Two particular problems with dispensationalism...

[Naomi25]

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.

Hi Wormwood! I absolutely agree that there is no going back to the old covenant! And really, i'd also agree with your take on the 'how' and 'why' Israel is saved. I just think that the Romans passage added to what we are seeing today suggests that God is lining up to bring a great number of Jews to Jesus (not through the old covenant, but bringing them into the Church, I suppose we'd call it). Grafting them back onto Jesus.
I suppose what I find interesting is just how much of what the Dispensationalists look at in the 'Ezekiel War' seem to be lining up. Not that anything in the Amil thought would necessarily dismiss that...it's just not talked about. But it makes me wonder if there could be more harmony between the views than we've previously thought. (I await some horrified gasps!)

I'm not sure we can so readily dismiss Paul's intent here, about eschatology. Consider:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. - Romans 11:25

This same phrase "of the Gentiles" is used by Christ in the Olivet Discourse:

They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. - Luke 21:24


... it also seems to suggest that there will be a future time when God will be done with the Gentiles. Perhaps not in a "Rapture" way, but I think it does mean we cannot just assume it doesn't refer to end times...don't you think?

 

[Naomi25]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.

Revelation...you've got to love it. No one can agree on how to interpret it, but everyone agrees that God wins!
It's funny, actually, I've done a bit of digging over the years, and it was only recently that I discovered that Chapter 19 was considered...by most..."the return of Christ". Shows that there's always something to learn, huh?!!

 

[pastor marty]

Twin's...me too!

***********I say Naomi/2 many polysyllabic words/Yer not addressing the SAT boards /Paul had a mensa I.Q. /Made catching Christians easy/Trying 2 get us 2 do yer post-doc ???naughty-naughty !!***1%ter*****

 

[GodsGrace]

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....

Hey Naomi,
Welcome to the forum.

I didn't say I'm not interested in my final destination.
I said I'm not interested in eschatology. The end times do not interest me.

I know human history will be wrapped up. For some it'll be wrapped up today, just like you said.

So if it's today, or Jesus comes back in 3 years, or it goes on another 200 and I won't be here --- I just don't understand why it's important.
Jesus said it wasn't even for HIM to know, so why should we bother ourselves with all this back and forth talk that leads nowhere...

 

[bbyrd009]

or maybe you'll live to a ripe old age and meet him in a more natural way.

or maybe you'll even meet Him in the air today, who knows. Only the Father, i guess

I do wonder why you come to the eschatology thread at all, when you don't think Jesus is coming back.

ah, i do try to conscientiously avoid eschatology and pornography, yes, my bad. Christ is here, right now!
the kingdom of heaven is characterized as beside us or within us for a good reason, and you don't gotta wait for Jesus to do anything else to move from one state to the other, wadr

 

[Wormwood]

Naomi,

Certainly, Romans 11:25 is a key passage in understanding what Paul is saying. Unfortunately, I don't think this is translated well in many Bibles and therefore is a bit misleading. The word in question here is πλήρωμα. Many translations give this word a numerical connotation, (full number, full completed number, etc) but is talking about the full spiritual blessing that is now being poured out upon the Gentiles in Christ. This same word is used in similar contexts in passages like John 1:16, Rom 15:29, and Eph 3:19.

In fact, I think Paul is basically restating what he has already said in verses 11 & 12 when he writes:

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

The word translated "full inclusion" is also this word πλήρωμα. So, clearly Paul here is not talking about a numerical quantity of Israelites but the fullness of God's mercy and invitation to them to find life in Christ. In the same way, in verse 25, Paul is saying that God hardened Israel until the fullness of his blessing has εἰσέρχομαι (arrived, come, come in) for the Gentiles. So again, the point here is not (as many Dispensationalists put it) that God has a church age where he saves Gentiles and then turns off that valve of grace (perhaps in the rapture) so he can turn on the valve of grace to save all of national Israel. The point is that God has hardened Israel for a time and has chosen this time to fully include the Gentiles in his grace and mercy so as to make Israel jealous. As a result of this full blessing poured out on the Gentiles, God aims to use that as a means to pour our his full blessing and inclusion on Israel as well.

So, you may disagree, but I still maintain this is not about eschatology, but about God's current plan in Paul's day to save both Jews and Gentiles.

To answer your question, "No, I don't believe there will be a time when God is done with the Gentiles." According to Paul, those walls are now broken down. God's people are no longer the result of flesh and blood or genealogy. God sees his children as those of faith. Those who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham and there is no longer Jew or Greek. We are all one in Christ. That is why the dispensaiontalist system is particularly bothersome to me. It seems they want to erect walls of division based on flesh when Christ has intentionally torn down those wall so that "true Israel" are those who are born of the Spirit, not born of flesh. I think that is the overarching thrust of Paul's teaching in Romans 9-11, and yet some has used these passages to teach quite the opposite of what Paul was trying to communicate! Paul is talking about God's sovereign choice to make a person's faith the means by which he designates his children, and people have used these chapters to teach predetermination and God's special focus on a people based on their flesh, not their faith! Very disappointing in my mind.

 

[Naomi25]

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.

It's true there is some ambiguity in some scripture, but I'd have to say that by and large most of it is clear, and most of it comes clear by reading other scripture. God would not have given us his word and not made it relatively easy to understand.
But yes...it does make me wonder sometimes. As Christians we all have the Holy Spirit. We all pray for understanding and wisdom regarding his will and word. And many, many good scholars and preachers believe...truly believe, they are correct in their interpretations. They can't all be right. Can they all have small bit's right? I'm not sure.

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

You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling you just don't like me. Sorry about that. I'm not fishing for a bite, if that's what you think, I am truly trying to sort through this all in my head. I would have thought you'd taken the chance to try and lay out your view biblically, since I'm actually asking you to show it to me. But that's okay if you don't feel like it, I get it. There's so many out there who are not faithful, I don't really blame you. Nothing brings out the...well...crazy, like conversation on these things!

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi,

Certainly, Romans 11:25 is a key passage in understanding what Paul is saying. Unfortunately, I don't think this is translated well in many Bibles and therefore is a bit misleading. The word in question here is πλήρωμα. Many translations give this word a numerical connotation, (full number, full completed number, etc) but is talking about the full spiritual blessing that is now being poured out upon the Gentiles in Christ. This same word is used in similar contexts in passages like John 1:16, Rom 15:29, and Eph 3:19.

In fact, I think Paul is basically restating what he has already said in verses 11 & 12 when he writes:

11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

The word translated "full inclusion" is also this word πλήρωμα. So, clearly Paul here is not talking about a numerical quantity of Israelites but the fullness of God's mercy and invitation to them to find life in Christ. In the same way, in verse 25, Paul is saying that God hardened Israel until the fullness of his blessing has εἰσέρχομαι (arrived, come, come in) for the Gentiles. So again, the point here is not (as many Dispensationalists put it) that God has a church age where he saves Gentiles and then turns off that valve of grace (perhaps in the rapture) so he can turn on the valve of grace to save all of national Israel. The point is that God has hardened Israel for a time and has chosen this time to fully include the Gentiles in his grace and mercy so as to make Israel jealous. As a result of this full blessing poured out on the Gentiles, God aims to use that as a means to pour our his full blessing and inclusion on Israel as well.

So, you may disagree, but I still maintain this is not about eschatology, but about God's current plan in Paul's day to save both Jews and Gentiles.

To answer your question, "No, I don't believe there will be a time when God is done with the Gentiles." According to Paul, those walls are now broken down. God's people are no longer the result of flesh and blood or genealogy. God sees his children as those of faith. Those who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham and there is no longer Jew or Greek. We are all one in Christ. That is why the dispensaiontalist system is particularly bothersome to me. It seems they want to erect walls of division based on flesh when Christ has intentionally torn down those wall so that "true Israel" are those who are born of the Spirit, not born of flesh. I think that is the overarching thrust of Paul's teaching in Romans 9-11, and yet some has used these passages to teach quite the opposite of what Paul was trying to communicate! Paul is talking about God's sovereign choice to make a person's faith the means by which he designates his children, and people have used these chapters to teach predetermination and God's special focus on a people based on their flesh, not their faith! Very disappointing in my mind.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it reading this way. Even if you are correct in the right usage of the meaning of πλήρωμα, I still don't think it changes the context of these passages. Let me clarify before going on: I absolutely agree with you on what Paul is trying to say in breaking down that wall between Jew and Gentile. There IS only one people...Christ's followers. There IS only one covenant...the new one in his blood.
However....as in Paul's day, it's the same in ours. The Jewish people continue to be "partially hardened" (11:25) in their faith. They do not see or recognize Christ as their Messiah. Some do...some come to Christ and are welcomed into the faith (11:5). We'd say they become part of the Church...Paul might say they are 'grafted back in'. I think that what Paul is saying in these Chapters is that God, in his love and faithfulness (11:28b-29), will at some point, draw a great number of Jews to himself through Christ (11:12, 26, 36). Into the Church...back into the olive tree. And he tells us Gentiles not to become proud towards these 'broken off' branches at present, that he is using their disobedience for a purpose (11:18).

Here's how I see it. In the OT God worked through his 'chosen' people, the Jews. The majority of 'elect' were Jews. But not all Jews were elect and saved, even back then, there were clear cases of those who sinned against God and were punished and cast out of the Covenant people. There were also the rare cases of Gentiles being welcomed into the elect people...like Rahab and Ruth. Then came the NT and the new covenant. God partially hardened the Jews and we saw a reversal. Now, most of the elect come from Gentile nations. But we still see a few Jews who are coming to Christ. I think Romans speak of a time when that hardening will lift. Not every single Jew will turn to Christ, but a large number will recognize him as their Messiah and be grafted back in. It may come at a time when Gentile faith is waning...apostasy is growing. Perhaps...perhaps not. But I think too many time in Romans 11 in particular it speaks of "if....then" in regards to the Jews. "if" they are hardened now, how amazing will it be "when" they are redeemed. And for all that Paul is pushing for the notion that there is now only one way to God...one covenant of faith, he is still clearly speaking of Jew and Gentile...two people groups. Not in a way to separate, but in a way to identify. And that is interesting, because even today, the Jewish people have retained that identity. Do we allow coincides like that to be, or to we see a miracle of God a realize that He is yet working? I do not think the Jewish nation as it stands is holy. They are just sinful people, with a sinful government. But I watch...and I pray that God may work his miracle in grafting many of them back in.

 

[Stranger]

You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling you just don't like me. Sorry about that. I'm not fishing for a bite, if that's what you think, I am truly trying to sort through this all in my head. I would have thought you'd taken the chance to try and lay out your view biblically, since I'm actually asking you to show it to me. But that's okay if you don't feel like it, I get it. There's so many out there who are not faithful, I don't really blame you. Nothing brings out the...well...crazy, like conversation on these things!

Oh well. How about answering my questions concerning interpretation...because that will affect your questions to me. See? How about answering my question as to who Israel is. Is Israel, Israel, or the Church? Simple one word answer....that you don't want to answer.

It is not a question if I feel like it. Unless we use the same method of interpretation, it is an impossibility. Whether you blame me or not matters not to me. But I see you are not serious by not considering the different methods of interpretation.

And, haven't we had this discussion before?

Stranger

 

[pastor marty]

****Methinks,the Lady doth protest,overmuch***R.Burton/Taming o'the shrew ! But her mind's sharp as a straight-razor--ME !*******<m>*****

 

[ScottA]

It's true there is some ambiguity in some scripture, but I'd have to say that by and large most of it is clear, and most of it comes clear by reading other scripture. God would not have given us his word and not made it relatively easy to understand.
But yes...it does make me wonder sometimes. As Christians we all have the Holy Spirit. We all pray for understanding and wisdom regarding his will and word. And many, many good scholars and preachers believe...truly believe, they are correct in their interpretations. They can't all be right. Can they all have small bit's right? I'm not sure.

I marvel at the immense amount of study and data of some and their ability to draw so much worldly application out of the scriptures and the fact that they dedicate their whole live to it, without actually seeking God first, and without understanding what it is they are talking about, as if it were only literature. Which, means it's anything but simple. No, I would have to say, rather, that it is true that the scriptures must be discerned spiritually rather than scholarly, and that God in His apropos justice rightfully favors the simple with advantage.

 

[Stranger]

You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling you just don't like me. Sorry about that. I'm not fishing for a bite, if that's what you think, I am truly trying to sort through this all in my head. I would have thought you'd taken the chance to try and lay out your view biblically, since I'm actually asking you to show it to me. But that's okay if you don't feel like it, I get it. There's so many out there who are not faithful, I don't really blame you. Nothing brings out the...well...crazy, like conversation on these things!

I found our previous discussion. It covers the end times. You started the thread "I'd like to have a calm rationale conversation about End Times...anyone?" My part in it is found in pages 3-5. It is in the same Eschatology and Prophecy section.

We covered quite a lot of ground, but then, as I said here, the method of interpretation refuses any agreement.

Stranger

 

[Naomi25]

Oh well. How about answering my questions concerning interpretation...because that will affect your questions to me. See? How about answering my question as to who Israel is. Is Israel, Israel, or the Church? Simple one word answer....that you don't want to answer.

It is not a question if I feel like it. Unless we use the same method of interpretation, it is an impossibility. Whether you blame me or not matters not to me. But I see you are not serious by not considering the different methods of interpretation.

And, haven't we had this discussion before?

Stranger

Well....I think I sort of asked a question first. Shouldn't I get a response first?

I found our previous discussion. It covers the end times. You started the thread "I'd like to have a calm rationale conversation about End Times...anyone?" My part in it is found in pages 3-5. It is in the same Eschatology and Prophecy section.

We covered quite a lot of ground, but then, as I said here, the method of interpretation refuses any agreement.

Stranger

Okay, since our previous conversation seems to be bothering you, I also went back and re-read it. And here's where I am now:

I'm a little confused. Because while last time I was staunchly defending the Amil interpretation method, this time, due to various reasons, I've come asking questions...sincere questions, that will help me understand your method of interpretation. I'm trying to understand it and even approve of it. So it just really baffles me that you seem to have come out swinging, demanding I answer your questions and prove myself. Have I done something to make you dislike me? Why would asking questions about something you believe in cause such a response? I don't know. And I don't know how else to answer you.
You want me to 'consider the different methods of interpretation'?? That's what this thread is all about. So if you are at all genuine, how about you help me out, and answer my questions so I can try and straighten all this out in my head.

 

[Naomi25]

Hey Naomi,
Welcome to the forum.

I didn't say I'm not interested in my final destination.
I said I'm not interested in eschatology. The end times do not interest me.

I know human history will be wrapped up. For some it'll be wrapped up today, just like you said.

So if it's today, or Jesus comes back in 3 years, or it goes on another 200 and I won't be here --- I just don't understand why it's important.
Jesus said it wasn't even for HIM to know, so why should we bother ourselves with all this back and forth talk that leads nowhere...

Okay, fair point. But...if it's not important, why does the Bible discuss it? All of scripture is profitable. I could go on, but I think that really is the basic point underneath it all. Christ spoke of it (maybe he didn't know when, but he definitely spoke of it), and his disciples spoke of it. Often. Every book in the NT is under girded with this expectation, this hope. You can't miss it...or at least you shouldn't. This world doesn't have forever...what are God's people doing to reach the lost? It changes the way you look at the world and the people around you...
That's my thoughts, anyway!

 

[Stranger]

Well....I think I sort of asked a question first. Shouldn't I get a response first?



Okay, since our previous conversation seems to be bothering you, I also went back and re-read it. And here's where I am now:

I'm a little confused. Because while last time I was staunchly defending the Amil interpretation method, this time, due to various reasons, I've come asking questions...sincere questions, that will help me understand your method of interpretation. I'm trying to understand it and even approve of it. So it just really baffles me that you seem to have come out swinging, demanding I answer your questions and prove myself. Have I done something to make you dislike me? Why would asking questions about something you believe in cause such a response? I don't know. And I don't know how else to answer you.
You want me to 'consider the different methods of interpretation'?? That's what this thread is all about. So if you are at all genuine, how about you help me out, and answer my questions so I can try and straighten all this out in my head.

You will find it is common on forums for one to come and say 'I need some help in this' or 'help me out here'. But they really don't want help, they just want to disprove what ever it is the one coming to help has, and prove more convincingly their view. I don't dislike you...but I am skeptical.

In our previous conversation you asked me for some speakers or authors of the dispensational doctrine. I gave you a list of some. Did you ever get any of their material? For, I know they cover the Tribulation and Day of the Lord in them. Did they not convince you?

Concerning your question on 'wrath' I did say that every time the word 'wrath' is used doesn't mean it speaks to the Tribulation. As to the Day of the Lord being the Tribulation there are different views. Some view the Day of the Lord as the Tribulation, others that it not only includes the Tribulation but the Millennial reign of Christ as well. Both recognize the Tribulation as a distinct period of time, 7 years, which you apparently do not. Correct?

How about the Millennium, or 1000 year reign of Christ? Is that a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth? (Rev. 20:1-7)

Stranger

 

[Naomi25]

You will find it is common on forums for one to come and say 'I need some help in this' or 'help me out here'. But they really don't want help, they just want to disprove what ever it is the one coming to help has, and prove more convincingly their view. I don't dislike you...but I am skeptical.

In our previous conversation you asked me for some speakers or authors of the dispensational doctrine. I gave you a list of some. Did you ever get any of their material? For, I know they cover the Tribulation and Day of the Lord in them. Did they not convince you?

Concerning your question on 'wrath' I did say that every time the word 'wrath' is used doesn't mean it speaks to the Tribulation. As to the Day of the Lord being the Tribulation there are different views. Some view the Day of the Lord as the Tribulation, others that it not only includes the Tribulation but the Millennial reign of Christ as well. Both recognize the Tribulation as a distinct period of time, 7 years, which you apparently do not. Correct?

How about the Millennium, or 1000 year reign of Christ? Is that a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth? (Rev. 20:1-7)

Stranger

Hi Stranger. Yes, I agree that too often people are out to fish. Even on Christian boards. It's sad.
Let's see...who have I been listening to...my funds are a little tight, so I mostly search out free stuff. I've been listening to Mark Hitchcock, Thomas Ice...some Jack Hibbs. Some Amir Tsarfati. I also went back and read "late, great planet earth", since it seems to have been a game changer for so many. It's a bit hard knowing who are good, solid teachers and who are more...sensational types, if you know what I mean?
They do cover the Tribulation and the Day of the Lord, but as I said in my OP, most of them seem to just assume that the "Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation. I'm not saying they just pulled that out of thin air (although they may have!!), I just can't seem to find where they deduce it from. In the OT the phrase seems to vague to pin it concretely on the 7 year Tribulation. And in the NT the phrase seems too definite to use for a 7 year time period! