Distinctives of Dispensationalism
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You're not making sense,Jesus tells the disciples when they see the abomination which causes desolation which Daniel speaks of,they are to flee. Jesus does NOT have to explain to them what He means because they know what He means by that. They saw it and they fled Jerusalem. It's why there were almost no Christians left in Jerusalem when it fell.
E
He told them and everyone who read it. (which would include us)
the point was. they did not see it. So if he was talking ONLY to them, His words were useless.
lol. They were told to flea jerusalem and run to the mountains.
This did not happen. they left Isreal. or should I say, they were escorted out of Isreal by the roman army.
Come on sis. Think!
Distinctives versus Correlation
In what ways are Israel and the Church the same? They both are people of God called to be holy. In the OT Israel always refers to a lineage of people from Jacob. They were people who were given the Law and called to be representatives of El Elyon, God most High and Yahweh, the "I am who I am."
In the NT there are a few references to a Jew who is one inwardly, that is, spiritually. Obviously Yahweh wanted His people to believe in His Son that He sent, He'd given them all the promises, He wanted them to have the blessings. But while many Jews believed, many did not, thus the idea that a true (spiritual) Jew is one who really believes. But the definition of a Jew (of the line of Jacob) in the NT is still the predominant idea, and must be the first definition of all references to Israel/Jew in the NT.
The real distinction that Dispensationalists emphasize is the idea that the Bible must be interpreted progressively, God builds His revelation from Gen. to Rev. Each book of the Bible must be understood in its context in how it looks back to what has been revealed and forward to what will be revealed. This is one of the reasons why Gen. and Rev. have many similar themes, they form the foundation and capstones of God's revealed truth.
The NT can and does shed light on the OT, but it cannot change the original meaning of the original authors to the original audience. There are hundreds of prophecies of Christ that were literally and figuratively fulfilled in his 1st Advent. There are yet many prophecies of Christ that will be literally and figuratively fulfilled by Christ's 2nd Coming, these exist both in the OT and the NT. In what ways did Christ fulfill the prophecies in his first coming? He physically came to earth, same with 2nd coming.
The hermeneutical issue of interpreting the Bible in the understanding of how the original author and audience intended and understood has given us every theological conclusion throughout Christian history. This is how the 2nd cent. Christians established the concept of Trinity, how Augustine formulated soteriology, how the Reformers interpreted ecclesiology and anthropology and soteriology, and is the primary difference in the variances of modern-day eschatology. Those who stress the literal meaning of the original author see Pre-millenial schema, those who stress the allegorical or spiritual meaning of the whole of Scripture see Amillenial/Post-millenial schema.
The thing that makes it so divisive is we're trying to establish a way to understand and interpret the entirety of Scriptural revelation consistently. So these schemes affect the entire picture, and the forest is often lost for the trees.
In what ways are Israel and the Church the same? They both are people of God called to be holy. In the OT Israel always refers to a lineage of people from Jacob. They were people who were given the Law and called to be representatives of El Elyon, God most High and Yahweh, the "I am who I am."
In the NT there are a few references to a Jew who is one inwardly, that is, spiritually. Obviously Yahweh wanted His people to believe in His Son that He sent, He'd given them all the promises, He wanted them to have the blessings. But while many Jews believed, many did not, thus the idea that a true (spiritual) Jew is one who really believes. But the definition of a Jew (of the line of Jacob) in the NT is still the predominant idea, and must be the first definition of all references to Israel/Jew in the NT.
The real distinction that Dispensationalists emphasize is the idea that the Bible must be interpreted progressively, God builds His revelation from Gen. to Rev. Each book of the Bible must be understood in its context in how it looks back to what has been revealed and forward to what will be revealed. This is one of the reasons why Gen. and Rev. have many similar themes, they form the foundation and capstones of God's revealed truth.
The NT can and does shed light on the OT, but it cannot change the original meaning of the original authors to the original audience. There are hundreds of prophecies of Christ that were literally and figuratively fulfilled in his 1st Advent. There are yet many prophecies of Christ that will be literally and figuratively fulfilled by Christ's 2nd Coming, these exist both in the OT and the NT. In what ways did Christ fulfill the prophecies in his first coming? He physically came to earth, same with 2nd coming.
