Two particular problems with dispensationalism...

[Naomi25]

Hi guys! I'm hoping I might be able to pick the brains of some dispensationalist. I've been doing some reading/watching on end times. I am, I suppose, what you might call an Amil...although I'm not sure I fit neatly into that camp. But the fact that world events are lining up as they are has bought me to consider dispensationalism again.

The problem being, that while current events might look like what dispensationalists point to, I just cannot make peace with their biblical exegesis on various passages...or even the basic hermeneutics in some larger issues. And that's a real sticking point to me. I don't want to be so stubborn that I miss what's right in front of me, like the Pharisees did of Christ's first coming. But I don't want to push away proper biblical interpretation just because my newspaper headlines are becoming exciting.

Anyway, I thought I might start a thread and ask the two big questions that I'm "sticking" on. It might lead to more, but these are the ones that I can't quite find good answers to....

The first one: Teachers for the Rapture always say that God will take us out of the world before pouring out his wrath on it. They cite passages such as: 1 Thess 1:10, 1 Thess 5:9, Luke 21:36. All about escaping the coming wrath. My question is this: I can find nowhere that states that this 'wrath' must be judgement poured out in the Tribulation. In fact, in context, it seems much more likely that what is being talked about is both wrath and judgement of ultimate finality. In some passages it talks of them being under wrath but us having ultimate salvation, for example:
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

And: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36
Then if we look at some others in context:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Romans 9:22.......and we know that "destruction" means eternal punishment, not the Tribulation trials because....They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. - 2 Thessalonians 1:9–10

Again:
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. - Romans 2:5

Anyway, there are more, but you catch my drift. And no matter how I look, I can't seem to find an author of pastor who addresses this. They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

Right...question two: They also seem to, as far as I can tell, assume that the phrase "the Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation period. How do they arrive at that? The OT seems a little more...liberal (and I hate using that word, by the way!) in it's usage of the phrase. And by that I mean that it seems to employ the phrase when speaking of a time of judgement coming upon the people of God. But even with that more ambiguous usage, I'm still left wondering how you get a very definite period out of it, to the exclusion of his second return. Especially considering that the NT seems to use it much more strictly. The NT writers seem intent on using it in a way that "day" actually means "day", and that day will actually see Christ's return, not just his judgement fall. So....I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

 

[Helen]

Interesting.

This looks like one for what I call 'the heavy boys'.... I'll be reading the responses here :)

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP. first wrath and Tribulation are not the same. Tribulation, or trouble, or persecution is not a judgment, it comes in the world, who is the prince of this world, and is not from God. but Wrath is a punishment, because adjustment have already been passed, from God. so tribulation and Wrath are not the same. but you're correct on 1 Thessalonians 5:9.

me personally, I'm a mid wrath rapture believer. and I base this on
A. the Sealing of the Saint with the Holy Spirit.
B. what the Lord said concering the end, "as in the days of Noah".
C. the Example given in the book of Daniel concering the three Hebrews boys.

and third the day of the Lord is not just one event. and the parousia of the Lord is not a 24hr event either.

but as to the day or the hour of the Lord Jesus parousia no man knows.

PCY.

 

[Naomi25]

Addressing the OP. first wrath and Tribulation are not the same. Tribulation, or trouble, or persecution is not a judgment, it comes in the world, who is the prince of this world, and is not from God. but Wrath is a punishment, because adjustment have already been passed, from God. so tribulation and Wrath are not the same. but you're correct on 1 Thessalonians 5:9.

me personally, I'm a mid wrath rapture believer. and I base this on
A. the Sealing of the Saint with the Holy Spirit.
B. what the Lord said concering the end, "as in the days of Noah".
C. the Example given in the book of Daniel concering the three Hebrews boys.

and third the day of the Lord is not just one event. and the parousia of the Lord is not a 24hr event either.

but as to the day or the hour of the Lord Jesus parousia no man knows.

PCY.

Hi 101, thanks for your reply. Yes...I don't really see what happens within the "tribulation" as God's wrath or judgement either. But from what I can ascertain, plenty of Dispensationalist teachers do, because they claim that's one of the reasons we have to be "out of here" at the beginning of the Tribulation. Because God doesn't appoint us to suffer wrath. I don't quite understand it, myself...hence this thread.

I've never heard of the "example given in Daniel concerning the three Hebrew boys". Plenty about Daniel, of course, but not specifically about that...are you referring to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego? What is it about them that leads you to form your end times theology? Thanks.

