Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.
- Thread starter crossnote
- 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.
A basic hermeneutic or principle of biblical interpretation is that you interpret obscure verses like Rev 20 in light of clearer verses elsewhere and not otherwise.
Watch the futile ettempts to eisegete their presuppositions into these verses though
By the way the same sort of eisegesis was practiced by the founder of the cult I belonged to as a young man. Part of my deprogramming involved understanding basic rules of hermeneutics and seeing all the “rescue devices” that the cult used to keep their floundering ship afloat.
Watch the futile ettempts to eisegete their presuppositions into these verses though
By the way the same sort of eisegesis was practiced by the founder of the cult I belonged to as a young man. Part of my deprogramming involved understanding basic rules of hermeneutics and seeing all the “rescue devices” that the cult used to keep their floundering ship afloat.
-
3
- Show all
A basic hermeneutic or principle of biblical interpretation is that you interpret obscure verses like Rev 20 in light of clearer verses elsewhere and not otherwise.
Watch the futile ettempts to eisegete their presuppositions into these verses though
By the way the same sort of eisegesis was practiced by the founder of the cult I belonged to as a young man. Part of my deprogramming involved understanding basic rules of hermeneutics and seeing all the “rescue devices” that the cult used to keep their floundering ship afloat.
Watch the futile ettempts to eisegete their presuppositions into these verses though
By the way the same sort of eisegesis was practiced by the founder of the cult I belonged to as a young man. Part of my deprogramming involved understanding basic rules of hermeneutics and seeing all the “rescue devices” that the cult used to keep their floundering ship afloat.
I attended dispensationalist churches for a while after the cult, but I never really absorbed their theology.
My exposure was more through friends. Lately, I was searching for a church and the pastor of the church is dispensational. Most of the reason why I started studying it is because of that.
I was shocked to find out that as a rule, they don't believe that the New Covenant is for the Church.
I have been trying to study the topic for over a year, though. I kept putting it off because I knew it would be a long, hard study.
I don't consider dispensationalism to be cultic, or don't have strong issues with dispensationalist brothers, though. It really just rubs me the wrong way that they intentionally misrepresent Reformed people as being anti-Semitic and use words like "spiritualize" and "allegorize" to combat those who hold the covenant theology position.
I should say, though, that the cult taught some things similar to dispensationalism. It is likely because they came out of the Millerite movement, and some within dispensationalism were affected by these teachings in a way.
If you're interested in the historical aspects of dispensationalism, here's a few resources, both by speakers who were dispensationalists before.
This guy named Bruce Gore has a good church history class where he mentions these things.
Bruce is from a PCUSA congregation which is very liberal as a whole, but his church is not part of the liberal ones.
Also, here's three more by Brian Borgman. He is a conservative Reformed Baptist:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101523139
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101519187
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101510492
I should say, I believed at least some elements of dispensationalism, as it was a shock to me to realize that their interpretation of Revelation 20 is really the only evidence to support their claim, and if it is not true, then the entire system falls apart. I started realizing that if you read Scripture using their hermeneutic, there is a battle prior to the Millennium, and then at the end of the Millennium. And, I was exposed to the idea by a friend who had recently become postmillennial that Revelation 20 isn't part of a sequence beginning at Rev 6, but that Revelation is a series of visions with overlapping content. That's really what broke the spell.
Then, realizing that dispensationalists were slandering covenant theologians through claiming that they were "spiritualizing" and "allegorizing" text, as well as claiming they were anti-Semitic, really discredited them in my eyes. I never heard any covenant theologian saying any bad thing about Jews, as, obviously, they know Jesus is a Jew. Martin Luther may have become angry with Jews, and the Roman Catholic Church may have said/did unfortunate things, and fringe groups might be anti-Semitic, but those acts of individuals don't reflect any more on covenant theology than they do on dispensationalism.
My exposure was more through friends. Lately, I was searching for a church and the pastor of the church is dispensational. Most of the reason why I started studying it is because of that.
I was shocked to find out that as a rule, they don't believe that the New Covenant is for the Church.