The hermeneutical issue of interpreting the Bible in the understanding of how the original author and audience intended and understood has given us every theological conclusion throughout Christian history. This is how the 2nd cent. Christians established the concept of Trinity, how Augustine formulated soteriology, how the Reformers interpreted ecclesiology and anthropology and soteriology, and is the primary difference in the variances of modern-day eschatology. Those who stress the literal meaning of the original author see Pre-millenial schema, those who stress the allegorical or spiritual meaning of the whole of Scripture see Amillenial/Post-millenial schema.
The thing that makes it so divisive is we're trying to establish a way to understand and interpret the entirety of Scriptural revelation consistently. So these schemes affect the entire picture, and the forest is often lost for the trees.
UMMM EG,
Did the readers also include those in the middle ages? Those who lived in 500 AD? Or is He talking to those who would see those things? Luke was most likely written before 60 AD. (He talked to Mary who by 60 AD would have been about 75 years old or older) She's the only one who would have been able to tell him some of the things he wrote down. The other Gospels all too would have been written much earlier on. The readers are the ones would who would see those things happen NOT all readers.
Come on bro. Think.
Did the readers also include those in the middle ages? Those who lived in 500 AD? Or is He talking to those who would see those things? Luke was most likely written before 60 AD. (He talked to Mary who by 60 AD would have been about 75 years old or older) She's the only one who would have been able to tell him some of the things he wrote down. The other Gospels all too would have been written much earlier on. The readers are the ones would who would see those things happen NOT all readers.
Come on bro. Think.
Chosen,
Can you please explain one thing? Why does John not mention one thing about it being a different temple? John saw the temple in 33 AD. All we have is artist's renderings of that temple. The temple was built by hand. A modern temple would be built by modern construction. It is not possible for the two to look exactly the same. In fact a good likely hood they would look somewhat but with more differences. Yet John never mentions that it's a DIFFERENT TEMPLE. Never mentions that Jerusalem was destroyed. Why is that?
E
I am thinking.
I am also thinking logically. I did not just make this up. Nor am I following men. I am looking at What jesus said, compairing it with history, and coming up with my conclusion.
was the great tribulation in 70 AD?
to find out. lets answer.
1. was all life in danger of extinction? No Thus it does not fit.
2. Was it the greatest tribulation ever to occure? No. WW1 and WW2 were far greater tribulations not only on jews, but mankind.
3. Did Christ return immediately after the tribulation of those days? No.
Since the answer is no to all these questions, it is obvious and logical the tribulation did not occure in 70 AD.
Another question. What is the sign of the end of the age, and the Lords return.
Jesus answers.
1. He gives a few birth pangs (each growing exponentially in severity and frequency, hence the term birth pang) which are things which will occure before the end, yet ar enot signs.
2. He said there would be wars and rumors of wars, kingdom rising against kingdom and nation against nation.
Non of these events occured between the time of the writting of luke and 70 AD. There was not enough time, These events speak of many many years of things occurring.
Then he gives the sign which will occure. The sign which we all need to look for. The abomination which causes desolation
The warning is for all of us alive, Why? Because their will be great tribulation. great persecution against the church. This will be a time like non other on earth before it or after it. Not only in destruction, warfare and everything else. But the war against the church, and people murdered for believing in the name of God.
If people do not believe it will happen. they will not be prepared to handle it when it comes. It is a danger to say it is already over. Not only to those who may come to christ, but to those who are his when it happens.
Non of these fit 70 AD. Not even remotely.. So who is it who is not thinking?
I am also thinking logically. I did not just make this up. Nor am I following men. I am looking at What jesus said, compairing it with history, and coming up with my conclusion.
was the great tribulation in 70 AD?
to find out. lets answer.
1. was all life in danger of extinction? No Thus it does not fit.
2. Was it the greatest tribulation ever to occure? No. WW1 and WW2 were far greater tribulations not only on jews, but mankind.
3. Did Christ return immediately after the tribulation of those days? No.
Since the answer is no to all these questions, it is obvious and logical the tribulation did not occure in 70 AD.
Another question. What is the sign of the end of the age, and the Lords return.
Jesus answers.
