Distinctives of Dispensationalism

[zone]

Three Distinctives of Dispensationalism

As dispensational thought began to be developed, it was noticed that there are three distinctives about dispensationalism. These are three things which are more true of dispensationalism than they are about other theological systems. First, dispensationalism most consistently interprets the Bible literally. Other systems of understanding the Bible may interpret the Bible literally on occasion, or even most of the time. But dispensationalism is the system that most consistently interprets the Bible literally.

The second distinctive of dispensationalism is that it distinguishes between the church and Israel. This is really just an application of the first distinctive. But the other leading system of understanding the Bible, Covenant Theology, often blends the church and Israel together. A dispensational approach allows us to understand that at one time, God was dealing with Israel, He is now dealing with the church, and one day He will deal with Israel again.

The third distinctive of dispensational understanding has to do with God’s ultimate purpose. Covenant Theology is centred primarily around the idea of salvation. God’s saving of people throughout the Bible is what they base their understanding on. For the dispensationalist, salvation is important, but more important is God’s Glory. Dispensationalism does not focus on salvation. It focuses on God’s testing of man. In every test, man is found wanting, God is vindicated in his power and righteousness, and the glory goes to God.

Dispensationalism < click to read



is this very short article accurate?

 

[Cobus]

The Bible is to be NOT INTERPRTED in any ISM you can dig up. The Bible is God's Truth HE WILL REVEAL, to the hearts of the Trruth SEEKERS. How do these people SEEK God? With all their heart, with all their soul and with all their spirit. Oh the Truth is there to FIND. God's Word is there to be found for ALL who seek.

But do not seek it with 99% of your heart, or 99% of your soul or 99% of your spirit.... God will know it is not 100% and He shall NOT reveal the Truth for you. God said seek me with ALL (that means 100%) or 0%. And this needs no interpretaion, it is even easy for a child to know what ALL means....


Here is another thing. I may show you Scriptures till I am blue in the face, and you are as old as the mountains.... If God does not reveal it to you, you shall NEVER know the Truth, and you shall NEVER be made free... The only important thing for ANY person is to know this..... If you found God, you will NOT BE A LOVED person. For the ones that find God also find a GODLY LIFE here on earth, this preasent earth, and they WILL BE PERSECUTED....

If you want the honor and praise of the world, DO NOT ASK FOR A GODLY LIFE ON THIS PRESENT EARTH.... This World still HATES THE TRUTH.... It is a curse and a hateful thing for this earth. The first conflict on earth was the Truth vs the lie... And the lie is WAY MORE popular. Only God can reveal the Truth, and it is there if you are willing to live Godly on this present world. but know this YOU WILL BE HATED for no reason at all....

Look there need no revelation for this, it is as plain as it was written.... Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

 

[zone]

This World still HATES THE TRUTH....

are you planning to address the OP and address what is the truth of this matter?

there is truth, and there is error - being examined (hopefully) by that single question in the OP.

the error is so serious, it needs to be addressed - sooner or later.

if you don't know what the subject is, please start another thread cobus.
thanks.

 

[zone]

not surprisingly, there are 2 currently active threads re : Dispensationalism.

this thread is to examine the theological and exegetical problems in Dispensationalism.

....

here's a post from the other thread, which is an apologetic for the Dispensational scheme:

"Determining how to consolidate several different literary forms and determine God's over-arching story almost requires a methodology as flexible as the scientific method—make a prediction, see how the evidence supports that prediction, refine the prediction until no further anomalies occur, then use the established framework to interpret the more ambiguous texts.

The established framework adhered to by dispensationlists is that the text of the Bible should be taken literally wherever possible and that the church and the nation of Israel are two separate entities which God has managed via two distinct plans."

What is dispensationalism?

my question is: is the above excerpt from the pro-dispensational link:

TRUE? OR FALSE?

is this true?:

"the church and the nation of Israel are two separate entities which God has managed via two distinct plans"

what's wrong with that statement?

