95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[Invicta]

I have carefully considered the disp arguments, & shown from Scripture how they should be understood. My arguments are often MORE literal than the disps - e.g. regarding 2 Thes 2 & Rev. 11 which require a fulfilment while the temple was standing, & 1-3 & 22 which require attention by the first readers.

I don't want to have the last word. I hope to see an actual response to my posts, before more questions.

Covenanter

Your teaching ignores the symbolism given in Revelation. The book is written to the church and applies to the church and not to the Jews. Candlessticks are churches, Rev 1, therefore candlesticks are churches, Rev 11. Scripture gives us symbols to understand it.

[Covenanter]

Covenanter

Your teaching ignores the symbolism given in Revelation. The book is written to the church and applies to the church and not to the Jews. Candlessticks are churches, Rev 1, therefore candlesticks are churches, Rev 11. Scripture gives us symbols to understand it.

Wow! The dispies accuse me of not being literal, & you accuse me of being too literal.

In this thread we haven't got into interpretation of Revelation. We need to establish principles of interpretation - including date, purpose & context, as well as the principle of comparing Scriptures.

The dispies are good at putting up challenges, but not considering the Scriptural replies.

[Invicta]

Wow! The dispies accuse me of not being literal, & you accuse me of being too literal.

In this thread we haven't got into interpretation of Revelation. We need to establish principles of interpretation - including date, purpose & context, as well as the principle of comparing Scriptures.

The dispies are good at putting up challenges, but not considering the Scriptural replies.

I see no reason why an early date would make any difference to the interpretation, except your preterist interpretation which of course would fail if the date was late.

Ps. I have sent you a pm.

[Covenanter]

I see no reason why an early date would make any difference to the interpretation, except your preterist interpretation which of course would fail if the date was late.

The early date is the key to understanding - without excessive interpertation.

As far the disps are concerned it could have written in the 20th C. It's nothing to do with the church or the Gospel of grace.

And as far as the historicists are concerned it's mainly about the RCC, with the Muslims making an appearance. Not for the immediate readers.

Rev 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.

Reading Rev from a Preterist viewpoint needs little interpretation, only cross reference with the Olivet prophecy & the OT prophetic Scriptures.

[Invicta]

The early date is the key to understanding - without excessive interpertation.

As far the disps are concerned it could have written in the 20th C. It's nothing to do with the church or the Gospel of grace.

And as far as the historicists are concerned it's mainly about the RCC, with the Muslims making an appearance. Not for the immediate readers.

Rev 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.

Reading Rev from a Preterist viewpoint needs little interpretation, only cross reference with the Olivet prophecy & the OT prophetic Scriptures.

As far as historicists are concerned, it is a history of the church and all its tribulations. It is addressed to the church, the 1st century Jews were of little concern to the church. As far as dispies go, it is just speculation.

Did Jesus come in AD 70? if so how? Did God visit his people in the time of the Judges? if so how? See Ruth 1:6.

[Wilchbla]

As far as historicists are concerned, it is a history of the church and all its tribulations. It is addressed to the church, the 1st century Jews were of little concern to the church. As far as dispies go, it is just speculation.

Did Jesus come in AD 70? if so how? Did God visit his people in the time of the Judges? if so how? See Ruth 1:6.

Sorry peeps, but it is both. Revelation is not only historic but also prophetic. The is all part of the wonderful threefold application of the scripture.

[Covenanter]

Sorry peeps, but it is both. Revelation is not only historic but also prophetic. The is all part of the wonderful threefold application of the scripture.

Agreed.

Revelation is of immediate relevance to its readers. The opening passage makes that clear.

It is clearly prophecy - the historical interpretation does not deny that - they see the history of the Gospel age prophesied in its symbolism.

It has direct personal application to ALL its readers, as the letters make clear - He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;

How does the futurist interpretation have relevance to the Gospel age?

[Covenanter]

As far as historicists are concerned, it is a history of the church and all its tribulations. It is addressed to the church, the 1st century Jews were of little concern to the church.
Have you read the NT? The church had continual problems with the Jews as they sought to preach Christ to them.