As for the parousia being a 24hr event...I'm not convinced that scripture gives us leave to paint in certainties, especially since it is our God we are talking about. I see scripture speaking of all these things happening at Christ's second return...all at the same time; which you must admit is possible for God. But then, I must admit that there could, indeed, be gaps within the text that are not specifically spoken of. We see gaps like that in the two comings of Christ that the OT prophets did not see, so I suppose we must not be so arrogant to assume we are better than they...

I suppose all we can do is try and be true to the scriptures as best we can and pray for guidance. I'm trying, here, to answer questions that help me determine which end time theology has the least holes. I doubt I'll be able to answer all my questions, but I cannot consign them to the ether either. I think God expects us to dig and to pray and to talk to fellow believers about these things, using the wisdom and experience of others. We are not islands, we are a body. So...:)

 

[ScottA]

Hi guys! I'm hoping I might be able to pick the brains of some dispensationalist. I've been doing some reading/watching on end times. I am, I suppose, what you might call an Amil...although I'm not sure I fit neatly into that camp. But the fact that world events are lining up as they are has bought me to consider dispensationalism again.

The problem being, that while current events might look like what dispensationalists point to, I just cannot make peace with their biblical exegesis on various passages...or even the basic hermeneutics in some larger issues. And that's a real sticking point to me. I don't want to be so stubborn that I miss what's right in front of me, like the Pharisees did of Christ's first coming. But I don't want to push away proper biblical interpretation just because my newspaper headlines are becoming exciting.

Anyway, I thought I might start a thread and ask the two big questions that I'm "sticking" on. It might lead to more, but these are the ones that I can't quite find good answers to....

The first one: Teachers for the Rapture always say that God will take us out of the world before pouring out his wrath on it. They cite passages such as: 1 Thess 1:10, 1 Thess 5:9, Luke 21:36. All about escaping the coming wrath. My question is this: I can find nowhere that states that this 'wrath' must be judgement poured out in the Tribulation. In fact, in context, it seems much more likely that what is being talked about is both wrath and judgement of ultimate finality. In some passages it talks of them being under wrath but us having ultimate salvation, for example:
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

And: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36
Then if we look at some others in context:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Romans 9:22.......and we know that "destruction" means eternal punishment, not the Tribulation trials because....They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. - 2 Thessalonians 1:9–10

Again:
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. - Romans 2:5

Anyway, there are more, but you catch my drift. And no matter how I look, I can't seem to find an author of pastor who addresses this. They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

Right...question two: They also seem to, as far as I can tell, assume that the phrase "the Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation period. How do they arrive at that? The OT seems a little more...liberal (and I hate using that word, by the way!) in it's usage of the phrase. And by that I mean that it seems to employ the phrase when speaking of a time of judgement coming upon the people of God. But even with that more ambiguous usage, I'm still left wondering how you get a very definite period out of it, to the exclusion of his second return. Especially considering that the NT seems to use it much more strictly. The NT writers seem intent on using it in a way that "day" actually means "day", and that day will actually see Christ's return, not just his judgement fall. So....I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

1. You have answered your own question, with John 3:36. However, I would say the bigger issue for you is the sheer magnitude of "assumptions." This is due to the fork in the road that scripture presents and a general lack of faith - not yours, but theirs. But, that fork in the road? It's intentional, by design, put in place like the blindness that has come upon Israel, "until the fullness of the gentiles has come." So, the fork in the scriptures leaves room for debate, and the logic of the world that has not seen the end, simply pushes it off until a later time, and eventually to a grand finally...which gains would-be confirmation with every generation until those who would not believe the truth are "given over to the lie." But the truth is: Every generation is subject to great tribulation, by God...but "once to die." Which the timing of should be no mystery, because "Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets." Which He has done through Paul, saying "each in his own order"...meaning that just as all are born in their own order (their own time) "as in Adam all die", so too is it with all things, including tribulations, judgement, and salvation. "Then comes the end."
2. Same answer: an intentional fork in the road of scripture, and an exceeding lack of faith. And apparently, it's just too simple "for the wisdom of their wise men": "The Lords day" is simply...the Lords Day. Just like your great grandfather's "day" - it is His life. As for all of what was included - "there is only One begotten", and only One whose body includes both "the living and the dead"...and His "time under the sun?" "It is finished"

 

[Stranger]

Hi guys! I'm hoping I might be able to pick the brains of some dispensationalist. I've been doing some reading/watching on end times. I am, I suppose, what you might call an Amil...although I'm not sure I fit neatly into that camp. But the fact that world events are lining up as they are has bought me to consider dispensationalism again.