1. He gives a few birth pangs (each growing exponentially in severity and frequency, hence the term birth pang) which are things which will occure before the end, yet ar enot signs.
2. He said there would be wars and rumors of wars, kingdom rising against kingdom and nation against nation.
Non of these events occured between the time of the writting of luke and 70 AD. There was not enough time, These events speak of many many years of things occurring.
Then he gives the sign which will occure. The sign which we all need to look for. The abomination which causes desolation
The warning is for all of us alive, Why? Because their will be great tribulation. great persecution against the church. This will be a time like non other on earth before it or after it. Not only in destruction, warfare and everything else. But the war against the church, and people murdered for believing in the name of God.
If people do not believe it will happen. they will not be prepared to handle it when it comes. It is a danger to say it is already over. Not only to those who may come to christ, but to those who are his when it happens.
Non of these fit 70 AD. Not even remotely.. So who is it who is not thinking?
UMM Sorry EG,
The disciples asked two different questions which Jesus was answering. How do you explain in the fist half of the chapter people are very aware of terrible destruction that is happening around them yet at the end that same chapter Jesus points to the time of Noah and says that the coming of the son of man will be in the same manner.
Matthew 24
How is that possible that on one hand with all the stuff about the tribulation being talked about that they will NOT know that Jesus is coming back? How does that make sense unless Jesus is talking about two different events? [/SIZE]
The disciples asked two different questions which Jesus was answering. How do you explain in the fist half of the chapter people are very aware of terrible destruction that is happening around them yet at the end that same chapter Jesus points to the time of Noah and says that the coming of the son of man will be in the same manner.
Matthew 24
[SIZE=-1]37 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 "For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 "and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]How is that possible that on one hand with all the stuff about the tribulation being talked about that they will NOT know that Jesus is coming back? How does that make sense unless Jesus is talking about two different events? [/SIZE]
Perhaps Sarah it is because John the apostle just wrote what he saw in the vision that God gave to him in the Lord's day.
And I believe that's exactly what happened.
Remember Sarah; What John receives is a vision and prophecy. Just Consider the context also of Revelation 11.
Revelation 11:1-5 KJV
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. [2] But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. [3] And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [4] These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. [5] And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
In the very context Sarah, John wrote that the court of the temple is given unto the Gentiles and that the holy city will be tread under foot by the Gentiles for forty two months (3.5 years).
The context Sarah is clearly the Time of Jacob's trouble, which is Daniel's 70th week.
Therefore Sarah, the temple which John sees in the vision and prophecy, is the temple that will be on earth in the time of Jacob's trouble.
If you want a proof text of this Sarah, then read 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.
The man of Sin (antichrist) is said to sit in the temple of God, Showing himself that he is God (2 Thess. 2:4).
And Sarah; this takes place in the midst (middle) of Daniel's 70th week (see Dan. 9:27).
So again Sarah, the temple which John sees is the temple of the time of Jacob's trouble. And not the one that was destroyed in 70A.D.
Last edited:
hey weakness.
the subject inevitably goes to "end-time" stuff, because dispensationalism skips over fulfilled prophecies and places them in the future.
this thread actually address the heart of the matter:
Who are the heirs of the promises?
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/78632-who-heirs-promises.html
the subject inevitably goes to "end-time" stuff, because dispensationalism skips over fulfilled prophecies and places them in the future.
this thread actually address the heart of the matter:
Who are the heirs of the promises?
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/78632-who-heirs-promises.html
Wrong Sarah, I already showed you why the temple John sees in his vision is the one in the time of Jacob's trouble.
And I didn't give you circular reason either.
I have given you Scriptural proof that the temple John sees is the temple that is in Jerusalem during the time of Jacob's trouble.
The context is very clear Sarah. Stop the rejecting the obvious.
E
How can you expect me to listen to you when you can not even get this right.
they asked three
1. When will these things happen
2. What are the signs of the end of the age]
3. What are the signs of your return.
it is easy.. If they knew christ would return, do you think they would set up to go to war with him? do you think they would do all the things jesus and john said they would be doing? He is talking about the world. not the church.
you did not answer any of my points. why is this?
again, your not going to get me to even consider your view of you can not get known things right, nor respond to my points and just make generalizations.