As far as dispies go, it is just speculation.
Agreed
Did Jesus come in AD 70? if so how? Did God visit his people in the time of the Judges? if so how? See Ruth 1:6.

Good point. See "God visit*"

[Invicta]

As far as historicists are concerned, it is a history of the church and all its tribulations. It is addressed to the church, the 1st century Jews were of little concern to the church.
Have you read the NT? The church had continual problems with the Jews as they sought to preach Christ to them.

In the opening of the book it is addressed to the seven churches in Asia, representing the complete church. Then we have individual letters to the sven churches. Then we have things that were to be "hereafter" Rev 4:1. Is there a change in emphasis from the Church to the Jews at this point? I see none. If the seven letters were symbolic of seven ages of the church as some teach, the "hereafter" could support the futurist position. But I think not.

Futurism was invented by Roman catholics and is relatively recent in church history, however historical teaching went bak the the earliest church writers. Edited December 15, 2010 by Invicta

[Covenanter]

In the opening of the book it is addressed to the seven churches in Asia, representing the complete church. Then we have individual letters to the sven churches. Then we have things that were to be "hereafter" Rev 4:1. Is there a change in emphasis from the Church to the Jews at this point? I see none. If the seven letters were symbolic of seven ages of the church as some teach, the "hereafter" could support the futurist position. But I think not.

Futurism was invented by Roman catholics and is relatively recent in church history, however historical teaching went bak the the earliest church writers.

Revelation is in the Bible, & can only be understood by the Bible. It does not stand alone.

The NT writers had to establish that the followers of Jesus were Abraham's true descendants & that unbelieving Jews were not. Otherwise Christianity was a sect of Jewish belief.

Thus John argues in Mat. 3, Jesus in John 8, Peter in Acts 4.

The church has to deal with the question in Acts 15, Paul in Romans 9-11. The unbelieving Jews are at war with Christ & his church throughout the NT.

In his earliest (?) letter Paul writes:
1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they [have] of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

He wrote against the takeover of the temple of God in 2 Thes. 2, as did John in Rev. 11.

In his letters from Rome he warned against the Jews in very severe terms:
Phl 3:1 ¶ Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed [is] not grievous, but for you [it is] safe.
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

When Jesus gives John his visions, he makes the allusion to the wonderful relationship with his people in Ex. 19:
Exd 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Jesus warned the Jewish leaders in the same terms as in Rev. 1:
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Jhn 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Then when Jesus writes his 7 letters he warns:
ev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [i know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

I am not antisemitic, nor anti-Jew, nor do I approve of any persecution, but Scriptures do not have a special place for unrepentant Jews - rather they have a glorious place for Jews who acknowledge Jesus as Lord & Christ - with all repentant sinners, regardless of ethnicity.

IMO The present Middle East situation should be resolved by allowing the Jews to worship in peace wherever they live. The post war aliya should never have been necessary, nor should the present Israeli administration encourage it.

[Covenanter]

Any further thoughts, anyone?

[LindaR]

And now, one year and three weeks later...BUMP!

[Brother Rick]

Really? Ugh.....

[LindaR]

Really? Ugh.....

Yep, really. Have you heard of Dr. Renald E. Showers? He has written an excellent book..."There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology". In one of the chapters where he is evaluating the features of Covenant Theology, he makes this interesting statement:

"Covenant Theology also denies the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church. As noted earlier, Covenant Theology believes that the Church existed in Old Testament times and that Israel was a major part of the Church in the Old Testament. It often defines the Church as the continuing covenanted community. In other words, the Church consists of all the peoples throughout history who have had a covenant relationship with God. Thus, these peoples are essentially the same.

If it is true that the Church existed in the Old Testament and that Israel and the Church are the same, why did Jesus place the building of His Church in the future beyond the time that He spoke in Matthew 16:18 and why did the Apostle Peter call the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) "the beginning" (Acts 11:15)?"

"There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant And Dispensational Theology" by Dr. Renald E. Showers, pg. 21-22

Any thoughts?

[John81]

As I've heard several IFB pastors declare, "Why try so hard to place dispensations in the Bible where God never saw fit to do so and for no worthwhile purpose?"