The problem being, that while current events might look like what dispensationalists point to, I just cannot make peace with their biblical exegesis on various passages...or even the basic hermeneutics in some larger issues. And that's a real sticking point to me. I don't want to be so stubborn that I miss what's right in front of me, like the Pharisees did of Christ's first coming. But I don't want to push away proper biblical interpretation just because my newspaper headlines are becoming exciting.

Anyway, I thought I might start a thread and ask the two big questions that I'm "sticking" on. It might lead to more, but these are the ones that I can't quite find good answers to....

The first one: Teachers for the Rapture always say that God will take us out of the world before pouring out his wrath on it. They cite passages such as: 1 Thess 1:10, 1 Thess 5:9, Luke 21:36. All about escaping the coming wrath. My question is this: I can find nowhere that states that this 'wrath' must be judgement poured out in the Tribulation. In fact, in context, it seems much more likely that what is being talked about is both wrath and judgement of ultimate finality. In some passages it talks of them being under wrath but us having ultimate salvation, for example:
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

And: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36
Then if we look at some others in context:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Romans 9:22.......and we know that "destruction" means eternal punishment, not the Tribulation trials because....They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. - 2 Thessalonians 1:9–10

Again:
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. - Romans 2:5

Anyway, there are more, but you catch my drift. And no matter how I look, I can't seem to find an author of pastor who addresses this. They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

Right...question two: They also seem to, as far as I can tell, assume that the phrase "the Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation period. How do they arrive at that? The OT seems a little more...liberal (and I hate using that word, by the way!) in it's usage of the phrase. And by that I mean that it seems to employ the phrase when speaking of a time of judgement coming upon the people of God. But even with that more ambiguous usage, I'm still left wondering how you get a very definite period out of it, to the exclusion of his second return. Especially considering that the NT seems to use it much more strictly. The NT writers seem intent on using it in a way that "day" actually means "day", and that day will actually see Christ's return, not just his judgement fall. So....I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

I am skeptical of your intentions. You present yourself like you really are looking for answers but I think you already have your own doctrine down concerning the Tribulation and feel you can defeat any dispensational argument concerning the Tribulation. I don't believe you are as open as you say you are.

If you don't agree with the hermeneutics of dispensationalists, which you said you don't in some areas, and which you don't being an amillennialist, how do you hope to find an answer to your questions? You already show that dispensationalists have provided answers but you just can't see it. Well, that is because you came up with a different interpretation due to your different method of interpretation. It is a futile effort on your part.

The Scriptures you use show also the problem. Just because the word 'wrath' is used doesn't mean it speaks to the Tribulation.

How about you prove what the 'Day of the Lord' is and how it is not the Tribulation? Then I can sit back and poke holes in it.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi guys! I'm hoping I might be able to pick the brains of some dispensationalist. I've been doing some reading/watching on end times. I am, I suppose, what you might call an Amil...although I'm not sure I fit neatly into that camp. But the fact that world events are lining up as they are has bought me to consider dispensationalism again.

The problem being, that while current events might look like what dispensationalists point to, I just cannot make peace with their biblical exegesis on various passages...or even the basic hermeneutics in some larger issues. And that's a real sticking point to me. I don't want to be so stubborn that I miss what's right in front of me, like the Pharisees did of Christ's first coming. But I don't want to push away proper biblical interpretation just because my newspaper headlines are becoming exciting.

Anyway, I thought I might start a thread and ask the two big questions that I'm "sticking" on. It might lead to more, but these are the ones that I can't quite find good answers to....

The first one: Teachers for the Rapture always say that God will take us out of the world before pouring out his wrath on it. They cite passages such as: 1 Thess 1:10, 1 Thess 5:9, Luke 21:36. All about escaping the coming wrath. My question is this: I can find nowhere that states that this 'wrath' must be judgement poured out in the Tribulation. In fact, in context, it seems much more likely that what is being talked about is both wrath and judgement of ultimate finality. In some passages it talks of them being under wrath but us having ultimate salvation, for example:
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

And: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36
Then if we look at some others in context:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction - Romans 9:22.......and we know that "destruction" means eternal punishment, not the Tribulation trials because....They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. - 2 Thessalonians 1:9–10

Again:
But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. - Romans 2:5

Anyway, there are more, but you catch my drift. And no matter how I look, I can't seem to find an author of pastor who addresses this. They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

Right...question two: They also seem to, as far as I can tell, assume that the phrase "the Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation period. How do they arrive at that? The OT seems a little more...liberal (and I hate using that word, by the way!) in it's usage of the phrase. And by that I mean that it seems to employ the phrase when speaking of a time of judgement coming upon the people of God. But even with that more ambiguous usage, I'm still left wondering how you get a very definite period out of it, to the exclusion of his second return. Especially considering that the NT seems to use it much more strictly. The NT writers seem intent on using it in a way that "day" actually means "day", and that day will actually see Christ's return, not just his judgement fall. So....I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

Marking for alerts.
I know close to nothing about eschatology and I'll be reading along.
Doubt I'll become interested in the end times - don't understand why it's important...
But it is interesting.