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/78643-what-dispensationalism.html#post1279565 < click thread

 

[zone]

Three Distinctives of Dispensationalism

As dispensational thought began to be developed, it was noticed that there are three distinctives about dispensationalism. These are three things which are more true of dispensationalism than they are about other theological systems. First, dispensationalism most consistently interprets the Bible literally. Other systems of understanding the Bible may interpret the Bible literally on occasion, or even most of the time. But dispensationalism is the system that most consistently interprets the Bible literally.

The second distinctive of dispensationalism is that it distinguishes between the church and Israel. This is really just an application of the first distinctive. But the other leading system of understanding the Bible, Covenant Theology, often blends the church and Israel together. A dispensational approach allows us to understand that at one time, God was dealing with Israel, He is now dealing with the church, and one day He will deal with Israel again.

The third distinctive of dispensational understanding has to do with God’s ultimate purpose. Covenant Theology is centred primarily around the idea of salvation. God’s saving of people throughout the Bible is what they base their understanding on. For the dispensationalist, salvation is important, but more important is God’s Glory. Dispensationalism does not focus on salvation. It focuses on God’s testing of man. In every test, man is found wanting, God is vindicated in his power and righteousness, and the glory goes to God.

Dispensationalism < click to read



is this very short article accurate?

restart..........

 

[Gjolll]

Is this true?:

"the church and the nation of Israel are two separate entities which God has managed via two distinct plans"

what's wrong with that statement?

One vine, one olive tree, many branches that are "being saved." Israel and the church are referring to branches of the same vine, or else "Israel" is a misnomer for a purely secular entity that is outside of God's plan for salvation. Distinguish between those who "are Israel" (the church) and those who are "of Israel" (not the church) (Roms 9;6).

 

[Cobus]

Sorry Zonie I see my last sentence is not on the post... It should say....

FOR ISRAELITE AND GENTILE ALIKE.... ALL END UP IN THE SAME ONE SPIRIT AND GODLY LIFE....

Sorry Zonie there is my answer...

 

[zone]

One vine, one olive tree, many branches that are "being saved." Israel and the church are referring to branches of the same vine, or else "Israel" is a misnomer for a purely secular entity that is outside of God's plan for salvation. Distinguish between those who "are Israel" (the church) and those who are "of Israel" (not the church) (Roms 9;6).

seems simple.

 

[zone]

Sorry Zonie I see my last sentence is not on the post... It should say....

FOR ISRAELITE AND GENTILE ALIKE.... ALL END UP IN THE SAME ONE SPIRIT AND GODLY LIFE....

Sorry Zonie there is my answer...

hey Cobus.
i agree with your answer.
we have no distinction - agree?

saved - same
lost- same.

one way. Jesus.

isn't that what the bible says?

 

[Cobus]

No distinction when we are MADE PERFECTLY ONE IN CHRIST.... We agree... God says PERFECTLY ONE... so how ONE is that... John 17... Will Jesus be different in the Jew than in the Gentile? Jesus cannot be different, or can He? NOPE HE CANNOT...

Jesus is the same in ALL OF US... Eph4 says ONE FATHER who is above in and through you all... ONE FATHER... SAME FATHER...

How we get there is THROUGH JESUS, and there is a doctrine for the circumsized and one for the uncircumsized, but the requiering WAY is Jesus in BOTH DOCTRINES.... The Truth, Way and Life is STILL THE SAME SON OF GOD.... JESUS CHRIST.

All Jews/Israelites in Christ Jesus, and all Gentiles in Chrsit Jesus, came THROUGH JESUS THE SON OF GOD....

Christ Jesus is BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON in ONE SPIRIT.... Jesus said whosoever loves Him keep His Word and the Father will love him and He and the Father will come and make their ABODE with him..... So Both the Father and Son in ONE SPIRIT will move in and remain in all who KEPT HIS WORD... The ONE TRUTH/WORD .... Jesus Christ.... Our Saviour...

Beautiful for the Israelite and the Gentile.... May Christ Jesus be in us all and may we be perfectly ONE WITH HIM and eachother.... For His Glory. Still love you plenty Zonie....

 

[zone]

Daniel's 70th Week, The End Times (Endtimes) Seventieth Week



um...could anyone make sense of this chart?

like,

#4 says: BEFORE THE 70TH WEEK - Israel restored to the Land

which is correct of course. that's what Daniel was told, and that's what happened.

what i'm unclear on, is what's that giant GAP thing doing in there?