I have been trying to study the topic for over a year, though. I kept putting it off because I knew it would be a long, hard study.
I don't consider dispensationalism to be cultic, or don't have strong issues with dispensationalist brothers, though. It really just rubs me the wrong way that they intentionally misrepresent Reformed people as being anti-Semitic and use words like "spiritualize" and "allegorize" to combat those who hold the covenant theology position.
I should say, though, that the cult taught some things similar to dispensationalism. It is likely because they came out of the Millerite movement, and some within dispensationalism were affected by these teachings in a way.
If you're interested in the historical aspects of dispensationalism, here's a few resources, both by speakers who were dispensationalists before.
This guy named Bruce Gore has a good church history class where he mentions these things.
Bruce is from a PCUSA congregation which is very liberal as a whole, but his church is not part of the liberal ones.
Also, here's three more by Brian Borgman. He is a conservative Reformed Baptist:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101523139
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101519187
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101510492
I should say, I believed at least some elements of dispensationalism, as it was a shock to me to realize that their interpretation of Revelation 20 is really the only evidence to support their claim, and if it is not true, then the entire system falls apart. I started realizing that if you read Scripture using their hermeneutic, there is a battle prior to the Millennium, and then at the end of the Millennium. And, I was exposed to the idea by a friend who had recently become postmillennial that Revelation 20 isn't part of a sequence beginning at Rev 6, but that Revelation is a series of visions with overlapping content. That's really what broke the spell.
Then, realizing that dispensationalists were slandering covenant theologians through claiming that they were "spiritualizing" and "allegorizing" text, as well as claiming they were anti-Semitic, really discredited them in my eyes. I never heard any covenant theologian saying any bad thing about Jews, as, obviously, they know Jesus is a Jew. Martin Luther may have become angry with Jews, and the Roman Catholic Church may have said/did unfortunate things, and fringe groups might be anti-Semitic, but those acts of individuals don't reflect any more on covenant theology than they do on dispensationalism.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I wasn't very coherent when I was composing this, and forgot to mention...the battle prior to the Millennium, and after the Millennium, if Revelation is read like dispensationalists read it, were way too similar for me to simply dismiss. I was convinced they were the same battle, and the way dispensationalists read Revelation is incorrect.
This observation provoked my interest, and I began studying the topic, although I am still studying it.
I am reading this book right now, which I'd highly recommend. The author writes in a conversation style. He also has a whole set of messages on dispensationalism on Reformed Forum related to the book.
https://smile.amazon.com/Identifyin...g+the+seed+rob+mckenzie&qid=1579791015&sr=8-3
Here's the link to the Reformed Forum messages on it:
https://reformedforum.org/?s=dispensationalism
The thirteen part series is the main one I'm referring to, but there are some other ones related to dispensationalism too.
As I mentioned Rob McKenzie is a former dispensationalist.
This observation provoked my interest, and I began studying the topic, although I am still studying it.
I am reading this book right now, which I'd highly recommend. The author writes in a conversation style. He also has a whole set of messages on dispensationalism on Reformed Forum related to the book.
https://smile.amazon.com/Identifyin...g+the+seed+rob+mckenzie&qid=1579791015&sr=8-3
Here's the link to the Reformed Forum messages on it:
https://reformedforum.org/?s=dispensationalism
The thirteen part series is the main one I'm referring to, but there are some other ones related to dispensationalism too.
As I mentioned Rob McKenzie is a former dispensationalist.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Sam Storms is an ex-dispensationalist, has written a very good book on why amillennialism is a better option than dispensationalism, and here is an excerpt that gives some very good reasons:
Scriptural Challenges for Premillenialists
Sam Storms
If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:
• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.
• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.
• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
So what’s wrong with believing these things, asks the premillennialist? What’s wrong is that these many things that premillennialists must believe (because of the way they interpret Scripture), the NT explicitly denies. In other words, in my study of the second coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what premillennialism requires us to believe, death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the parousia, the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the parousia, the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the parousia, all opportunity to receive Christ as savior terminates at the parousia, and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the parousia. Simply put, the NT portrayals of the second coming of Christ forced me to conclude that a millennial age, subsequent to Christ’s return, of the sort proposed by premillennialism was impossible.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...u-must-believe-if-you-are-a-premillennialist/
Scriptural Challenges for Premillenialists
Sam Storms
If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:
• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.
• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.
• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.
So what’s wrong with believing these things, asks the premillennialist? What’s wrong is that these many things that premillennialists must believe (because of the way they interpret Scripture), the NT explicitly denies. In other words, in my study of the second coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what premillennialism requires us to believe, death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the parousia, the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the parousia, the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the parousia, all opportunity to receive Christ as savior terminates at the parousia, and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the parousia. Simply put, the NT portrayals of the second coming of Christ forced me to conclude that a millennial age, subsequent to Christ’s return, of the sort proposed by premillennialism was impossible.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...u-must-believe-if-you-are-a-premillennialist/
-
2
- Show all
It's time for dispensationalists to make their case:
You define the "kingdom of God" as a physical kingdom, which begins at the return of Christ, and extends until the end of the Millennium, as you understand Revelation 20.
Covenant theology views the "kingdom of God" as a spiritual kingdom, inaugurated at this time with its' fullest culmination at the return of Jesus, when the New Heavens and New Earth are manifested.
My question is, how do you reconcile 1 Corinthians 15 with your view?
1 Corinthians 15:50-55 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (ESV)
So, Paul, according to 1 Corinthians 15, indicates that flesh and blood humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
However, the dispensationalist teaching is that flesh and blood humans inherit the kingdom of God at Jesus' return.
How do you make sense of this?
This is an excerpt from Identifying the Seed, by Rob McKenzie (a former dispensationalist):
"This (dispensationalist belief) seems very strange to Covenant Theologians since 1 Cor 15:50 says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. If this is true, how then can a person in a natural flesh and blood body enter into a physical kingdom such as is set forth in Dispensationalism? According to 1 Corinthians, this would be impossible. The Kingdom of God in its fullness is imperishable, and perishable flesh cannot inherit the imperishable. The Dispensationalist will ask the same question of the Reformed. If Covenant Theology teaches that we enter into the Kingdome today and we are in flesh and blood bodies, don't we have the same problem to deal with? It is a fair question. Covenant Theology, however, has an answer. Today, we have entered into a Kingdom that is currently being built. The final building of the Kingdom is a New Heavens and a New Earth; these are imperishable and eternal, as our new bodies will be. The Kingdome that Christ is building in the present is spiritual which is why Paul tells us that flesh and blood do not enter in. When the Kingdom comes in its fullness and the New Heavens and the New Earth are created, all of God's people will enter in - clothed in their new eternal bodies, not their current corruptible and temporal bodies.The aspect of the Kingdom that is breaking into this age has to do with our salvation and sanctification, the aspect of the Kingdom that will be in the age to come will be the Kingdom in its fullness."
This is one of many problems that dispensationalism presents. Supposedly we have this world where the Curse is mostly removed, but not entirely, and human rebellion, death and destruction still occur. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria of the Kingdom of God that 1 Corinthians 15 presents..death is defeated at Jesus' return.
By the way, I have mentioned this before, and I usually receive some kind of incoherent attempt to work additional timeframes into 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, I asked a dispensationalist friend to read the explanation I've been presented with. My dispensationalist friend couldn't even understand the guys' exegesis. So, there's little chance I'm going to be able to understand it. If someone who is reasonably articulate wants to present the case, fine. I've already ignored people I can't understand, or who are extremely rude. Sorry, but my time is valuable and I'm not going to read an explanation and study it for hours to understand incoherent ramblings of someone who thinks they know what they are talking about. At first, I just thought it was me and my dullness or unfamiliarity with the theology, but even my dispensationalist friend, who is fairly knowledgeable, couldn't understand it. I regret this because from what I've seen, the guy is reasonably kind but I simply can't understand him.
