I slept well........

I didn't mention other versions.

Another problem that one guy is having is that it sounds like he assumes the rapture begins the "time of wrath." That is not true. The Trib begins with a 7 year covenant confirmed with Israel & the antichrist.

What would be the point of the 144,000 and the 2 witnesses? What would be the point of the mentioning the marytyrs in Rev? What would be the point of the mark of the beast if there would be some who would not accept it? What would be the point of the sheep & goats separation, dragnet separation, & wheat/tares separation if there were none saved? I have never heard someone say such a thing. That is unfortunate.

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 03:49 PM by Greektim.

All things aside, I am glad to see so much posting!!!!

GT, I think a clear exegesis on dispensational theology would be priceless.

You are 100% correct when you say that probably the thing that causes the most confusion in eschatology is the mixing of the idea of the bride of Christ and Israel.

Go to it!

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 03:57 PM by Jim.

I can write something more in summary form, but I have already written a paper on this and can be checked out right here: http://greektim.googlepages.com/TheDispe...heChur.pdf

I'll read that

Egg-xacly!

The point is that this brother spends a great amount of his time preaching the plain and simple word to simple folk. He is quite intelligent (even had Greek in seminary) and well-skilled in the doctrines of the Scripture with the exception of the tribulation events and timeline. He has always been told that Baptists are pre-trib and KJBOs are pre-trib and anybody who is somebody is pre-trib, so he is pre-trib. The problem happens when, and this scenario is not unique, one starts asking questions. The simple truths of the Scriptures do not fit the ideas being introduced. There is not an awareness of these things that can be found without some other person (scholar) enlightening the poor ignorant believer.

To put it in a picture:
Let's say that we were to find 10 believers who were truly saved. Next, they were committed to prayer and the study of the Scriptures. Next, they had decent reading skills. And last, they had not been exposed to anything whatsoever to do with end-times doctrines or dispensational teaching (impossible, but play along)

We send these believers to a remote island with nothing but necessary life provisions and a Bible (KJB of course) and materials with which to record their studies. Their assignment is to read the Scriptures throughly with all prayer and supplication until they have a good grasp of the plan of God throughout past history, and a reasonable understanding of His intentions for the future. Finally, the 10 are to come together and form a position of belief about the end-times.

What is the possibility that they will be able to reproduce the current dispensational, pre-trib, pre-mil position that you advocate? I think zero.

Again, my basic point is that these doctrines are NOT normalized within the Bible-believing and reading church today, nor have they ever been. The reason for that, in my opinion, as one who has definitely not solidified my own position, is that the doctrines must be derived extra-biblically, through the influence of those whose lives, education, and teachings are deemed worthy of being followed. Schofield as one example. "It says it right here in my Bible so it must be true". or Larkin, "But he has it all charted out so he must know what he is doing."

I'm still waiting on your book, "Dispensationalism Made Easy" volumes 1-5 to be published, GT.

Brother Tim, I can tell you have not study much about Dispensational theology and even the history of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not limited to Baptist churches. It really had its beginning developments in the Grace Bretheren. Lewis Sperry Chafer was a pioneer Dispensationalist who was a Presbyrterian. Dispensationalism has been the primary view among evangelicalism for the past decade and a half. After WW I, reformed theology (postmillennialism in particular) took a huge hit. But with the shift in hermeneutics, it has resurfaced. Only in the last 50 years has any form of reformed/covenant theology began to grow in popularity.

I think the conclusion of your scenario of the 10 people was inaccurate. Certainly they would be premillennial since that is the clear unallegorized teaching of Scripture. I would think that they would understand the Biblical distinction between the Church and Israel. That would lead to an eschatology of the Church - the rapture. Your scenario also ignores the teaching ministry of the local church primarily with the pastor-teacher.

One thing that I am not a fan of is the criticism of Dispensational theology that it is recent therefore wrong. I believe it is Biblical and apostolic. The recent development of a doctrine does not make or break it. Only the Bible determines truth. I think we should start at square one. We might even move away from the Church/Israel distinction and discuss hermeneutics. That is what it all comes back to anyways.

Actually, if they read the bible in it's context, the result would be 100%.

It is not the pre-mil, pre-trib position that is the most recent, the historicist theory is young, I think you may have that backwards. I am not sure where you are getting this information........

The pre-mil, pre-trib position is so plain and simple, and orderly, not to mention that it just makes sense.

No other position can say that. All the other positions raise questions, and answer none.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 06:06 PM by Jim.

Not true Jim

Raptureism came with the Roman church, as did futureism in general as well as preterism. They invented preterism and Futureism expressly to avoid the historicist teaching of the papal antichrist, which is what I believe is the correct teaching.

I am sorry but the early church was premillennial and futuristic when it came to apocalyptic literature. But even still, church history does not determine truth. It just cooberates it. Plus eschatology was not on the "to do list" of the early church in developing. Issues like salvation, Christ, the Spirit, & the Trinity were things being developed and formulated in the early church. Only in the last 400 years (and specifically the last 200 years for accuracy in the doctrine) that ecclesiology and thus eschatology has been developed past the infancy stage.

Ironically, Dispensationalism was a direct result of the reformation and the idea of sola scriptura. The authority of the Scriptures demanded a hermeneutic which kept the text the authority (something the RCC did not do). The only hermeneutic that can do so is one that is objective. The only one that is objective is a consistent, literal/plain/normal hermeneutic (I could use historical-grammatical but that term has lost its literal emphasis as well as its consistency). Thus Dispensationalism was developed based on such rules of interpretation.

GreekTim astutely noted:

Interestingly parallels the rise to preeminence of the English AV. Hmmm!

I'm not sure there is a correlation between the two, but whatever floats your boat

Naw, of course not... Just a coincidence, r-i-g-h-t... it's not like God is interposing in the affairs of mankind to bring the rise of end-time doctrine and the availability of a readable text to the everyday Christian. Naw!

At least my boat is floating

The MVs are a sure shipwreck.

They have taken me thus far in my spiritual journey accross the ocean, have kept me afloat, and even been a firm source during the storms that come my way. No shipwrecks here.