 

[bbyrd009]

They all just assume that the "coming wrath" is the Tribulation period and not the righteous judgement due to them for their sin. And I find that unsatisfactory in the least. Can anyone here give a good, biblical reason for this assumption?

nice. and yes, imo the blind leading the blind covers that pretty good i guess. We all have an egoic desire to believe that we are right in our own eyes, and claiming Jesus is documented to manifest seven spirits worse in many ppl, right. That assumption is just how it plays out, and it can be revealed by just Quoting the right vv for consideration, and watching the avoidance happen

 

[bbyrd009]

To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

well of course admitting that today is the day would entail taking some personal responsibility, right

ppl elect kings to fight their battles for...the reason given there, after all lol

 

[bbyrd009]

I know close to nothing about eschatology and I'll be reading along.

know that it is roundly and repeatedly condemned in Scripture, this prognosticating about tomorrow. Oracles are invariably (i think) involved, etc.

 

[Wormwood]

Stranger,

I think we should assume that someone is being honest unless proven otherwise. Clearly, this person is skeptical of dispensationalism but also open to understanding more. It doesn't mean Naomi will accept the explanations because clearly she? holds to a hermeneutical approach that demands a contextual explanation before embracing a theological position. Anyway, this is a discussion board and I think its a great way to open up a discussion. Essentially calling the person a liar out of the gates seems a little heavy-handed.

Naomi,

I also am an Amillennialist. My primary concern about Dispensationalism is the underlying rationale behind the theological framework, regardless of what is going on with world governments or Israel. The construct of the theology is to open the way for God's unfulfilled promises to national Israel to be met. Thus, the purpose of the rapture (as they define it) is to remove the Church so God can get back to the business of dealing with national Israel and fulfilling the promises that Jesus didn't meet in his first appearance.

To me, this is severely problematic. This very premise, regardless if the view is pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib, essentially indicates that the Pharisees were right in their skepticism about Jesus being the Messiah because he truly did not fulfill God's promises to Israel in his first appearance. Their demand for Jesus to become an earthly King and overthrow the Romans to set the Jews above all the other nations was a legitimate request and expectation on their part. I think this is a very flawed understanding of what Jesus came to do and how he has fulfilled EVERY promise God had for the people of Israel. Also, I think the view demotes the Church to a mere addendum to God's work in the world, rather than the central focus that God had in mind from the beginning of time. I think the NT writers clearly express that this is the true nature of the Church. The Church does not "replace" Israel, but is the fulfillment of God's promises to true Israel and believing Gentiles are grafted into that promise.

To focus back on an earthly Jerusalem, earthly Temple and physical Israel is to undermine the very thing that Paul and the author of Hebrews battled fiercely in their day in their writing and preaching. In fact, Paul lost his life over this issue, so I think it is one that needs to be weighed carefully.

Personally, I don't think anything that is going on with Israel or world governments grants Dispensationalism more credibility or detracts from that of Amillennialism. If a one-world government is established and the Temple is rebuilt, I think such activities would still fit very nicely in the Amillennial framework.

 

[Helen]

Marking for alerts.
I know close to nothing about eschatology and I'll be reading along.
Doubt I'll become interested in the end times - don't understand why it's important...
But it is interesting.

Twin's...me too!