After I have seen the kind of exegesis presented, attempting to insert gaps where there are no gaps, I'm convinced dispensationalism is simply the same as this: the Emperor has no clothes. Unfortunately, it is the most popular hermeneutic today, due to the influence of Pentecostalism and "Bible colleges", Dallas Theological Seminary, etcetera.
You define the "kingdom of God" as a physical kingdom, which begins at the return of Christ, and extends until the end of the Millennium, as you understand Revelation 20.
Covenant theology views the "kingdom of God" as a spiritual kingdom, inaugurated at this time with its' fullest culmination at the return of Jesus, when the New Heavens and New Earth are manifested.
My question is, how do you reconcile 1 Corinthians 15 with your view?
1 Corinthians 15:50-55 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (ESV)
So, Paul, according to 1 Corinthians 15, indicates that flesh and blood humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
However, the dispensationalist teaching is that flesh and blood humans inherit the kingdom of God at Jesus' return.
How do you make sense of this?
This is an excerpt from Identifying the Seed, by Rob McKenzie (a former dispensationalist):
"This (dispensationalist belief) seems very strange to Covenant Theologians since 1 Cor 15:50 says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. If this is true, how then can a person in a natural flesh and blood body enter into a physical kingdom such as is set forth in Dispensationalism? According to 1 Corinthians, this would be impossible. The Kingdom of God in its fullness is imperishable, and perishable flesh cannot inherit the imperishable. The Dispensationalist will ask the same question of the Reformed. If Covenant Theology teaches that we enter into the Kingdome today and we are in flesh and blood bodies, don't we have the same problem to deal with? It is a fair question. Covenant Theology, however, has an answer. Today, we have entered into a Kingdom that is currently being built. The final building of the Kingdom is a New Heavens and a New Earth; these are imperishable and eternal, as our new bodies will be. The Kingdome that Christ is building in the present is spiritual which is why Paul tells us that flesh and blood do not enter in. When the Kingdom comes in its fullness and the New Heavens and the New Earth are created, all of God's people will enter in - clothed in their new eternal bodies, not their current corruptible and temporal bodies.The aspect of the Kingdom that is breaking into this age has to do with our salvation and sanctification, the aspect of the Kingdom that will be in the age to come will be the Kingdom in its fullness."
This is one of many problems that dispensationalism presents. Supposedly we have this world where the Curse is mostly removed, but not entirely, and human rebellion, death and destruction still occur. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria of the Kingdom of God that 1 Corinthians 15 presents..death is defeated at Jesus' return.
By the way, I have mentioned this before, and I usually receive some kind of incoherent attempt to work additional timeframes into 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, I asked a dispensationalist friend to read the explanation I've been presented with. My dispensationalist friend couldn't even understand the guys' exegesis. So, there's little chance I'm going to be able to understand it. If someone who is reasonably articulate wants to present the case, fine. I've already ignored people I can't understand, or who are extremely rude. Sorry, but my time is valuable and I'm not going to read an explanation and study it for hours to understand incoherent ramblings of someone who thinks they know what they are talking about. At first, I just thought it was me and my dullness or unfamiliarity with the theology, but even my dispensationalist friend, who is fairly knowledgeable, couldn't understand it. I regret this because from what I've seen, the guy is reasonably kind but I simply can't understand him.
After I have seen the kind of exegesis presented, attempting to insert gaps where there are no gaps, I'm convinced dispensationalism is simply the same as this: the Emperor has no clothes. Unfortunately, it is the most popular hermeneutic today, due to the influence of Pentecostalism and "Bible colleges", Dallas Theological Seminary, etcetera.
-
3
- Show all
The key to note is that the same English term used in the KJV can mean different things in the Greek. The classic example is the term heaven. Depending on where it is used, it can mean the first heaven, the skies, where the birds fly, the second heaven or outer space where the stars and planets are, or the 3rd heaven when the throne of God is.
Likewise, the word tribulation does not always means Jacob's trouble or the 7 years great tribulation, it can also mean sufferings that we are undergoing now, as Paul has used 1 Thess 3:4. Someone who rightly divide the word of Truth should not use 1 Thess 3:4 to conclude that Paul is saying the Body of Christ will also be going thru Jacob's trouble.
