Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

  • 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.

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,113
1,330
113
Ok dude, you have one example which you THINK agrees with you

i have many examples which if I looked them up again would show you otherwise

i have no desire to,discuss scofiled. he is long gone, what about the word? I do not get my dispensational beliefs from scofiled or any man, I got them because of years of study,
We should be careful. Saul before his conversion as Paul studied under the best had a zeal for God and murdered Christians.

I would think the goal is to let God be true and every man a liar. So that we do not make his faith that works in those who believe without effect.

The question is "how" can we hear God and seek his approval as he lovingly commands us.. Where did the difference come from when looking at Revelation 20. It would seem to be the point of difference as to how the words "thousand years" is defined?

Signified or literalized?

What did the reformers of the 15 century use or that of the 1st century reformation?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
It’s does not matter, should I resort to the strawman you got your belief from pagan rome? of course not, but it would be just as valid an argument, but useless. We call them strawman arguments, they are baseless, meaningless.

i got my belief from my study of Gods word, not from what men who are long since dead.

do you wish to discuss the word. or dead men? (I have to go to work her in a few but am willing to discuss the word if you like will just have to take time.)
The basic point I was making is that you misrepresented when you claimed that non-dispensationalists lied by saying Scofield taught that salvation was by legal obedience.

However, when I showed you that's exactly what he taught, giving you the notes, you are diverting attention from the fact that you misrepresented, instead of admitting that's what Scofield taught.

Why not just admit you were wrong and you made a false claim about non-dispensationalists?

I find this behavior very prominent among dispensationalists.

Now, will you admit that you are wrong, and that Scofield's notes indicate he believed salvation was by legal obedience previously?

Here's his notes from the Scofield Bible in case you've forgotten:


1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
grace
Grace. Summary:
(1) Grace is "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man. . . not by works of righteousness which we have done" Titus 3:4 Titus 3:5 .
It is, therefore, constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man Romans 3:21 Romans 3:22 ; 8:4 ; Philemon 3:9 . Law is connected with Moses and works; grace with Christ and faith ; John 1:17 ; Romans 10:4-10 . Law blesses the good; grace saves the bad ; Exodus 19:5 ; Ephesians 2:1-9 . Law demands that blessings be earned; grace is a free gift ; Deuteronomy 28:1-6 ; Ephesians 2:8 ; Romans 4:4 Romans 4:5 .
(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Romans 3:24-26 Romans 4:24 Romans 4:25 . The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, ; John 1:12 John 1:13 ; 3:36 ; Matthew 21:37 ; 22:24 ; John 15:22 John 15:25 ; Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 John 5:10-12 . The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27 . The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" (See Scofield "2 Timothy 3:1") 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.
(3) Grace has a twofold manifestation: in salvation Romans 3:24 and in the walk and service of the saved Romans 6:15 .
See, for the other six dispensations:
Innocence, (See Scofield "Genesis 1:28")
Conscience, (See Scofield "Genesis 3:23")
Human Government, (See Scofield "Genesis 8:21")
Promise, (See Scofield "Genesis 12:1")
Law, (See Scofield "Exodus 19:8")
Kingdom, (See Scofield "Ephesians 1:10") .

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/john/john-1.html


I have made bold the portion where he says that legal obedience was a condition of salvation.

Here's the quote from the Scofield Bible under John 1:17 (not the New Scofield Bible which someone else edited and "fixed"):

The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.

Now, will you simply admit that the non-dispensationalists were right on this point, and you were wrong?

And, the alleged research you did was in error?
 
Mar 14, 2011
67,633
13,441
113
I am done with this discussion

If you wish to discuss Amill I will. I am not discussing a dead mans view and what you think he meant, when I did not get my view or belief from said dead man
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,281
2,324
113
I would enjoy it if other folks would look up the reference I provided.

Read it in your Scofield Bibles and decide whether Scofield did believe that salvation was by legal obedience at one point.

Apparently he never read Romans 4, which says exactly the opposite. It discusses how Abraham and David were both justified by faith, and not by works.
I don't have a Scofield Bible yet I hold to the view of a literal approach to Scripture and because of that I see a separate future dealing with Israel compared to the Church. Do you believe all those who hold to a Dispensational approach are Scofieldites? Scofield was wrong on some points but so are those ardent Amillennialists holding to replacement theology.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
I don't have a Scofield Bible yet I hold to the view of a literal approach to Scripture and because of that I see a separate future dealing with Israel compared to the Church. Do you believe all those who hold to a Dispensational approach are Scofieldites? Scofield was wrong on some points but so are those ardent Amillennialists holding to replacement theology.
Firstly, replacement theology is a slanderous misnomer.