 

[Naomi25]

1. You have answered your own question, with John 3:36. However, I would say the bigger issue for you is the sheer magnitude of "assumptions." This is due to the fork in the road that scripture presents and a general lack of faith - not yours, but theirs. But, that fork in the road? It's intentional, by design, put in place like the blindness that has come upon Israel, "until the fullness of the gentiles has come." So, the fork in the scriptures leaves room for debate, and the logic of the world that has not seen the end, simply pushes it off until a later time, and eventually to a grand finally...which gains would-be confirmation with every generation until those who would not believe the truth are "given over to the lie." But the truth is: Every generation is subject to great tribulation, by God...but "once to die." Which the timing of should be no mystery, because "Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets." Which He has done through Paul, saying "each in his own order"...meaning that just as all are born in their own order (their own time) "as in Adam all die", so too is it with all things, including tribulations, judgement, and salvation. "Then comes the end."
2. Same answer: an intentional fork in the road of scripture, and an exceeding lack of faith. And apparently, it's just too simple "for the wisdom of their wise men": "The Lords day" is simply...the Lords Day. Just like your great grandfather's "day" - it is His life. As for all of what was included - "there is only One begotten", and only One whose body includes both "the living and the dead"...and His "time under the sun?" "It is finished"

Hi ScottA. I'm afraid I had a little difficulty following your train of thought, sorry! Mostly likely my fault, as I can be, at times, quite dim! I think I see you saying that scripture presents a lot of 'end times' passages in quite an ambiguous way in order to leave it up for interpretation by the reader...leaving us to divine it by prayer and supplication...faith...? And, of course, what we see in other passages, I suppose.
If this is what you are saying, then I can't disagree, necessarily. But it still behooves us to study, pray, discuss, and walk on in that faith, yes?

 

[Naomi25]

I am skeptical of your intentions. You present yourself like you really are looking for answers but I think you already have your own doctrine down concerning the Tribulation and feel you can defeat any dispensational argument concerning the Tribulation. I don't believe you are as open as you say you are.

If you don't agree with the hermeneutics of dispensationalists, which you said you don't in some areas, and which you don't being an amillennialist, how do you hope to find an answer to your questions? You already show that dispensationalists have provided answers but you just can't see it. Well, that is because you came up with a different interpretation due to your different method of interpretation. It is a futile effort on your part.

The Scriptures you use show also the problem. Just because the word 'wrath' is used doesn't mean it speaks to the Tribulation.

How about you prove what the 'Day of the Lord' is and how it is not the Tribulation? Then I can sit back and poke holes in it.

Stranger

You don't need to be skeptical of my intentions. I wish I could sit back and chuckle gleefully to myself in sure knowledge of what I believe to be absolutely true, and lie in wait to poke holes in others' ideas. It would be somewhat unChristian of me, but it would be more..."comfortable" than the frustrating state I seem to always find myself. Which is this....I find good, valid points on many sides, and flaws on many sides. Sometimes I think I might come to a conclusion, but then something else will come to mind...as I read my bible, or listen to a sermon, or see something transpire in the world. And so back I go...reading, praying, listening. I dig, and dig, and then get to a point where I find I need to ask for opinions...so here I am. Is that legitimate enough for you? Because it's quite sincere. Listening to sermons or reading books are all well and good, but when you have a question about a particular thing, they don't tend to answer back!!

I'll be perfectly honest with you. If I had to pick an end times theology...the one that I "liked" the most...the one that I wanted to be true the most. I'd definitely pick Dispensationalism. Who wouldn't? We get Raptured out of here before all the freaky, bad stuff goes down? Sign me up!! Added to that, my Grandparents were Dispensationalist and they were the sweetest, kindest, most wonderful people who lived for "the blessed hope", so I kind of have a soft spot for it anyway. Plus....dispensationalists have this wonderful....optimism, going forward. How can they not? Every time something bad happens, it's just one step closer to being lifted up on the clouds. So...yes, I see the appeal of it.

But I do struggle with some of the ways they...read into scripture...things that don't seem evident to me. If you went into it without a firm dispensational understanding...would you see it? And truly, I'm not trying to do the "Ha! Gottcha!" thing here. If you can show me...please do...I'm looking for it. But I've gone over it a lot. Some of it I can step back from and go "you know what...there could be a gap of 7 years here, just because it doesn't say there is, doesn't mean there's not...the OT guys didn't know Jesus would have 2 comings, so it could be the same for us." But I'm really struggling with the two question posed above...and I don't think they're unreasonable. And as the asker of the question....I don't think I have to then go on and prove the opposite of what I asked. I asked because I want to know what YOU think.

 

[Naomi25]

Marking for alerts.
I know close to nothing about eschatology and I'll be reading along.
Doubt I'll become interested in the end times - don't understand why it's important...
But it is interesting.