Once you are able to understand the above point, when you then read Paul talking about the Kingdom of God, in that Colossians passage or even at the end of Acts, Acts 28, it does not mean the same Kingdom of God used by Peter and the 11, the latter refers to the physical kingdom of heaven on Earth, where Jesus will reign as King over the Jews sitting on David's throne.
Paul is not referring to that physical kingdom when he talks about the Kingdom of God. Hope this clarifies for you.
Likewise, the word tribulation does not always means Jacob's trouble or the 7 years great tribulation, it can also mean sufferings that we are undergoing now, as Paul has used 1 Thess 3:4. Someone who rightly divide the word of Truth should not use 1 Thess 3:4 to conclude that Paul is saying the Body of Christ will also be going thru Jacob's trouble.
Once you are able to understand the above point, when you then read Paul talking about the Kingdom of God, in that Colossians passage or even at the end of Acts, Acts 28, it does not mean the same Kingdom of God used by Peter and the 11, the latter refers to the physical kingdom of heaven on Earth, where Jesus will reign as King over the Jews sitting on David's throne.
Paul is not referring to that physical kingdom when he talks about the Kingdom of God. Hope this clarifies for you.
How does this statement fit with the below from Luke 17?
20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
When does the kingdom go from invisible to visible? When does the kingdom cease from being within us to an external throne on Earth?
Acts 7: 48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says.
When in the history of the world from Genesis until today did God (including Jesus) ever reign from an earthly temple? Why would He start? Food for thought..
20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
When does the kingdom go from invisible to visible? When does the kingdom cease from being within us to an external throne on Earth?
Acts 7: 48 “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says.
When in the history of the world from Genesis until today did God (including Jesus) ever reign from an earthly temple? Why would He start? Food for thought..
-
1
- Show all
What was the last question the 11 asked Jesus before he ascended to heaven? Acts 1 recorded
"Are you at this time, going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?
Notice Jesus did not reply them with "Don't be silly and ask that stupid question. Didn't I already tell you in the 4 Gospels that my kingdom is
"Are you at this time, going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?
Notice Jesus did not reply them with "Don't be silly and ask that stupid question. Didn't I already tell you in the 4 Gospels that my kingdom is
- not of this world? John 18:36
- is already among you? Luke 17:21
No, it sounds like you are trying to put a patch on a false system
We call these "rescue devices" in apologetics.
Those who are firmly convinced of a particular worldview will defend it in whatever way is necessary, rather than rejecting their theology.
Dispensationalists insist that "Kingdom of God" is a physical kingdom. It cannot be a spiritual kingdom that Jesus inaugurated at his first advent, which consummates in the New Heaven and New Earth. Therefore, they are not allowed to use the phrase in any other way.
In fact, early dispensationalists claimed that "kingdom of heaven" referred to the realm of Christ in heaven, and "kingdom of God" referred to this physical kingdom. However, that idea was discarded when others began to realize that the same parallel passages in the other gospel writers used the phrase interchangeably.
Dispensationalists are full of double-talk to support their beliefs, until they are disproven...
Here's another example. Some dispensationalist teachers even claim there are two gospels..the gospel of the kingdom of God and the gospel of the cross. Renald Showers is one of those individuals. He is supposed to be a fantastic authority on dispensationalism. My amillennial friends won't even read his book, once they realized that he believes in this "two gospel" view. He mentions it in the first few chapters, and that's the point where he loses the amillennial audience.
I suggest that folks really understand what dispensationalism teaches before they buy into their belief system. As I have mentioned, a lot of them don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant. It's insane, yet most conservative churches in the USA are dispensational.
We call these "rescue devices" in apologetics.
Those who are firmly convinced of a particular worldview will defend it in whatever way is necessary, rather than rejecting their theology.
Dispensationalists insist that "Kingdom of God" is a physical kingdom. It cannot be a spiritual kingdom that Jesus inaugurated at his first advent, which consummates in the New Heaven and New Earth. Therefore, they are not allowed to use the phrase in any other way.