Amillennialists believe that the true Israel is the Church, and that physical Israel was only typological.

And, no, I don't believe that all dispensationalists are Scofieldites.

There has been a stream within dispensationalists, and most have progressed past Scofield's teachings.

You might view it like this:

Darby/Scofield => Lewis Sperry Chafer => Ryrie, Wolfvoord and other Chafer disciples => "progressive dispensationalists"

Each group has plugged some of the obvious holes in dispensationalism making it less easy to criticize.

Additionally, I think it's slanderous and self righteous to say that dispensationalists take Scripture literally, whereas covenant theology people do not. That slander accompanies the troglodyte dispensationalist claim that others "spiritualize" or "allegorize" the Bible.

The plain truth is that covenant theology guys recognize symbols, shadows and types, and symbolic language that dispensationalists don't.

And, dispensationalists themselves recognize symbols, shadows and types too. For instance, they would realize Jesus was using a symbol when he called himself a "door".

I think that dispensationalists are some of the most cultic, self-righteous people I've talked with. I didn't even recognize the subculture until the last few years.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,281
2,324
113
Firstly, replacement theology is a slanderous misnomer.

Amillennialists believe that the true Israel is the Church, and that physical Israel was only typological.

And, no, I don't believe that all dispensationalists are Scofieldites.

There has been a stream within dispensationalists, and most have progressed past Scofield's teachings.

You might view it like this:

Darby/Scofield => Lewis Sperry Chafer => Ryrie, Wolfvoord and other Chafer disciples => "progressive dispensationalists"

Each group has plugged some of the obvious holes in dispensationalism making it less easy to criticize.

Additionally, I think it's slanderous and self righteous to say that dispensationalists take Scripture literally, whereas covenant theology people do not. That slander accompanies the troglodyte dispensationalist claim that others "spiritualize" or "allegorize" the Bible.

The plain truth is that covenant theology guys recognize symbols, shadows and types, and symbolic language that dispensationalists don't.

And, dispensationalists themselves recognize symbols, shadows and types too. For instance, they would realize Jesus was using a symbol when he called himself a "door".

I think that dispensationalists are some of the most cultic, self-righteous people I've talked with. I didn't even recognize the subculture until the last few years.
Physical Israel was only typological?
I would rather believe all of Scofields errors than that.
I suppose back in the 1940s the Holocaust was also typological as well as the remnant returning to their Land as prophecied by the Prophets.
I suppose also the Virgin birth was typological and even our Savior?
Sorry but this is too ridiculous for a half serious conversation?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
Physical Israel was only typological?
I would rather believe all of Scofields errors than that.
I suppose back in the 1940s the Holocaust was also typological as well as the remnant returning to their Land as prophecied by the Prophets.
I suppose also the Virgin birth was typological and even our Savior?
Sorry but this is too ridiculous for a half serious conversation?
Elements of the Mosaic Covenant are typological, not elements of the New Covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant is full of types and shadows, and pointed toward Christ and fulfillments in the New Covenant.

It's silly to claim that fulfillments are actually types.

For instance, you mentioned the virgin birth. The child born in Isaiah's day was typological of Jesus in the sense of the virgin birth. The type is inferior to the fulfillment. In the Old Testament, the birth was to a young maiden and was not a virgin birth. In the New Testament, Jesus is born of a virgin.

Regarding Israel returning to its' land, they are not occupying the fullness of their former territory. It is a dispensationalist claim that this is a precursor to occupation of the land, and that a temple will literally be built in Jerusalem and animal sacrifices will begin again.

Even if they did begin again, it would be a form of idolatry and an abomination because salvation is only through Jesus Christ. He is the true Temple, the place to go for reconciliation to God.

By the way, for those who are open-minded (which don't include most dispensationalists), I suggest reading God Dwells Among Us by GK Beale in this regard. His book makes perfect sense of the typology of the Temple and Tabernacle. The tabernacle/temple pointed back toward Eden (with the botanical references and many other references), forward to Jesus and his Church, and even more forward to the New Heavens/New Earth/New Jerusalem.

If you adopt the dispensationalist hermeneutic, you cannot put these things together. They do not view Scripture in an organic manner.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
Physical Israel was only typological?
I would rather believe all of Scofields errors than that.
I suppose back in the 1940s the Holocaust was also typological as well as the remnant returning to their Land as prophecied by the Prophets.
I suppose also the Virgin birth was typological and even our Savior?
Sorry but this is too ridiculous for a half serious conversation?
Yes, physical Israel was typological.