Well, I suppose it's important because God thinks it's important. And I suppose it also depends where we are. It could be important 'cause tomorrow you'll meet your Saviour....or maybe you'll live to a ripe old age and meet him in a more natural way.
Either way, scripture talks about wrapping up human history...putting an end to human sin, pain, death and sorrow. I'm not really sure how you can NOT be interested in a final destination where these things don't exist and where you'll be in a place where joy reigns and you'll be in the presence of God. I would imagine most Christians should think on it a lot....

well of course admitting that today is the day would entail taking some personal responsibility, right

ppl elect kings to fight their battles for...the reason given there, after all lol

I do wonder why you come to the eschatology thread at all, when you don't think Jesus is coming back. Is it because you hope to convince others of this? Just sayin....on my part...good luck with that!

 

[Naomi25]

Stranger,

I think we should assume that someone is being honest unless proven otherwise. Clearly, this person is skeptical of dispensationalism but also open to understanding more. It doesn't mean Naomi will accept the explanations because clearly she? holds to a hermeneutical approach that demands a contextual explanation before embracing a theological position. Anyway, this is a discussion board and I think its a great way to open up a discussion. Essentially calling the person a liar out of the gates seems a little heavy-handed.

Naomi,

I also am an Amillennialist. My primary concern about Dispensationalism is the underlying rationale behind the theological framework, regardless of what is going on with world governments or Israel. The construct of the theology is to open the way for God's unfulfilled promises to national Israel to be met. Thus, the purpose of the rapture (as they define it) is to remove the Church so God can get back to the business of dealing with national Israel and fulfilling the promises that Jesus didn't meet in his first appearance.

To me, this is severely problematic. This very premise, regardless if the view is pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib, essentially indicates that the Pharisees were right in their skepticism about Jesus being the Messiah because he truly did not fulfill God's promises to Israel in his first appearance. Their demand for Jesus to become an earthly King and overthrow the Romans to set the Jews above all the other nations was a legitimate request and expectation on their part. I think this is a very flawed understanding of what Jesus came to do and how he has fulfilled EVERY promise God had for the people of Israel. Also, I think the view demotes the Church to a mere addendum to God's work in the world, rather than the central focus that God had in mind from the beginning of time. I think the NT writers clearly express that this is the true nature of the Church. The Church does not "replace" Israel, but is the fulfillment of God's promises to true Israel and believing Gentiles are grafted into that promise.

To focus back on an earthly Jerusalem, earthly Temple and physical Israel is to undermine the very thing that Paul and the author of Hebrews battled fiercely in their day in their writing and preaching. In fact, Paul lost his life over this issue, so I think it is one that needs to be weighed carefully.

Personally, I don't think anything that is going on with Israel or world governments grants Dispensationalism more credibility or detracts from that of Amillennialism. If a one-world government is established and the Temple is rebuilt, I think such activities would still fit very nicely in the Amillennial framework.

Hi Wormwood! It's been a strange couple of months for me. I think theologically I would still fall among the Amil camp, but I'm learning that the lines are very much not cut and dried. I suppose that's the point you effectively made in your last paragraph.
I think, for me, God has been teaching me to be a bit more open minded...in these things, anyway. Things that sounded ridiculous to me, I now have to admit that, should he want to, God could play things out that way...it's his story.
So, while I think that Christ's second coming reads in scripture like a single event, I cannot disprove a gap. God's done it before. I cannot disprove a Rapture...he's done that before too. I suppose, in return, I'd like dispensationalist to dialogue just as openly about possibilities the other way! Yes, it is possible that those who 'meet him in the air' will do an about turn and go right down again...someones got to do an about turn...us or Jesus!

Israel. Boy...that's a big one! I'm not sure I agree with everything the Dispensationialists believe...but I'm not sure I fall into the neat Amil category on this one...although I'm aware there is a pretty big variance there. We often get accused of "replacement theology"....I'm not actually sure I know what that is, or have heard anyone teaching that. Maybe one or two, but they've been pretty fringe...more Preterist-y. Anyway, I think it's undeniable that God still has plans for national Israel. Yes, I think that Christ fulfilled all of the covenantal promises, that he is the true Israel, and that we must all, Jew and Gentile alike, be grafted into him. But...Romans 9-11 seem to clearly spell out that God's love of the Patriarchs will mean that after he uses their 'partial hardening', he will graft them back in. Granted, that could mean a few different things, and several scholars will argue for them. But in the light of the astronomical odds against national Israel retaining its identity and returning to the land, and becoming a flourishing nation...plus the seemingly constant demonic rhetoric against them....to me, that's sort of a 2=2=4 situation. But will we need to be Raptured out of the way before Jesus starts bringing them to himself? Dunno!
The one thing I am sure on...if the Jews rebuild the Temple and restart the sacrifices...it won't be God honoring...not as He will see it, anyway. The only way they will be able to truly honour their God, will be to acknowledge and worship their true Messiah.

