Brother Rick

Actually, what I stated was that the writers of the New Testament didn't spend a lot of time focusing on the Millennial kingdom because it is Jewish in nature, as in the 300,000 square miles of ground that was promised to Abraham's seed. This isn't to say that it's not mentioned though, it is. The Tribulation/Rapture/Second Coming are very important subjects and are mentioned often in the New Testament. Matthew 24-25, I Thess 4, I Cor. 15, Revelation, etc

There will be a rapture of the church before the tribulation and a rapture of the tribulation saints before the Second Coming. The 144,000 possibly will be taken out at the half way of the point of the Tribulation along with the two witnesses after they are killed. If you lump it all together (the Jew, Gentile and church of God) being raptured out at the end of the tribulatin then you fall into all kinds of doctrinal contradictions especially in soteriology.

I don't mind telling people what I believe when they ask, even if I've already said it once before (LINK).

1. Innocence.
2. Conscience.
3. Human Government.
4. Promise.
5. Law.
6. Apostolic Age.
7. Church Age.
8. Tribulation.
9. Millennium.
10. New Heavens and New Earth.

I'll add one thing, just in case you asked me this just to turn my answer back around on me, in-house discussions and debates as to the number of dispensations and the manner in which people were saved during these dispensations are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The point of dispensational study is to recognize that God deals with different people at different times in different manners. Not everyone sees it the same, and it’s not a big deal that they don’t.

That's what confused me about what you say, Invicta. What do you believe about the 1,000 years? Are we in them now or are they coming? I'm kinda tired of debating the subject, I just want to know what you believe.

To be honest, I have wondered why some use that term as well. I just figure they mean it's not physical. For instance, I believe in the Kingdom of God now is spiritual, but the Kingdom of Heaven later is spiritual. They are both just as literal and real as the other though.

Myself, I can't see how, from what Scripture says, we could be in the thousand years now. From the plain reading of Scripture regarding the thousand years reign of Christ, it seems it must be future.

Granted, there are portions of prophecy that are "symbolic and allegorical"; however, those portions are symbolic and allegorical of things that will actually happen. Some refer to this as "apocalyptic language".

There are those who believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D.; therefore, any prophetic references that don't fit into that time frame are symbolic and allegorical only; therefore, they should only be interpreted as "symbolic". However, why does that viewpoint not include what happened in 70 A.D.? Well, we can look back and see what happened in 70 A.D. Obviously, parts of Jesus' prophecy came true then; such as, not one stone from the temple would be left on top of another. That happened! So, we have evidence that the prophecy was fulfilled. That's one reason why that date is so important. Why then must all other prophecy be "symbolic"?

If all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., why did Jesus include these words when speaking of the coming tribulation?

Luke 21:35-36
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Here, we have a coming tribulation that will affect EVERYONE on the WHOLE earth. Did that happen in 70 A.D.? Not even close! Also, those accounted worthy (through salvation) will escape the coming tribulation. How? By being caught up (otherwise known as the rapture).

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I leave you with a couple of thoughts...

God says what he means, and he means what he says...

Isaiah 45:18-19
18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

God isn't trying to give hidden meanings and obscure details; when God speaks, he says what he means. Such as, an EVERLASTING covenant means just that...it's everlasting. He made this everlasting covenant with Abraham and Israel...not the church.

Genesis 17:7
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

If we, as "spiritual seed" can claim this, then who's going to be first in line to go take your land away from the Arab Islamists who are occupying your land? If it belongs to you as "Abraham's seed", go get it...I don't think that will go over too well. We're talking Jihad city!!!

No, that land will go to Israel one day when Jesus sets up his literal kingdom here on earth.

Next...Jesus says what he means and means what he says...

John 18:19-20
19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20 Jesus answered him,I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Nor is Jesus trying to give hidden meanings or obscure details. He spoke openly and hid nothing. He said what he meant. If he said that a tribulation is coming that will affect the whole world, that's what he meant. There's nothing symbolic about that. It's plain language.

It's been said that I've "misquoted scripture" in the Interpretation of Prophecy thread; however, not once did I misquote scripture! I laid the scripture out exactly as it appears in the King James Bible. Rather, I think the problem is with how you viewed how I interpreted what the scripture said. I interpreted what the scripture said literally. I interpreted it according to the context of what the scripture says...but not once did I misquote scripture.

:)

There's a lot more at play than salvation. "Ages" of time are found in Scripture, so call them that. The Bible says, "For the law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Right there the Bible is giving you three distinct ages, before the law, during the law, and after the law. To ignore those three different periods in which God dealt with people in three different ways can lead to some severe doctrinal and practical errors.

To rip a promise of prosperity out of the Old Testament (like the prayer of Jabesh) and apply it to today is a result of not rightly dividing the word. Christians today are told they are going to suffer if they live godly in Christ Jesus. The servants of Christ typically in the New Testament are poor (not always, but usually) and receive their blessing from God on a spiritual level, whereas God was more likely to bless people on a material level in the Old Testament - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Job, etc... the list goes on of filthy rich saints. Rich saints are very hard to find in the New Testament. And yet you have these prosperity gospel people reaching back and using David as an example of why God is obligated to make you rich. They do it because they do not rightly divide the Scriptures.

It is extremely important to recognize the different ages and how God dealt with people during them. To go around trying to get a sign out of God like Gideon today would be another example of not recognizing that God deals with people in different ages differently. We walk by faith, not by sight. The Jews in the Old Testament walked by sight just as much as they did by faith, if not more! Looking for signs is something that they did, we look to the Scriptures and put our faith in their principles. This is another classic example of what Charismatics do because of their lack of recognizing the different ages in the Bible and how God deals with people during them.

Great article. We should pray for our brother Tebow to continue to set a good example.

No, you mean it would be an obomination.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Remember everyone said Reagan couldn't win but he managed to pull off two landslide victories.

Even if the Prince of Tyre was wiser than Daniel (which I highly doubt) the Scriptures go from talking to a man to Satan in the same chapter. I picked this passage because it didn't deal with the Second Advent. There are many passages that jump from the First Advent to Second Advent in the same passage. One in particular speaks of the Messiah taking care of the broken hearted and then in the same verse it speaks of the vengeance of our God. Even if you're a Preterist you'd have to recognize that there's a 37 year jump there. Not a big jump in time, but certainly two drastically different subjects altogether. As a dispensationalist I see a 2,000 jump.

Ok, I went ahead and looked up the passage:

Is. 61:1-3, "1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified."

When Jesus quotes this passage in the New Testament watch what he does.

Luke 4:17-19, "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

Did you see where He stopped reading? The reason He stopped there was because the very next line said "and the day of vengeance of our God" - which we all agree is sometime after Calvary and a completely different subject altogether, but it was in the same verse in Isaiah. Following that it says, "to comfort all that mourn" which can go either way. Old Testament prophecies do jump around.

Here's another example:


Micah 5

1Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

Possible Old Testament fulfillment.

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

First Coming.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth:

First Coming.

then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

I'd love to know what you think this is. I see it as the re-gathering of Israel.

4And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

First Coming. I think it also applies to Second Coming as well.

5And this man shall be the peace,

Which man, Jesus, or someone in the Old Testament, or both?

when the Assyrian shall come into our land:

Wait, we're back to the Old Testament again. Or maybe Old Testament and Second Advent if you're a dispensationalist (I know you're not).

and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.
7And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.
8And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

Old Testament.

9Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.
10And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots:
11And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strong holds:
12And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:
13Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.
14And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee: so will I destroy thy cities.
15And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

When did this happen? 70 A.D. or 20?? Either way you have prophesy jumping around in this passage as well, which is what I was trying to demonstrate. If it jumps around here, and in Isaiah 61, there's no reason to think it doesn't happen in Daniel as well. I’m not interested in getting caught up in the minutia of arguing every point of Old Testament prophecy, I just wanted to illustrate that it does jump around and sometimes you have dual application prophesy (which is what you have in Matthew 24).

Really? Everything I've heard is that Covenantists lean towards an allegorical interpritation of Scripture and prophecy, specifically when it comes to Israel, and that Israel in the Old Testament means church in the New. I would love to read someone who wasn't like that.



The number of dispensations do not really matter. It's the idea behind them is where you'll find the uniformity of belief. God deals with different people in different ages different ways, and understanding this principle will help a person understand the Bible better. The reason I use the term dispensationalists is because I don't want people to mistake me for someone who believes God won't keep His promises to Abraham.

I'd much rather just say that I believe in "rightly dividing" the word, which is the primary way of studying the Scriptures. One must understand there are differences between law and grace, the Great White Throne Judgment and the Judgment Seat of Christ, spiritual baptism and resurrection and water baptism and resurrection, etc. On the surface Covenant Theology looks to be just another way of "rightly dividing" the word, except they typically blur many important lines such as Israel and the church. If Covenant Theology didn't blur those lines I could care less, and I'd claim to be both a dispensationalist and a covenantist. I believe in rightly dividing, which would not just include looking at dispensations but also studying the different covenants in the Bible.

Real covenant theology is a very rewarding study. I love how Abraham and David both had unconditional covenants with God. They were completely unilateral, and based solely on God keeping His end of the agreement. It is truly a joy to study it because it pictures perfectly the spiritual side of the New Covenant that we in the church get to partake in.

Don't leave yet, Steve! We're only at post #119, I usuaully hang around till at least post #150! :ROFL:

So you like the charactor of a man who supports the murder of babies worldwide?

You like tax policies designed to cripple businesses and redistribute wealth?

You like a health care policy that is unconstitutional, forces folks to pay for the unhealthy choices of others, places government in control of health issues and leads to a downgrading of American healthcare?

You support international policy based upon America being "the big bad" that Obama constantly apologizes for, where policy is constantly blowing in the wind?

You supporth the Obama social issues of mass baby murder, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, ignoring the Constitution, promoting class warfare, playing the race card, the downgrading of American lifestyle to the lowest common denominator?

Old Testament prophecy can bounce around, take for instance this passage:

Ezekiel 28:1-19, 1The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
2Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Okay so He's talking to a human, the king of Tyrus.

3Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:

What? That's no human, that's Satan.

4With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:
5By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:
6Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;
7Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.

Oh wait, nevermind, God is talking to the human again.

8They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.

That seems odd.

9Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
10Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Okay, that can still work for the king of Tyrus, other than verse 3. But things are about to get weird now.

11Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

Nope, that's no human there. He's speaking to Satan, and referring back to when he was Lucifer.

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Definitely Lucifer.

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

And not the black cat Lucifer from Cinderella either, this is Lucifer the former cherub. I don't think the king of Tyre was ever a Cherub.

16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Still more Lucifer.

17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Well that's interesting isn't it? Almost like a specific person in the future that will rise to great prominence and leadership, but will be Satan incarnate. Nah, that’s just crazy futurist stuff.

18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

The last two verses can go either way.

The point is this: Old Testament prophesies can jump around, and this is a very, very clear example of it. There's no reason to believe the same thing didn't happen in the Daniel 8 passage.

I lean more and more towards the Scriptural principle that we are supposed to do the best we have with what we have. There is nothing incompatible with faith when it comes to that principle. As a Christian, you attend the best church you can. As a pastor, you do the best you can to reach your community with what you have. You have the best family you have with the spouse you married. You don't quit any of these situations because of inperfections.

In all these cases people have to deal with the consequences of the past. We must do the best we can because of the consequences of actions of the nation we live in, which in the end are a result of Christians not being the salt of the Earth. Once again, I believe that Scriptures are clear that we are to do the best we can with the sitution that God allows us to be in.

Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are all born again Christians too and all three of these ran for president this time and none of them received solid Christian support.

Instead of choosing a Christian candidate to support fully from beginning to end, Christians are now arguming among themselves as to whether it's best to vote for a flip-flopping, liberal-minded Mormon, or a serial adulterer, once Lutheren, then Baptist, now Catholic.

I lean more and more towards the Scriptural principle that we are supposed to do the best we have with what we have. There is nothing incompatible with faith when it comes to that principle. As a Christian, you attend the best church you can. As a pastor, you do the best you can to reach your community with what you have. You have the best family you have with the spouse you married. You don't quit any of these situations because of inperfections.

In all these cases people have to deal with the consequences of the past. We must do the best we can because of the consequences of actions of the nation we live in, which in the end are a result of Christians not being the salt of the Earth. Once again, I believe that Scriptures are clear that we are to do the best we can with the sitution that God allows us to be in.

It's a false idea that not voting for a particular candidate is the same as casting a vote for another.

Several of our Founding Fathers made it clear that only good Christian men were worthy of leadership. Several also pointed out the Constitution would only work if Christians were governing.

Now, we know that no candidate is perfect so that leaves us with the question of how much baggage are we willing to accept. No doubt in times past voters were not willing to accept major charactor flaws or deviation from what they viewed as solid policy stances. Unfortunately for us today, most voters don't care if the president is as flawed as the average lost soul on the streets.

So, do we accept candidates who have a history of lying...such as continual flip-flopping (not speaking of a person who has had a sincere change in their view), glossing over their failures while overinflating their successes, saying two things at once...

Do we accept those who have made mistakes, sometimes major sins, and while they admit they made a mistake they show no signs of actual regret or repentance?

Do we accept that a man can't be trusted by his own wife but an entire nation should trust him as president?

Do we accept those who say they stand for X but have a history of quickly compromising away X in favor of Z or F?

Do we accept those who say they will honour their oath of office and actually abide by the Constitution when they have a history of doing the opposite and their own platforms don't agree with that statement?

These are just some of the questions to ask ourselves.

I fully agree with BOTH statements!

We had two of those pizzas a couple weeks ago!

I don't think one can definitively say that the U.S. is in Bible prophesy. You can create plausible scenarios, but nothing firm.

However, one can definitively say that peperoni-lovers pan style is the best pizza around.

Yes - I knew you were going here.
Does the Bible use Symbolism?
Yes.
Does the Bible instruct us to invent our own interpretations to the symbolism?
NOT ONCE.
The Bible always interprets itself.
I noticed that you said, "IN THIS CASE" but you should recognize that it is ALWAYS the case.
The Lord Jesus Christ gave us parables in Matthew 13 - and then he interpretted them FOR US later on.
The Lord gave a dream to Pharaoh, but then had Joseph interpret it later on.
The Lord gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream in Daniel 2, but then had Daniel interpret it.
The example you gave came with an interpretation!

There is absolutely no authority given to us anywhere in Scripture to impose our OWN interpretation on a text just because we don't think it could literally happen. If it IS symbolic, then the Lord will provide HIS OWN INTERPRETATION for us in the text so that we don't become confused.
If there is no interpretation given, then we are to assume it is to be taken literally.

A better question to your "problem" in Daniel 8:10 is this: "Has this yet happened literally?"
If not, then it is yet future. The fact that the Lord gives us a literal interpretation to the first part of the chapter later indicates that there will be a literal fulfillment to v. 10. Your inability to accept that or believe that makes no difference to the Lord.
I don't have to provide any "interpretation" to it - all I have to do is believe it.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Look, I know Rick well enough to know that he has a handle on history. The problem is that people can use historical facts to prove anything they want to by manipulating them. People treat history and the Bible the same way. They have pre-conceived ideas, look for things that support their ideas, and then tell everyone, "See??? I told you I was right!"
Sometimes people like me and Rick get tired of the "historical arguments."

And we can always split hairs over semantics - what is a dispensationalist? What is a Calvinist? What is an Arminian? And we would all have different answers I am sure.

LBC was started in 1993. I came out 3-1/2 years ago.

Okay...

I'm familiar with both accounts in Matthew and Luke.

There has been no postulation on my part. It's evident that part is still future.

Again, I'm not arguing with you or anyone else...especially Jesus. It's somewhat interesting that another in this thread has been very abrasive toward you and your beliefs, but I simply asked a couple of questions (to which, I still haven't received answers); however, you have deflected (what appears to be) ire toward me.

No problem...I won't ask the questions again. As far as my participation, this thread is...



I trust you'll have a nice day. :)