In fact, early dispensationalists claimed that "kingdom of heaven" referred to the realm of Christ in heaven, and "kingdom of God" referred to this physical kingdom. However, that idea was discarded when others began to realize that the same parallel passages in the other gospel writers used the phrase interchangeably.
Dispensationalists are full of double-talk to support their beliefs, until they are disproven...
Here's another example. Some dispensationalist teachers even claim there are two gospels..the gospel of the kingdom of God and the gospel of the cross. Renald Showers is one of those individuals. He is supposed to be a fantastic authority on dispensationalism. My amillennial friends won't even read his book, once they realized that he believes in this "two gospel" view. He mentions it in the first few chapters, and that's the point where he loses the amillennial audience.
I suggest that folks really understand what dispensationalism teaches before they buy into their belief system. As I have mentioned, a lot of them don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant. It's insane, yet most conservative churches in the USA are dispensational.
-
2
- Show all
His followers didn't even understand Gentiles were going to be added to the Church at that time. They didn't understand, either, that elements of the Mosaic Law were still not applicable.
The Holy Spirit was received by them at Pentecost, and this enlightened their understanding and their memory of things he had said to them that they did not understand before.
So, why would you insist that their conception physical Israel would receive a literal kingdom would be accurate?
The Holy Spirit was received by them at Pentecost, and this enlightened their understanding and their memory of things he had said to them that they did not understand before.
So, why would you insist that their conception physical Israel would receive a literal kingdom would be accurate?
-
2
- Show all
No, it sounds like you are trying to put a patch on a false system
We call these "rescue devices" in apologetics.
Those who are firmly convinced of a particular worldview will defend it in whatever way is necessary, rather than rejecting their theology.
Dispensationalists insist that "Kingdom of God" is a physical kingdom. It cannot be a spiritual kingdom that Jesus inaugurated at his first advent, which consummates in the New Heaven and New Earth. Therefore, they are not allowed to use the phrase in any other way.
In fact, early dispensationalists claimed that "kingdom of heaven" referred to the realm of Christ in heaven, and "kingdom of God" referred to this physical kingdom. However, that idea was discarded when others began to realize that the same parallel passages in the other gospel writers used the phrase interchangeably.
Dispensationalists are full of double-talk to support their beliefs, until they are disproven...
Here's another example. Some dispensationalist teachers even claim there are two gospels..the gospel of the kingdom of God and the gospel of the cross. Renald Showers is one of those individuals. He is supposed to be a fantastic authority on dispensationalism. My amillennial friends won't even read his book, once they realized that he believes in this "two gospel" view. He mentions it in the first few chapters, and that's the point where he loses the amillennial audience.
I suggest that folks really understand what dispensationalism teaches before they buy into their belief system. As I have mentioned, a lot of them don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant. It's insane, yet most conservative churches in the USA are dispensational.
We call these "rescue devices" in apologetics.
Those who are firmly convinced of a particular worldview will defend it in whatever way is necessary, rather than rejecting their theology.
Dispensationalists insist that "Kingdom of God" is a physical kingdom. It cannot be a spiritual kingdom that Jesus inaugurated at his first advent, which consummates in the New Heaven and New Earth. Therefore, they are not allowed to use the phrase in any other way.
In fact, early dispensationalists claimed that "kingdom of heaven" referred to the realm of Christ in heaven, and "kingdom of God" referred to this physical kingdom. However, that idea was discarded when others began to realize that the same parallel passages in the other gospel writers used the phrase interchangeably.
Dispensationalists are full of double-talk to support their beliefs, until they are disproven...
Here's another example. Some dispensationalist teachers even claim there are two gospels..the gospel of the kingdom of God and the gospel of the cross. Renald Showers is one of those individuals. He is supposed to be a fantastic authority on dispensationalism. My amillennial friends won't even read his book, once they realized that he believes in this "two gospel" view. He mentions it in the first few chapters, and that's the point where he loses the amillennial audience.
I suggest that folks really understand what dispensationalism teaches before they buy into their belief system. As I have mentioned, a lot of them don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant. It's insane, yet most conservative churches in the USA are dispensational.