Anyway...I'm keeping an open mind, and as long as it doesn't undermine the essential areas of faith and doctrine, I don't think it hurts to search, watch, pray and wonder....

 

[Wormwood]

Hey Naomi,

Thanks for your response. I understand the importance of being open to different ideas. I certainly believe that God loves the people of national Israel and wants to see them come to Christ. Perhaps bringing the nation together is a means to that end. Yet I don't believe that plan includes removing the Church or stepping back into the Old Covenant system. In my opinion, I think Paul is clearly speaking about the "means by which" all Israel is saved. In essence, he is saying, God hardened Israel so the Gentiles could be brought in and through Israel seeing the Gentiles being saved and their lives transformed, some will turn back to God. In other words, it is through God's work in the Church that every Israelite will find salvation. Thus, he is not talking about a future nation all getting converted, but the process God has enacted that has paved the way for the salvation of each Israelite who comes to know Christ (Israel hardened-> Gentiles receive mercy -> Israelites also see and receive that mercy because of God's salvation being opened to the Gentiles). The "all" here refers to every single Israelite who receives mercy. For example, I could say that "tattoos are given by using a device to inject ink into the skin in a pattern. And so (in this way), all people get tattoos." Thus the point of "all" is not that every single person has a tattoo. Rather it is that all people get a tattoo in this manner of having ink injected in their skin. Every person who has received a tattoo had received it "by this means."

Paul's simple point is that Israel's hardening had a purpose....to turn everyone to disobedience so grace would be available to all. Rather than their hardening making Gentiles look down on them, Paul is teaching the Gentiles to see the hardened hearts of the Jews as part of Gods plan to have mercy on them. This has nothing to do with eschatology and everything to do with the formation of the Church and God's desire and plan to save both Jews and Gentiles in Christ.

 

[Dcopymope]

My question is this: I can find nowhere that states that this 'wrath' must be judgement poured out in the Tribulation. In fact, in context, it seems much more likely that what is being talked about is both wrath and judgement of ultimate finality. In some passages it talks of them being under wrath but us having ultimate salvation, for example:
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

I have my own brand of "dispensationalism", if that's what you want to call it. For end times events, Revelation will always be my primary source of information, since the end is what the book is all about and spells out for you everything that is prophesied to occur in the last days throughout the old and new testament. Some people may believe the wrath and the tribulation to be the same, and I have no idea where they get such notions. The first period that must occur before we even get to the tribulation and wrath, is what Jesus referred to as the "the begining of sorrows", which I believe is the period we are starting to live through now.

(Matthew 24:4-14) "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. {5} For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. {6} And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. {7} For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. {8} All these are the beginning of sorrows. {9} Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. {10} And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. {11} And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. {12} And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. {13} But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. {14} And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

What Jesus Christ refer's to as the "Great Tribulation" shortly after this scripture doesn't occur until the beast sits in the temple and declares himself God, which is clearly shown in Revelation 11 where the very first words are all about the temple.

(Matthew 24:15-16) "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand {16} Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"........

(Matthew 24:21-22) "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. {22} And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened."

(Revelation 11:1-2) "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."

From this point onward until the last words written in Rev 13 is the "Great Tribulation" Jesus Christ spoke of. I know this to be true because the next two chapters are all about the saints who "had victory over the beast and his mark", standing in the midst of God singing and having a hot damn good time.

(Revelation 14:1-3) "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. {2} And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: {3} And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth."

(Revelation 15:1-2) "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. {2} And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Now the "day of the Lord" is generally understood to be the day the saints are gathered together, is given their glorified bodies, followed shortly after by the 'wrath of God', as Jesus describes in Matthew 24. The conclusion of this period is the Lord coming with his army from heaven to kick some serious tail in Rev 19. It is not describing a "second and third coming" as many would assume. There is only one second coming, and it is described in detail as one event.

(Revelation 19:15) "{15} And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God."

Note the term "winepress of the wrath God" here. It is by this alone that I know that this one event known as "the day of the Lord" that started way back in Revelation 14.

(Revelation 14:18-20) {18} And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. {19} And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. {20} And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs."

So to boil it down, the events as they are actually prophesied to occur is as follows:

1. The beginning of sorrows

2. The Great Tribulation, which will be cut short on:

3. The day of the Lord, with its climax being the battle of Armageddon in Rev 19

(Revelation 19:19) "And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army."

