Classical Zionism vs Modern (Dispensational) Zionism

[crossnote]

So you are saying that we are not supposed to take every word literally as the verse states it. Tell me, what dictionary did you get your definition of hate from? I've never seen the word hate mean to put something above another.

As Cooper's article stated ...

"literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic (self-evident or unquestionable) and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise."

Obviously a literal rendering of the word 'hate' would violate the Command to honor our parents.

...Back to the topic at hand, I'm enjoying it.

 

[djames1958]

All his recent statements and essays lean progressive. He is the reason I even realized the synergy between Covenant and Dispensational theologies.

His stance may be more conservative than Bock and Blaising, but is not as rigid as his earlier work,
and far distanced from the ultra-dispensationalism which is held highly in Dallas.

I know Dr. Ryrie personally - and he is no where close to PD and sees it as very problematic - as do most Traditional Dispensationalists.

Also, I am a DTS graduate - and in my nearly 30 years of association with the school, and personally knowing men like Pentecost, Walvoord, Toussaint, Zuck, Bramer, Constable and others - I have never once encountered an ultra-dispensationalist.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information -but it almost certainly isn't first hand. And if not, then you're merely engaging in hearsay - which I would suggest is how false rumors get started or perpetuated.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity

 

[Linda70]

I know Dr. Ryrie personally - and he is no where close to PD and sees it as very problematic - as do most Traditional Dispensationalists.

Also, I am a DTS graduate - and in my nearly 30 years of association with the school, and personally knowing men like Pentecost, Walvoord, Toussaint, Zuck, Bramer, Constable and others - I have never once encountered an ultra-dispensationalist.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information -but it almost certainly isn't first hand. And if not, then you're merely engaging in hearsay - which I would suggest is how false rumors get started or perpetuated.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity

I think I know who you are. I heard you on Search the Scriptures 24/7 with T. A. McMahon. You and T. A. were discussing your book "The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?"

 

[iamsoandso]

hmmm,,David James Kennedy,,or no,"what a call out"?,,,

 

[Linda70]

hmmm,,David James Kennedy,,or no,"what a call out"?,,,

Try again....D. James Kennedy is deceased. David James is the correct name....check out his website.

 

[iamsoandso]

Try again....D. James Kennedy is deceased. David James is the correct name....check out his website.

my thoughts exactly he died in florida in 2007,,,,

 

[Fishbait]

Then you will not find any of this interesting or useful.
If we were to debate here, it would be very off-topic.
If you start or resurrect a relative thread, I would be willing to discuss preterism, and the 'self fulfillment' of Scripture.

The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of most of the book of Revelation. In varying degrees, preterism combines the allegorical and symbolic interpretation with the concept that Revelation does not deal with specific future events. The preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and Israel.

The letters to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 were written to real churches in the first century, and they have practical applications for churches today. But chapters 6-22, if interpreted in the same way as the rest of Bible prophecy, were written about events that are yet future. There is no reason to interpret the prophecies of Revelation allegorically. Previously fulfilled prophecies were fulfilled literally. For example, all of the Old Testament verses predicting the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally in Jesus. Christ came at the time that He was predicted to come (Daniel 9:25-26). Christ was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). He suffered and died for our sins (Isaiah 53:5-9). These are but a few examples of the hundreds of Old Testament prophecies God gave to the prophets that are recorded in Scripture and that were fulfilled literally. It simply does not make sense to try to allegorize unfulfilled prophecy or understand unfulfilled prophecy in any other way than by a normal reading.

Furthermore, preterism is entirely inconsistent in its interpretation of the book of Revelation. According to the preterist view of the end times, chapters 6-18 of Revelation are symbolic and allegorical, not describing literal events. However, chapter 19, according to preterists, is to be understood literally. Jesus Christ will literally and physically return. Then, chapter 20 is again interpreted allegorically by preterists, while chapters 21-22 are understood literally, at least in part, in that there will truly be a new heaven and new earth. No one denies that Revelation contains amazing and sometimes confusing visions. No one denies that Revelation describes some things figuratively. However, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation is to destroy the basis of interpreting any of the book literally. If the seals, trumpets, bowls, witnesses, 144000, beast, false prophet, millennial kingdom, etc., are allegorical or symbolic, on what basis do we claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal? That is the failure of preterism—it leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter. Instead, we are to read it, believe it, and obey it—literally and exactly.


Read more: What is the Preterist view of the end times?​

 

[KJV1611]

Please quit twisting my words. I am taking that verse in context...not pulling it out of context as you are are doing. The passage is speaking of discipleship (vs. 25-35). Our love for Christ should exceed our "love" for our parents, children, spouse, and even our own life...otherwise we "cannot be Christ's disciple". The word "hate", when all those verses are interpreted in context, does not mean dislike or despise. Use some "common sense".

I got the definition from Websters 1828 Dictionary.