#5 says: 70TH WEEK STARTS - 7 Year Peace Agreement to Rebuild The Temple.

i can't find a Peace Agreement to rebuild the Temple. i can't even find a Peace Agreement.

...

can't really proceed to #6 & #7 til i can find that Peace Agreement.

where is it?

 

[SarahM777]

Where does the Bible even says a third temple will be built? The Bible talks of two but three?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Where does the Bible even says a third temple will be built? The Bible talks of two but three?

Revelation 11:1-4 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.

 

[zone]

Where does the Bible even says a third temple will be built? The Bible talks of two but three?

they reason it out this way 'parently:

...

Those who argue, there is no gap between the 69th and 70th week argue the “He” who confirms the covenant in 70th week is Jesus the Messiah, who with his death after 3 ½ years of ministry caused the Temple sacrifice and offering to cease, because they no longer served a purpose.

This interpretation contrives the text to say what it does not. There are several reasons a time-gap is clearly in the context of Daniel’s Seventy weeks.

· Daniel 9:26 indicates Messiah the prince will be cutoff or killed at the end to the end of the 69th week.

· After Messiah’s death, the Temple and city are destroyed, 37 years later.

· The 70th week is not in the context of their destruction.

· Following the death of Messiah the prince the Temple is destroyed, but in the 70th week, a 7-year covenant is confirmed requiring a Temple for sacrifice. Therefore, a future Temple is required.

· Daniel 9:27 indicates the Prince who is to come is a covenant breaker, not a covenant keeper. To break a covenant puts the covenant breaker under the curse of the agreement. Jesus would not break a covenant he confirmed.

Daniel's 70th Week, The End Times (Endtimes) Seventieth Week

...

but:

Daniel 9:26 indicates Messiah the prince will be cutoff or killed at the end to the end of the 69th week??

no, it says AFTER the 69 weeks He is cut off. so, if the 70th week is 2000 years in the future, He hasn't been cut off yet....or....uh....

and:

After Messiah’s death, the Temple and city are destroyed, 37 years later.
The 70th week is not in the context of their destruction.

ya, we know the destruction isn't included in the 70 weeks - they say as much. so what da problem?

then:

Following the death of Messiah the prince the Temple is destroyed, but in the 70th week, a 7-year covenant is confirmed requiring a Temple for sacrifice. Therefore, a future Temple is required.

oh THAT'S how they do it.

 

[SarahM777]

Revelation 11:1-4 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.

Chosen,

John does not say it's a third temple,John saw the temple of his day,he does not say anything of any type of change to the temple as if he is seeing a NEW TEMPLE. John never asks if it's a new temple in any way,shape,or form. John would have noticed any changes to the temple,he had seen so many times before. NONE of the apostles ever mention that Jerusalem and the temple had ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED.John is seeing the same temple he had many,many times before.

 

[zone]

Revelation 11:1-4 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.

is that instructions to build a temple, Chosen?

Daniel 12:7
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Luke 21
The Destruction of Jerusalem
21"Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Chosen,

John does not say it's a third temple,John saw the temple of his day,he does not say anything of any type of change to the temple as if he is seeing a NEW TEMPLE. John never asks if it's a new temple in any way,shape,or form. John would have noticed any changes to the temple,he had seen so many times before. NONE of the apostles ever mention that Jerusalem and the temple had ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED.John is seeing the same temple he had many,many times before.

Wrong Sarah, when John penned Revelation, it was around 95A.D. Therefore the temple had already been destroyed in Jerusalem.

And also Revelation 11 is in the time of Jacob's trouble.

So this temple that John is referring to is the temple in the time of Jacob's trouble.

Here is a blueprint of the coming Tribulation Temple:

Tribulation Temple: First Detailed Blueprints:

[video=youtube;CPiWVZNn86Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiWVZNn86Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]​

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Chosen,

John does not say it's a third temple,John saw the temple of his day,he does not say anything of any type of change to the temple as if he is seeing a NEW TEMPLE. John never asks if it's a new temple in any way,shape,or form. John would have noticed any changes to the temple,he had seen so many times before. NONE of the apostles ever mention that Jerusalem and the temple had ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED.John is seeing the same temple he had many,many times before.