At which point they all get their teeth kicked in.

After this we have:

4. Jesus Christ ruling as King over the nations during the millennial period.

5. The Throne Judgement

6. Old heaven and earth passes away with the creation of a new heaven, earth and new Jerusalem, which concludes the entire story.

So....I'm left wondering how dispensational scholars decide to throw all the verses together and come out with "the Day of the Lord" is the Tribulation period, and not his second advent. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't echo scripture soundly.

Any takers? Hoping for a good, solid, sensible, biblical conversation....thanks.

You're right, it doesn't make sense to say "the day of the Lord" is the tribulation period because its not at all true. I would be 'that guy' and tell you to go by the holy spirit, but really, its not hard to see. Just go by occam's razor, by the simplest explanation that is plainly described in the Bible, and you'll be fine. The day of the lord is NOT the great tribulation, the day of the lord is what puts an end to the great tribulation, as I describe in detail above.

 

[ScottA]

Hi ScottA. I'm afraid I had a little difficulty following your train of thought, sorry! Mostly likely my fault, as I can be, at times, quite dim! I think I see you saying that scripture presents a lot of 'end times' passages in quite an ambiguous way in order to leave it up for interpretation by the reader...leaving us to divine it by prayer and supplication...faith...? And, of course, what we see in other passages, I suppose.
If this is what you are saying, then I can't disagree, necessarily. But it still behooves us to study, pray, discuss, and walk on in that faith, yes?

The ambiguity in the scriptures is by design. As it is written, "I have placed before you life and death, therefore, choose life." But many, because they did not love the truth, have chosen to believe a lie, and many who call Christ Lord do not even know Him. These are those who spread the lies of the common interpretation of scripture who lead many astray. So...if you question their interpretations, your intuition is correct. But...it is not up to interpretation. The truth is the truth, and only God speaks it to men.

Study, pray, discuss, and walk in faith. But beware the teachings of men, the scriptures must be discerned spiritually, not by the written word only...for all language, even the scriptures, have been confounded by God, and the truth can only be known by revelation.

 

[Stranger]

You don't need to be skeptical of my intentions. I wish I could sit back and chuckle gleefully to myself in sure knowledge of what I believe to be absolutely true, and lie in wait to poke holes in others' ideas. It would be somewhat unChristian of me, but it would be more..."comfortable" than the frustrating state I seem to always find myself. Which is this....I find good, valid points on many sides, and flaws on many sides. Sometimes I think I might come to a conclusion, but then something else will come to mind...as I read my bible, or listen to a sermon, or see something transpire in the world. And so back I go...reading, praying, listening. I dig, and dig, and then get to a point where I find I need to ask for opinions...so here I am. Is that legitimate enough for you? Because it's quite sincere. Listening to sermons or reading books are all well and good, but when you have a question about a particular thing, they don't tend to answer back!!

I'll be perfectly honest with you. If I had to pick an end times theology...the one that I "liked" the most...the one that I wanted to be true the most. I'd definitely pick Dispensationalism. Who wouldn't? We get Raptured out of here before all the freaky, bad stuff goes down? Sign me up!! Added to that, my Grandparents were Dispensationalist and they were the sweetest, kindest, most wonderful people who lived for "the blessed hope", so I kind of have a soft spot for it anyway. Plus....dispensationalists have this wonderful....optimism, going forward. How can they not? Every time something bad happens, it's just one step closer to being lifted up on the clouds. So...yes, I see the appeal of it.

But I do struggle with some of the ways they...read into scripture...things that don't seem evident to me. If you went into it without a firm dispensational understanding...would you see it? And truly, I'm not trying to do the "Ha! Gottcha!" thing here. If you can show me...please do...I'm looking for it. But I've gone over it a lot. Some of it I can step back from and go "you know what...there could be a gap of 7 years here, just because it doesn't say there is, doesn't mean there's not...the OT guys didn't know Jesus would have 2 comings, so it could be the same for us." But I'm really struggling with the two question posed above...and I don't think they're unreasonable. And as the asker of the question....I don't think I have to then go on and prove the opposite of what I asked. I asked because I want to know what YOU think.

I think that we have discussed this before, but quite awhile back. Haven't we?

I told you what I thought about the impossibility of Dispensationalism and Amillennialism coming to any kind of agreement as the method of interpretation is completely different. Is Israel, Israel? Or is Israel, the Church?

Until you know which method of interpretation you are going to use, you can forget about having satisfactory answers for your questions.

Stranger