Dispensational problems

[Iconoclast]

94. “Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of “genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation. Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian” (Charles Ryrie)—even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19).”

 

[Iconoclast]

95. Despite dispensationalism’s teaching regarding two kinds of Christians, one spiritual and one fleshly (resulting in a “great mass of carnal Christians,” Charles Ryrie), the Scripture makes no such class distinction, noting that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you,” so that “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom 8:9).

“Dispensationalism has thrown down the gauntlet: and it is high time that Covenant theologians take up the challenge and respond Biblically.” – Dr. Robert L. Reymond, author, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for this thread, I have been learning about Dispy folks recently and their errors. This and #26 in which they act like fleshly Jews are some of the biggest.

Keep in mind....many of them are Christians who have adopted a system, many times without knowing any other view exist.

 

[Iconoclast]

I certainly agree with this!

What I'm seeing is so much mispresentation of dispensationalism, and those who hold those sorts of views, well, where is the consideration?

Much love!

I am a simple person.
Look at all the views if you are interested in finding truth.
I do the same thing with cults.
I ask a jw what does a mormon believe?
I asked a mormon elder from Ogden Utah, what does a JW believe, or how about a Presbyterian believe?
He said he did not Know!
So then I asked how can you tell me the book of Mormon is correct when he did not know the answer to my Questions?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Keep in mind....many of them are Christians who have adopted a system, many times without knowing any other view exist.

This is true and it's unfortunate. It's why St. James said "not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." Those who are raised in such are often not at fault, those who knowingly teach error (as the many people quoted who helped create and propagate this system) are.

 

[Truth7t7]

I guess the same as @Iconoclast , you have a particular form of what you call dispensationalism in mind. Are you thinking of the chart he posted?

Ploys? Games? Why do you think I'm even here?

Much love!

My comment isnt directed specifically at you, many that follow dispensationalism follow the dispensations playbook, do they know the name game, Its my "opinion" that the majority do

 

[Zao is life]

77. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).

In truth it's not "a second humiliation of Christ". It's a humiliation of Satan and those who follow him. To call it "a second humiliation of Christ" is blasphemous, and implies that Christ had an earlier "humiliation" (which can only mean He was "humiliated" at the cross), which He was not. He was victorious and it was Satan who was humiliated, along with all those men who wanted Him dead. Satan did not humiliate Christ. Satan humiliated himself, because Christ humiliated Satan, bruising His head.

This entire 95 theses (or whatever the number) is full of ad hominems. I stand to correction (I will have to check), but I don't think Luther's theses contained personal attacks against anyone - they were all "playing the ball but not the man". Your 95 theses, on the other hand is so full of personal attacks against people because of what "they" believe, that it belongs in the same trash can as some of the doctrines you speak about.

 

[Abaxvahl]

In truth it's not "a second humiliation of Christ". It's a humiliation of Satan and those who follow him. To call it "a second humiliation of Christ" is blasphemous, and implies that Christ had an earlier "humiliation" (which can only mean He was "humiliated" at the cross), which He was not.

Isaiah 53:7-8 quoted in Acts 8 of Christ: "He, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death."

And behold the weakness of God was His strength and His humiliation was His victory. It is not incorrect to say that there was one.

 

[Zao is life]

i look for “butting heads” now,
after all, what do goats do.
iron sharpens iron, like the op says
doing well, how about you?

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. And whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22)

I wonder what He would say to me if I had to repeatedly call other Christians "goats" just because they disagree with my interpretation of scripture, and be really underhanded and subtle as I go about it?

 

[Zao is life]

Isaiah 53:7-8 quoted in Acts 8 of Christ: "He, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death."

And behold the weakness of God was His strength and His humiliation was His victory. It is not incorrect to say that there was one.

A. There's no second crucifixion being claimed.
B. He rose again from the dead, Satan having been forever humiliated by His resurrection.
C. He will never die. He will never suffer the shame of that cross, ever again.

To say that those who accept the scripture regarding the millennium plainly for what it is are suggesting a second humiliation of Christ, is a truly evil false accusation.

@Abaxvahl But it's no wonder, because like I already mentioned, this 95 theses is so full of ad hominems that Satan must love almost every one of them, pitting the saints against each other hurling false accusations and personal insults at one another instead of sticking to playing the ball and not the man i.e the doctrine and not the people who believe it. It would be better if Preterists keep the trash among the Preterists circles and pile it up with the rest of the theological trash that Preterists believe.

 

[Abaxvahl]

A. There's no second crucifixion being claimed.

Indeed, I am simply saying that the first and only Crucifixion was one. And amen, it's best that even your enemies not be misrepresented for we should love all as the Lord commanded.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

The literal second coming will happen on the last day.
This coming in the clouds of heaven was a coming in judgment ending the Jewish theocracy. It was the end of that age not the end of the world.

If you're going to argue for 2 separate returns, you had better produce a passage that teaches a Third Coming. Out of the many times i read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, i only read of Christ saying He is returning 1 time.

How many times do you have to be told to stop spreading your lies and slanderous comments? Since you call the Rapture "a fabrication of man" when it is divine doctrine, you will be held seriously accountable for calling God and Christ liars.

Follow your own advice, because there isn't a single instance where Christ or any other apostle re any prophecy concerning a pre-Trib rapture.

 

[teamventure]

30. Despite the dispensationalists’ argument for the “literal” fulfillment of prophecy, when confronted with obvious New Testament, non-literal fulfillments, they will either (1) declare that the original prophecy had “figures of speech” in them (Scofield), or (2) call these “applications” of the Old Testament rather than fulfillments (Paul Tan)—which means that they try to make it impossible to bring any contrary evidence against their system by re-interpreting any such evidence in one of these two directions.