I don't know - but isn't Revelation a prophetic book? Isn't John being shown things that will happen? So if the temple was destroyed - yet John sees a temple - what temple is he seeing. Just asking - not weighing in on this whole thread yet. (Oops didn't see Chosen's post we must have posted around the same time)

 

[zone]

Wrong Sarah, when John penned Revelation, it was around 95A.D.

well, this is something we could talk about.
i believe in the earlier dating

your foundation for the late date is:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." - Eusebius, 325AD QUOTING Irenaeus c.130-202AD

that comment by Irenaesus is obscure.
and Irenaeus was apparently talking about something Polycarp had seen : "For that was seen no very long time since"

maybe Polycarp was talking about John's book

either way, it's 3rd hand, over 3 generations, and it appears is the only real foundation for the later date.

Irenaeus also said this about Revelation, and the number/name of the beast ("Antichrist"):

"As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies."

ancient? hmm...

anyways.....nope. i'm convinced now of the earlier date.
early enough that Herod's temple was the one still standing.

k...later

 

[SarahM777]

well, this is something we could talk about.
i believe in the earlier dating

your foundation for the late date is:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." - Eusebius, 325AD QUOTING Irenaeus c.130-202AD

that comment by Irenaesus is obscure.
and Irenaeus was apparently talking about something Polycarp had seen : "For that was seen no very long time since"

maybe Polycarp was talking about John's book

either way, it's 3rd hand, over 3 generations, and it appears is the only real foundation for the later date.

Irenaeus also said this about Revelation, and the number/name of the beast ("Antichrist"):

"As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies."

ancient? hmm...

anyways.....nope. i'm convinced now of the earlier date.
early enough that Herod's temple was the one still standing.

k...later

But,but I thought Laodicea was destroyed by a great earthquake in about 60-65 AD which also destroyed the cities of Colossase and Hierapolis. (All three cites were part of a triangle)

The tragic AD 60 earthquake

Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis were three closely-situated cities mentioned by Paul in the New Testament, each possessing Christians.

Laodicea was ~10 miles ~WNW of Colossae. Hierapolis was believed to be ~13 miles ~NNE of Laodicea. These three cities formed a crude triangle, the so-called "tri-city" area (See map 1 and map 2).

These cities were the target of a devastating earthquake around AD 60-62, probably just after Paul wrote his letters to the Christians of that area. According to historians, all three cities were destroyed. Barring miraculous intervention, this historic event probably claimed some of the lives of our Christian ancestors.

Realizing these words were written to Christians who may have been on the brink of disaster highlights the need that we should always be prepared to meet God.

The video above (filmed in 1999)—and those shown later—provides a frightening insight into the devastation and suddenness of earthquakes in Turkey (where the ancient tri-city ruins are located).

Fortunately, all indications were that the Christians of the area were living a life "worthy" of Christ (Col 1:10), a life that is described briefly and partially in Colossians 3.

Historical facts about the tri-city earthquake and its aftermath

• Eusebius is said to have chronicled an earthquake destroying Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis (Chron. Olymp. 210.4) in the 10th year of Nero [AD 64]. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible: "That this city [Colossae] perished by an earthquake, a short time after the date of this epistle, we have the testimony of Eusebius..."
  
  
• Tacitus records the quake in the 7th year of Nero (Nero was Emperor of Rome from AD 54-68, putting the earthquake around AD 61—Annals 14.27. Tacitus recorded that Laodicea was also destroyed in the quake, but was later rebuilt apparently without Roman assistance. Note that Jesus wrote to Laodicea, but Colossae was not mentioned among the letters of Revelation. By this time (AD 96), Colossae in large part no longer existed.
  

The tragic AD 60 earthquake of Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis&mdash;ReligiouslyIncorrect.org


Strong's lexicon agrees with this [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt[/FONT] b[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]y Marcus Aurelius.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Only a minor problem in that Aurelius was not born until 121 AD and died in 161 AD,so if the city was destroyed by a major earthquake between 61-65 AD and was not rebuilt till after 121 AD what church in Laodicea was John writing to? [/FONT]