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise. ....David L. Cooper.....This is called the "Golden Rule of Interpretation"

Linda you can't make up meaning to scripture. You have to rightly divide between the literal and the spiritual, which you are not doing. You know that Jesus would never command us to hate our mother and father so you CHANGE the definition of hate to make it fit. God is trying to show you something in this verse and your changing the meaning of the verse instead of believing it literally word for word. You're totally missing the message that God is trying to tell you.

The bible says hate and it LITERALLY means hate. Here is your error, either you don't understand or you deny the fact that you have a SPIRITUAL mother and father.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Before salvation your mother is Agar... you are born in bondage to the law and you stay that way until Heavenly Jerusalem becomes your mother. When Jesus said to hate your mother, this is exactly the mother he is talking about. Why would Jesus ask us to hate our mother Agar? Works salvation. If you don't hate your mother you will continue to be drawn back to her, you continue to try to please the Lord by your works.

The same is true for your earthly father, you are of your father the devil until you come to Christ. This is so simple... believe every single word in the bible and never change it to fit your preconceived ideas.

 

[Ukorin]

I know Dr. Ryrie personally - and he is no where close to PD and sees it as very problematic - as do most Traditional Dispensationalists.

Also, I am a DTS graduate - and in my nearly 30 years of association with the school, and personally knowing men like Pentecost, Walvoord, Toussaint, Zuck, Bramer, Constable and others - I have never once encountered an ultra-dispensationalist.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information -but it almost certainly isn't first hand. And if not, then you're merely engaging in hearsay - which I would suggest is how false rumors get started or perpetuated.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity

I may have misunderstood Ryrie, and thought he was supporting what he was arguing against.
He doesn't abuse the straw man buildup, so I suppose he may have been just stating the position informationally.

I'm certainly not trying to just start rumors, or claim any false authority for my argument. Ryrie was the first one to make me think of such things, and go through the Word to test it. Two witnesses have now told me I am wrong, so I will recant what I said of Ryrie, and place my assertion under review.

As for DTS and ultra-dispensationalism, our definitions are likely different.
Also, I don't think anyone would label themselves as an ultra-Dispensationalist, just like no one labels themselves ultra-Calvinist. Very few academics like to present themselves as an extreme in anything. That doesn't mean that the labels don't apply.

Most of my newsletters and books come from DTS, due to my former views. I consider many of them 'ultra' due to the talk of salvation in the OT differing from salvation under the NT.

I'd enjoy hearing what the problems are that traditional dispensationalist believe PD causes.

 

[Ukorin]

Two witnesses have now told me I am wrong, so I will recant what I said of Ryrie, and place my assertion under review.

Upon a second look, it wasn't two witnesses, but one witness twice,
But I trust that your testimony is true, and that you do know him.

I have been rereading the article that first gave me this impression. I do need to apologize for misrepresenting his position. His article was delving into the issue of PD, not actually supporting it.

 

[djames1958]

The old "two different ways of salvation" charge just keeps getting regurgitated over and over. Scolfied certainly made ambiguous statements in some places - but was clear on one way of salvation in other places. This has been hashed around for years - but pops up in places likes this where it gets new legs for a new generation. FACT: there has been no serious dispensational author of the last 70 years that comes even close to intimating more than one way of salvation. It is always by grace through faith from Adam to the present, - and most specifically in the 2nd person of the Godhead who frequently interacted with men throughout the OT. Salvation is, has been, and always will be by grace through faith according to dispensational thinking. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[Ukorin]

The old "two different ways of salvation" charge just keeps getting regurgitated over and over. Scolfied certainly made ambiguous statements in some places - but was clear on one way of salvation in other places. This has been hashed around for years - but pops up in places likes this where it gets new legs for a new generation. FACT: there has been no serious dispensational author of the last 70 years that comes even close to intimating more than one way of salvation. It is always by grace through faith from Adam to the present, - and most specifically in the 2nd person of the Godhead who frequently interacted with men throughout the OT. Salvation is, has been, and always will be by grace through faith according to dispensational thinking. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

I am not qualified to be labeling what others believe. I am still just a student, and not in a position to make such judgements.
I never should have started doing so, as it was not useful, and was certainly a derailment for the thread.

If I do it again, feel free to call me out on it. The checks are good for me.
I'm sorry if you found anything I said demeaning or offensive to you or your colleagues.

 

[Ukorin]

Now that I've properly humiliated myself for speaking of things above of my own ability,
I'd like to get back to the op. I am really looking for more clarity and development on the topic for my own education, not just trying to push PD.

Are there any passages that can be used against the position that Scriptures can have a dual interpretation/fulfillment: one physical and one spiritual.

I'm not referring to personal or individual interpretation,
but to a second interpretation that is systematically obtainable,
using types, anti-types, parallel verses, etc.