This is just more propaganda.
Cringeworthy and obviously a ploy.

 

[Zao is life]

I was more curious about your knowledge of what you call dispensationalism. What I normally see, and what I'm seeing in this thread, is a lot misrepresentation of what dispensationalists believe.

No matter!

Much love!

I've been taking everything said here with a bag of salt precisely because
(a) There has been no Dispy defense of each thesis sought before or after the publishing of the theses; and
(b) I know only what Dispensationalists believe about the position of unbelievers in the kingdom of God: Gentile unbelievers have no covenant with God and are without hope, but Jewish unbelievers .. well they still somehow have a covenant relationship with God despite their rejection of the blood of Christ; and
(c) The theses is packed with "they" and "their"; "Dispensationalists" and direct or indirect ad hominems; and
(d) It's been produced by Preterists - and like @Truth7t7 pointed out so well, "Pot, Kettle, Black. Rocks, Glass houses".

Whoever complied and supports this trashy theses are no doubt patting themselves on the backs and in their pride have likened it to Luther's 95 Theses. It's an insult to Luther's work.

 

[teamventure]

31. Despite the dispensationalists’ strong commitment to the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and its dependence on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks as “of major importance to premillennialism” (John Walvoord), they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work; and that gap is already four times longer than the whole Seventy Weeks (490 year) period.

So you're saying prophecy isn't literal?
Good luck with that.

 

[bbyrd009]

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be liable to the judgment. And whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool! shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22)

I wonder what He would say to me if I had to repeatedly call other Christians "goats" just because they disagree with my interpretation of scripture, and be really underhanded and subtle as I go about it?

ha well point taken, not sure how subtle that was though? And fwiw i am as subject to goat mode as any other forumer lol, at least sometimes
ntmy btw, im mark

 

[Zao is life]

ha well point taken, not sure how subtle that was though? And fwiw i am as subject to goat mode as any other forumer lol, at least sometimes
ntmy btw, im mark

Thank you, but just point out that you.. Well nb, I was about to say you should point out that you're just as susceptible to goat mode as anyone else when you say stuff like that.. but actually, BAD word to use against another Christian or other Christians.

But good of you that the point is taken

Remind me of how gracious you were in the day you pull me up for a personal attack (God help me never to make personal attacks against other Christians). This 95 Theses is packed with ad hominems against any disagreement with Preterist theology.

 

[Truth7t7]

I've been taking everything said here with a bag of salt precisely because
(a) There has been no Dispy defense of each thesis sought before or after the publishing of the theses; and
(b) I know only what Dispensationalists believe about the position of unbelievers in the kingdom of God: Gentile unbelievers have no covenant with God and are without hope, but Jewish unbelievers .. well they still somehow have a covenant relationship with God despite their rejection of the blood of Christ; and
(c) The theses is packed with "they" and "their"; "Dispensationalists" and direct or indirect ad hominems; and
(d) It's been produced by Preterists - and like @Truth7t7 pointed out so well, "Pot, Kettle, Black. Rocks, Glass houses".

Whoever complied and supports this trashy theses are no doubt patting themselves on the backs and in their pride have likened it to Luther's 95 Theses. It's an insult to Luther's work.

Yes to think a teaching that has unsaved wicked gentiles lost without Gods favor?

Then to claim the Jewish unsaved wicked has favor and covenant with God based upon race?

A teaching that would make Hitler blush, regarding his claims of a superior race, that's my "opinion"

Yes the 95 points is a disgrace to Luther's work, I Agree

 

[Zao is life]

31. Despite the dispensationalists’ strong commitment to the “plain interpretation” of Scripture (Charles Ryrie) and its dependence on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks as “of major importance to premillennialism” (John Walvoord), they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work; and that gap is already four times longer than the whole Seventy Weeks (490 year) period.

This is bogus. It's as bogus as the claim "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks is of major importance to premillennialism” because "they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work"

@Truth7t7 is not a Premillenialist but an Amilllennialist, yet inserts a gap into the second part of Daniel 9:27. I'm a Premillennialist yet do not believe in a gap in any part of Daniel 9:24-27. A literal millennium is as dependent on a gap in Daniel 9:27 as Preterism is upon a future interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. I.O.W not at all.

 

[Truth7t7]

This is bogus. It's as bogus as the claim "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks is of major importance to premillennialism” because "they have to insert into the otherwise chronological progress of the singular period of “Seventy Weeks” (Dan 9:24) a gap in order to make their system work"

@Truth7t7 is not a Premillenialist but an Amilllennialist, yet inserts a gap into the second part of Daniel 9:27. I'm a Premillennialist yet do not believe in a gap in any part of Daniel 9:24-27. A literal millennium is as dependent on a gap in Daniel 9:27 as Preterism is upon a future interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. I.O.W not at all.

It's your claim and "opinion" that Daniel 9:27 took place in 70AD, and it's my "opinion" your wrong, it's a future event infulfilled

The Beast/Man Of Sin/Little Horn/The Antichrist, will be in Jerusalem making abomination and desolation to the (Consummation) the (Ultimate End)

Your claim this event belongs in the 1st century is in "Error", read the definition of "Consummation" over and over, it's a future event unfulfilled, that takes place in Jerusalem, and it's not the consummation of the "age" as you have suggested in another thread

That being poured upon the desolate below is Gods cup of wrath Revelation 14:10 (The End)

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signaturespecifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end : FINISH

Daniel 9:5-27KJV
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.