary on Revelation.

And for the record, you are seeing symbols (I suppose you mean figures of speech) when they are not there. Figures of speech are clearly non-literal, but you use "symbol" for words and phrases that can easily be interpreted literally, having no sign of any non-literal language. You can't so easily dismiss plain English.

 

Ive found a few definitions of this, but probably either the "sources are not credible" Or just not correct to you.

So im just waiting for the definition of dispensational theology that John believes.

Did what you believe come from John Darby?

 

Lets take the view that the 1000 is symbolic, but the problem for that view is still that there is the first resurrection of all of the saved at time of second coming event, so whan has that happened?

 

I did not offer a definition of "dispensational theology," but a definition of "dispensation." This is a Biblical term, oikonomia in the Greek NT, with a clear definition. I gave that definition from the Friberg Anlex lexicon in post #58, and then gave every single usage of the Greek word in the NT.

How is this different from the common understanding of the word "dispensation" in dispensationalism, you ask? I'm glad you asked. The usual definition (including that of Covenanter on this thread), is that it is a period of time, but that is false. (Kudos to Covenenter for at least giving the definition a shot, something none of the rest of you worked up your courage to do.)

In the usage of the Pauline epistles we have the usage of dispensationalism, viz, a dispensation is a stewardship, meaning a responsibility with authority, handed down from God for mankind (or even one person) to accomplish. Mankind always fails, showing that God alone is glorified, and then God hands down another stewardship.

As to where I got this, it was not from Darby in the slightest. Dispensational theology started making sense to me through the NT usage of the word.

 

John - I don't expect a reasoned answer from Yes1, so perhaps you can help him out.

The thousand years is not symbolic, but indicates a long time. It could be exact or indefinite. The question is not whether it's symbolic, but when it begins - i.e. whether it began in the first century, or begins at the second come at the end of the present "dispensation."

You cannot read that in Rev. 20 - the SOULS of the faithful & martyrs are seen in John's vision, not a bodily resurrection. The second coming for resurrection & judgment takes place AFTER the thousand years.
BUT
The second coming for resurrection & judgment of ALL, both good & evil, saved & lost, takes place at the same hour - as Jesus explained -

John 5:28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.​

You CANNOT insert 1000 years in THAT text.

 

I'm a teacher. it's my job to recognize good writing and credibility, even if I don't agree with it.

 

Once again, here is the definition I gave elsewhere on this thread for a metaphor. A metaphor is a "Figure of speech in which a word or expression normally used of one kind of object, action, etc. is extended to another" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 243).

When Jesus said, "This is my blood" and "This is my body," He was comparing things: His blood with the wine and His body with the bread. All of the disciples were able to look and see that it was not His literal body and blood, but wine and bread. Therefore they knew it was a metaphor.

Think about it. If the Catholics are right with transubstantiation, then Jesus was not only advocating cannibalism, He was eating His own body and blood. That's just ridiculous. I remember Chiniquy (who wrote 50 Years in the Church of Rome) telling when he realized the folly of Catholic doctrine. Going to give the Eucharist to a sick member, he dropped in a latrine. He thought, "Oh, no, I dropped God into the..." and then with that saw how absolutely ridiculous transubstantiation is.

As for the 1000 years in Rev. 20, it occurs six times in the chapter, and in not a single place is it compared to anything. Therefore, it is not a metaphor.

 

Thanks for explaining that - you give an excellent reason for rejecting what we all understand to be "dispensational theology" when you say its just a wrong use of a Biblical concept.

I would add that in every time period of history (aka "dispensation"), God's covenant purpose is simply expressed by Moses & Jeremiah:

Exodus 19:5 ‘Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.

Jer. 7:23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’
​

I would further add that the arguments about definitions, literal versus spiritual/allegorical are actually arguments about the interpretation result, NOT understanding of language, but understanding of Scripture.

You claim that literal interpretation leads to a millennium in which OC prophecy regarding the nation of Israel is fulfilled with Jesus reigning in person from David's throne in Jerusalem.

We claim that OC prophecy is fulfilled by the saving work & heavenly reign of the LORD Jesus Christ over an enlarged, believing Israel that includes all nations on earth. .

 

I beg your pardon. I said no such thing. Please do not twist my words. I pointed out that the Pauline usage of "dispensation" is exactly what we mean in dispensational theology.

A dispensation as used in the Bible is not a period of time. I thought I made that clear.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you trying to say that God does not communicate with grammar and semantics?

I claim? Well yes, but so do all premillennial scholars and the average amillennial scholar. I refer you to p. 699 of The Millennium Bible, by William Biederwolf in which he quotes scholars on all sides of the issue. For example, he quotes Lange as saying, "The one thousand years are a symbolic number denoting the aeon of transition." Many other quotes are given in this volume.

Edited in, another quote from an amil: "Obviously the number 'thousand' which is used here must not be interpreted in a literal sense" (Anthony Hoekema, in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. by Robert G. Clouse, p. 161). Hoekema doesn't call the 1000 a figure of speech, but in essence admits he is using allegorical interpretation, though he does not use that term.

Okay.

 

2nd Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

Where is the Millennium?

 

What about this one?

Bible Dictionary

Dispensation

(Gr. oikonomia, "management," "economy").

• The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation. There are usually reckoned three dispensations, the Patriarchal, the Mosaic or Jewish, and the Christian.

OR
Compelling Truth

The word "dispensation" means "a system of order, government, or organization of a nation, community, etc., especially as existing at a particular time." Looking through the Bible, we can find seven distinct dispensations, or "ways of doing things" that were God-ordered and God-ordained. Each dispensation has a purpose in the overall story.


Do you believe in 7 or 3? For being such a Plain concept John just a few websites has a bunch of different answers. Maybe you need to enlighten them all on the Truth

 

The first Resurrection is just of the redeemed, and the second is just that of the Lost, as NONE are found saved in the GWT!

 

Exactly

 

Rev 20
11And 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.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Where do you get that no one is saved from?

 

Its a judgement of works, not of grace, as the saved already had their judgement at the Bhena seat of Christ at second coming!

 

So what coming is in 2nd Peter 3:10?

 

Well nor is 'you must be born again' a metaphor, and nor is 'destroy this temple....' but you passed them off as metaphors in your post #62. But they are certainly figurative language. I would say they are 'tropes,' figures of speech that involve a deviation from the expected and literal meaning of words. and so is 1,000. That number is constantly used in the Bible meaning 'all that there are.' Winston Churchill used 1,000 in the same way in one of his famous wartime speeches: 'If the British Empire should last for another thousand years, men would still say, "This was their finest hour!"' He could have used a hundred or a million, the sense would have been the same-- all the years it lasted (not very many as it turned out).

 

Boy has this thread gotten far, far away from the OP, which has not been answered. I still see no blessings from the amil position being touted here. Not only that, the author of the OP has turned the whole thread into an attack on my and my beliefs. Wow. Just wow.

Tell you what, I don't think I'll participate anymore. I'm back teaching, we're having special meetings--and the misunderstandings and attacks and mis-definitions, etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum, of the last two posts are just two many to answer. Icon does that. He simply loads on such long and involved posts that no one has time to answer them--or inclination. He's free now to continue to attack me personally, misrepresent me, etc., to his heart's content--thus avoiding the OP he himself wrote. (Dispensationalism is latent Arminianism? That's a total joke.)