 

[djames1958]

No offense to me - I don't get offended easily - nor should we. These are just theological discussions. The only reason I jumped in - and I don't do it very often, is that these same non-stories and inaccurate statements just get picked up over and over again - and repeated by people who have never done the primary research to find out if what they are saying is actually true. In the face of uncertainty, it is usually better just to ask questions to see if those with more knowledge might provide some additional insight. We never help bring light to a discussion by simply rehashing things that have been dealt with over and over. Of course, new people come into the discussion all the time - and it is usually those who should know better who end up perpetuating the old urban rumors and myths. One I saw on another thread the other day is that dispensationalism is a cult because they don't believe the new covenant supersedes the old covenant. What nonsense - but someone will repeat it for sure - then it will take on a life of its own.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity

 

[Atwood]

The old "two different ways of salvation" charge just keeps getting regurgitated over and over. Scolfied certainly made ambiguous statements in some places - but was clear on one way of salvation in other places. This has been hashed around for years - but pops up in places likes this where it gets new legs for a new generation. FACT: there has been no serious dispensational author of the last 70 years that comes even close to intimating more than one way of salvation. It is always by grace through faith from Adam to the present, - and most specifically in the 2nd person of the Godhead who frequently interacted with men throughout the OT. Salvation is, has been, and always will be by grace through faith according to dispensational thinking. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

D James (Kennedy? -- I thot you had gone to Heaven),

IMHO, every great theologian utters a blunder or two in his life. So there beez a bone or 2 in the classic SRB. And I recall another "great theologian" (reformed Buswell) going on about how dispensationalism advocates what I knew very well it did not, claiming quote(s) from Chafer. Then vicious attacks have been made on Scofield's history, emphasizing allege sins in his life, going back to before he was saved, for crying outloud!

Then I came across some advocates of salvation by water baptism advocating a different way of salvation in the NT or in the Church Age.

Dispensations are temporary arrangements for some particular people or individual for some particular age (time period). All Christians must recognize that such exist, if they don't want to go the whole 9 yards on the Law of Moses or don't think they should be gardeners because Adam was told to be a gardener.

If you attack a system, it is not legitimate to do it by finding a error in someone's theology who was or is in that system. I could have retorted to Buswell, "So Covenant Theology is wrong and reformed theology is wrong because Buswell is a reformed theologian and also a mid-tribber & advocates how Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Jesus. So then we argue that reformed theology is wrong because it claims nonsense about Melchizedek!

I think that a fair study of Scofield & Chafer would show that they did not regard man's responsibility in salvation (faith only) to have changed across dispensations. But ever if you could prove that they made a statement like that sometime, somewhere; it would not disprove dispensationalism as a system of theology. For dispensationalism as a system, does not teach that.

Anyone who wants to confront dispensationalism, should study Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today, and not tilt vs windmills & attack straw men.

 

[Atwood]

I may have misunderstood Ryrie, and thought he was supporting what he was arguing against.
He doesn't abuse the straw man buildup, so I suppose he may have been just stating the position informationally.

I'm certainly not trying to just start rumors, or claim any false authority for my argument. Ryrie was the first one to make me think of such things, and go through the Word to test it. Two witnesses have now told me I am wrong, so I will recant what I said of Ryrie, and place my assertion under review.

As for DTS and ultra-dispensationalism, our definitions are likely different.
Also, I don't think anyone would label themselves as an ultra-Dispensationalist, just like no one labels themselves ultra-Calvinist. Very few academics like to present themselves as an extreme in anything. That doesn't mean that the labels don't apply.

Most of my newsletters and books come from DTS, due to my former views. I consider many of them 'ultra' due to the talk of salvation in the OT differing from salvation under the NT.

I'd enjoy hearing what the problems are that traditional dispensationalist believe PD causes.

I doubt that any knowledgeable person would charge DTS with ultradispensationalism, except perhaps those who think that classic dispensationalsim is itself by nature ultra. Rather, I think the charge of some might be underdispensationalism.

Atwood
(one time student at DTS)

 

[Ukorin]

Please don't think that I was attacking Dispensationalism.
This thread is just questioning some assumptions. Not even base assumptions, just questioning whether singular interpretation is fact, or just an academic preference for the sake of simplicity or even solidarity.

 

[KJV1611]

Now that I've properly humiliated myself for speaking of things above of my own ability,
I'd like to get back to the op. I am really looking for more clarity and development on the topic for my own education, not just trying to push PD.

Are there any passages that can be used against the position that Scriptures can have a dual interpretation/fulfillment: one physical and one spiritual.

I'm not referring to personal or individual interpretation,
but to a second interpretation that is systematically obtainable,
using types, anti-types, parallel verses, etc.

There is no scripture against dual interpretation but there are scriptures for dual interpretation.

 

[Ukorin]

I doubt that any knowledgeable person would charge DTS with ultradispensationalism, except perhaps those who think that classic dispensationalsim is itself by nature ultra. Rather, I think the charge of some might be underdispensationalism.

Atwood
(one time student at DTS)

yes, I cannot defend what I said,
and I did apologize for this.

 

[Ukorin]

There is no scripture against dual interpretation but there are scriptures for dual interpretation.

I suppose what I'm talking about is more than just the dual interpretations directly revealed in Scripture, but rather the indirect revealing.
This would be done by using the formats given by the writer of Hebrews, the works of Paul, John, and even Christ himself, to reveal the spiritual interpretations/spiritual fulfillment for other passages.