However there is a "true Israel" which includes all the people of God from Adam to the consummation at Jesus' return.

The remnant of ancient Israel would be included in this "true Israel".
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
Dispensationalism is the most popular method of interpretation in the U.S. evangelical church. Chances are your pastor believes in dispensationalism if you are attending a conservative, non-Reformed church, especially Baptist or Pentecostal/charismatic churches.

Dispensationalism was made popular by J.N. Darby, CI Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, and Robert Saucy, among others.

Dispensationalism is full of misunderstandings and causes one to have a poor perception of the unity of Scripture. For example, many dispensational scholars and pastors question whether the Church is under the New Covenant.

Their main problem is that they radically separate Jews from Gentiles, and deny that there is one people of God. This is not consistent with Ephesians 2, which says that the Jew and Gentile are made "one man" in Christ.

For a good set of audios on the problems with dispensationalism, check out the thirteen-part audio series by Rob McKenzie, a former dispensationalist:

https://reformedforum.org/category/series/dispensationalism/

For a good set of audios on interpreting Scripture (hermeneutics), check out this series by Jonathan Landry Cruse on SermonAudio:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=kalamazoocpc&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Hermeneutics

A second view, in opposition to dispensationalism, is covenant theology. Those who believe in covenant theology are called covenantalists.

Here are some reasons why I am not a dispensationalist:

- Dispensationalism contains partial truths, and the worldview seems to be correct from a shallow level of study, but it has deeper, underlying presuppositions which are not true. For instance, the book of Revelation is not one sequential set of events, but is a series of visions that have overlapping content. Their understanding of end-time events relies on the "sequence of events" presupposition regarding Revelation. There are clearer Scriptures that refute their position within the Gospels and epistles, which portray a general judgment of all mankind occurring at Jesus' return. Interpretative gymnastics on clearer Scriptures are employed to insert a 1000 year period between the judgment at Jesus' return and the judgment at the end of the Millennium prescribed by their view of Revelation 20. An example is Matthew 25: 31-46, where Christ clearly portrayed the judgment of all nations to occur at his return.

- Dispensationalism assumes a period of time where the curse is partially, but not fully lifted, and that death continues to reign. Scripture teaches that at Christ's return, death is decisively defeated in the resurrection (1 Cor 15). Again, interpretative gymnastics are exercised in order to deny this truth.

- Dispensationalism is inconsistent with the concept of union with Christ. All believers, Jew and Gentile, are one in Christ, and are spiritual descendants of Abraham as a result. Christ was a physical descendant of Abraham, and the believer has been joined to him. As a result of this union, the believer becomes a descendant of Abraham, and inherits the blessings of Abraham in this way. See Ephesians 2, Romans 4, Galatians 3.

- Dispensationalists claim that covenantalists believe God doesn't keep his promises. This is a false claim. God keeps his promises. Period. End of sentence. One must ask these questions, though: 1) were these promises unconditional? 2) if the promises were conditional, did the person fulfill the conditions? 3) who were the promises actually made to; ancient Israel or one particular offspring of Abraham (Jesus)? 4) will these promises be fulfilled in some grander, spectacular way than originally given, and to an audience that is more universal than Abraham's physical descendants? 5) were these promises fulfilled at some point in ancient Israel's past, and does this fulfillment exhaust them? and 6) does the person understand the nature promises being discussed, or are they simply relying on what some other dispensationalist has taught them?

These would be the questions I ask myself as I am studying dispensationalist claims.

- Dispensationalism leads to a poor understanding of the unity of Scripture. The Old Testament can be properly characterized as "promise" and the New Testament can be properly characterized as "fulfillment". The Old Testament communicates and teaches about Christ and the New Covenant through shadows and types. Dispensationalism does not lend to a thorough Christocentric reading of the Old Testament. Instead, I believe their exegesis is Israel-centric.

- Dispensationalists tend to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, and this is backwards. The New Testament is the clearer revelation which explains the Old Testament shadows and types. Shadows and types are only "fuzzy pictures" and not the fulfillment. The fulfillment is the higher revelation, and should govern the interpretation of the shadows and types.

- Dispensationalists frequently claim covenantalists employ allegories in the sense of the Roman Catholic quadriga method of interpretation, such as Origen. This is a false claim, and demonstrates that they do not understand the hermeneutics employed by covenantalists. They fail to understand that recognizing symbols and typology in Scripture is not "allegorizing Scripture". Additionally, they are very hypocritical in this regard because they recognize some symbols and shadows/types in their own interpretation. They seem to be unable to realize their own hypocrisy and biases. Like many misled individuals, they seem to believe they are the impartial interpreters of Scripture and the valiant defenders of the true faith.

- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists believe in "replacement theology", which they define as the belief that God replaced ancient Israel with the Church. This is a false claim. Covenant theology teaches that there is only one people of God, from Adam throughout all eternity, composed of all the people of God, whether Jew or Gentile. There was no "replacement"; true Israel has always been this one covenant people. Physical Israel was typological of Christ and the New Covenant, and in that sense, it is accurate that the Church fulfills the type of ancient Israel.

- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists are guilty of AntiSemitism. Since covenantalists believe that there is only one people of God, both Jew and Gentile, they have no rational basis for their Antisemitism claim.

- Dispensationalists often attempt to associate covenantalists with Roman Catholicism. Cults often use this technique to discredit evangelical Christians as a whole, and dispensationalists use it to discredit covenantalists in a similar manner. Cultic behavior amongst evangelicals, who claim to be brothers, is not ethical.

- Dispensationalists often claim that covenantalists live immoral lives, because they are not living in anticipation of the Rapture. The reality is that all Christians know that they are not guaranteed the next minute of life, so the timing of a Rapture is not relevant regardless of either position. In fact, I would argue that morality is more emphasized in the covenantalist camp than dispensationalism, due to antinomian tendencies. As an example, CI Scofield experienced extreme alcohol, marital, and childrearing problems.

Please note that I realize some dispensationalists do not agree with the misrepresentations of their colleagues. However, there is a strong tendency in the dispensationalist camp to make these sorts of claims.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,281
2,324
113
It's funny how the prophecies have been coming true as the Dispensationalists have rightly interpreted before the events.
Israel being regathered and formed as a nation.
Russia, Iran, Turkey, Libya forming an alliance to come against Israel etc.
All the while the nay sayers have little to say but deny Israel it's right to exist.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,660
1,128
113
I don't see an Eschatology section, so I'll post this here...(Mods, if there is a more appropriate section, please move the thread there).

Revelation 20:4-5 NASBS
[4] Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

For those who hold to an Amillennial position, (usually stated as an indefinite amount of time starting from the cross to Christ's return), who are those in v.4 and are they reigning now with Christ?
Who are those in v.5 (rest of the dead)?
Which of these two is the 'first resurrection'? Both?
it is a Biblical topic and is not needing to be moved.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
4,052
845
113
However there is a "true Israel" which includes all the people of God from Adam to the consummation at Jesus' return.

The remnant of ancient Israel would be included in this "true Israel".
I know you personally won't read this excerpt from article [other than perhaps to skim it], but I place it here for the readers...

this excerpted section pertaining to the distinction between "Israel" and "the Church [which is His body]" and the verses which others use to claim otherwise [i.e. that they are not distinct]:

[quoting FB Hole]

"Beginning with the verses from Romans two: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:28-29). In the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans mankind is examined, so to speak, in the court of God. The verdict — both Jew and Gentile are found to be guilty! “For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:9-11). The verses used above fall, as it were, within the cross examination of the Jew (vss. 2:17-3:8). Being born a Jew did not make one righteous; no, God looked upon the heart. The Gentile is not in view at all in this portion; as to them, God rested His case in the earlier verses (vss. 1:19-2:16).

"We now turn our attention to the second verse [used by some to argue their viewpoint]: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). As we have just seen, the first three chapters of this Epistle show both Jew and Gentile condemned by the Word of God. As far as that goes, they are indeed on common ground! This, however, presents a difficulty in the mind of the Jew. To them, the sovereign grace of God, which concludes all alike under judgment and which now holds out blessing for all, appears to set aside the special promises made to Israel — indeed, just as Covenant Theology has done. In Romans chapters nine, ten and eleven, the Apostle addresses this concern. […<snip>...]
"Paul begins in chapter nine by showing that the sovereign grace of God, in taking up the Gentile, does not make the Word of God (and especially the promises to Israel) of none effect (Rom. 9:6). The Jew, however, tenaciously clings to his natural descent as the guarantor of those promises. They have to learn otherwise. Of Abraham's two sons, Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the child of promise. With Jacob and Esau the argument is even stronger—they were twins born of the same parents (Ishmael had a different mother) and yet, even before they were born, Rebecca is told by God, “The elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:12). This was God’s sovereign election. A Jew cannot simply rest upon his genealogy; for that matter, he never could. The principle, “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4; Heb. 10:38), is indeed common to both the Old Testament and the New. When God looked down upon the Israel of old, He saw a faithful remnant in the midst of an unbelieving nation—this remnant was the true Israel of God.

"In conclusion, neither of the portions (in Romans chapters two and nine), used by Covenant Theologians, speak of a spiritual Israel extending beyond the fold of that nation; rather, these verses speak of a faithful sub-set within that people. It is a principle which excludes. It is not expansive—he is not a Jew; not all Israel."

--FB Hole, Bible Truth Publishers

[end quoting; bold and underline mine; brackets mine]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
4,052
845
113
- Dispensationalism assumes a period of time where the curse is partially, but not fully lifted, and that death continues to reign. Scripture teaches that at Christ's return, death is decisively defeated in the resurrection (1 Cor 15). Again, interpretative gymnastics are exercised in order to deny this truth.
I had supplied a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'll place two brief reminders here (though there are MANY more; this is just to jog the memory of those having read my past posts on this):


  • ["THEN the end"] 1Cor15:24's Greek word for "THEN" is a SEQUENTIAL word, with NO "time-element" attached to it; so that, in view of the FIRST TWO items LISTED and that they are some 2000-yrs apart, there is NO PROBLEM with the THIRD LISTED item to be 1000 yrs apart from the SECOND LISTED item; thus, the phrase does NOT mean "THEN [immediately] the end," but instead "THEN [sequentially] the end";


  • [won't have time to finish this post, as it posted automatically BEFORE i was finished!!]

  • recall the "THIS corruptible" and "THIS mortal" of Paul's "Behold I shew you a MYSTERY" (not something the OT saints already WELL-KNEW);


  • recall that "resurrection" does not remain to occur at ONE SINGULAR point in time ["but each IN HIS OWN ORDER"--and how the 2W are resurrected at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe"... a distinct time-slot from all others referred to]; etc...
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
4,052
845
113
[con't]


  • Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 [His 2nd Coming to the earth] is parallel with the FIRST of TWO "PUNISH" words in Isa24:21-22[23] which has a TIME PERIOD that FOLLOWS that, and then thereafter [after that "time-period"] the SECOND of the TWO "PUNISH" words is carried out (just like the SEQUENCE [timing-issues] in Rev19-20!) --[the "amill-teachings" do not acknowledge that there is any "time" following His 2nd Coming, as this passage in Isaiah 24 clearly shows there to be, when properly aligned with its parallel in Rev]
 
Mar 14, 2011
67,633
13,441
113
God keeps his promises eternally. When he says forever he means it. Be it salvation for the believer or national promises given to a nation

God does not go back on his word
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
1,863
1,410
113
God keeps his promises eternally. When he says forever he means it. Be it salvation for the believer or national promises given to a nation

God does not go back on his word
i think only when its two sided covenant like with moses. it was all you do this and i bless you do that i curse. but abrahamic covenant and new covenant are like you could say one sided covenants. just like the noah covenant. i think actually moses covenant is the only two sided covenant?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
I had supplied a number of reasons why this is not the case. I'll place two brief reminders here (though there are MANY more; this is just to jog the memory of those having read my past posts on this):


  • ["THEN the end"] 1Cor15:24's Greek word for "THEN" is a SEQUENTIAL word, with NO "time-element" attached to it; so that, in view of the FIRST TWO items LISTED and that they are some 2000-yrs apart, there is NO PROBLEM with the THIRD LISTED item to be 1000 yrs apart from the SECOND LISTED item; thus, the phrase does NOT mean "THEN [immediately] the end," but instead "THEN [sequentially] the end";


  • [won't have time to finish this post, as it posted automatically BEFORE i was finished!!]

  • recall the "THIS corruptible" and "THIS mortal" of Paul's "Behold I shew you a MYSTERY" (not something the OT saints already WELL-KNEW);


  • recall that "resurrection" does not remain to occur at ONE SINGULAR point in time ["but each IN HIS OWN ORDER"--and how the 2W are resurrected at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe"... a distinct time-slot from all others referred to]; etc...
I don't understand your explanation, nor does it align with Matthew 25.

Matthew 25 states that all nations will be assembled at the return of Christ and will be judged. Eternal life or eternal punishment are the two options..no other.

And, there is no intervening period.

I encourage folks to read the Gospels and Epistles without dispensationalist blinders that insert gaps where they don't exist.

So, when Christ returns, this happens:


Matthew 25:46 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (ESV)

There is no room for an intervening period.

By the way, if someone else wants to try to explain your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15, I'm open to it. I cannot understand the way that you phrase things. Your writing style simply doesn't work for me.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,503
1,795
113
I know you personally won't read this excerpt from article [other than perhaps to skim it], but I place it here for the readers...

this excerpted section pertaining to the distinction between "Israel" and "the Church [which is His body]" and the verses which others use to claim otherwise [i.e. that they are not distinct]:

[quoting FB Hole]

"Beginning with the verses from Romans two: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:28-29). In the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans mankind is examined, so to speak, in the court of God. The verdict — both Jew and Gentile are found to be guilty! “For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:9-11). The verses used above fall, as it were, within the cross examination of the Jew (vss. 2:17-3:8). Being born a Jew did not make one righteous; no, God looked upon the heart. The Gentile is not in view at all in this portion; as to them, God rested His case in the earlier verses (vss. 1:19-2:16).

"We now turn our attention to the second verse [used by some to argue their viewpoint]: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). As we have just seen, the first three chapters of this Epistle show both Jew and Gentile condemned by the Word of God. As far as that goes, they are indeed on common ground! This, however, presents a difficulty in the mind of the Jew. To them, the sovereign grace of God, which concludes all alike under judgment and which now holds out blessing for all, appears to set aside the special promises made to Israel — indeed, just as Covenant Theology has done. In Romans chapters nine, ten and eleven, the Apostle addresses this concern. […<snip>...]
"Paul begins in chapter nine by showing that the sovereign grace of God, in taking up the Gentile, does not make the Word of God (and especially the promises to Israel) of none effect (Rom. 9:6). The Jew, however, tenaciously clings to his natural descent as the guarantor of those promises. They have to learn otherwise. Of Abraham's two sons, Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the child of promise. With Jacob and Esau the argument is even stronger—they were twins born of the same parents (Ishmael had a different mother) and yet, even before they were born, Rebecca is told by God, “The elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:12). This was God’s sovereign election. A Jew cannot simply rest upon his genealogy; for that matter, he never could. The principle, “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4; Heb. 10:38), is indeed common to both the Old Testament and the New. When God looked down upon the Israel of old, He saw a faithful remnant in the midst of an unbelieving nation—this remnant was the true Israel of God.

"In conclusion, neither of the portions (in Romans chapters two and nine), used by Covenant Theologians, speak of a spiritual Israel extending beyond the fold of that nation; rather, these verses speak of a faithful sub-set within that people. It is a principle which excludes. It is not expansive—he is not a Jew; not all Israel."

--FB Hole, Bible Truth Publishers

[end quoting; bold and underline mine; brackets mine]
Why do you pick a weaker Scripture to attack? While I don't agree with your exegesis, I don't care because it's not relevant. And, just because a verse can be explained in a different manner doesn't prove that this explanation is correct.

Let me ask you this. It seems as though you understand the concept of union with Christ. Do you believe that union with Christ makes the person a spiritual Israelite or Jew?

Here's the sequence:

1. The believe is united with Christ.
2. Union with Christ means oneness in a legal and spiritual sense.
3. Christ is a Jew, a physical descendant of Abraham.
4. Therefore, the believer is considered as a physical descendant of Abraham.

This is explained well in Ephesians 2, Galatians 3.

I am astounded that dispensationalists don't pick up on this reasoning, as it plain teaching.

They really need to study the concept of union with Christ, and identity in Christ. I doubt almost any of them understand it.
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
13,829
1,602
113
65
My understanding is that the first resurrection is for the Saints.

Revelation 20:4-6 4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 13Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the LORD's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the LORD, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the LORD himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the LORD in the air. And so we will be with the LORD forever. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

My understanding of the second resurrection is of the wicked being raised to judgement/punishment.


As Paul says in I Corinthians 15, each category of individual will be resurrected in a specific order: first Christ, then His saints at His coming (verse 23), then "the rest of the dead" (Revelation 20:5, 11-13), and lastly, the incorrigible wicked to the second death (Revelation 20:14-15). The "lost" of humanity will rise as "the rest of the dead" in the Great White Throne Judgment.
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
1,863
1,410
113
Matthew 25 states that all nations will be assembled at the return of Christ and will be judged. Eternal life or eternal punishment are the two options..no other.

So, when Christ returns, this happens:

Matthew 25:46 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (ESV)

There is no room for an intervening period.
whats the premillennial comeback to this?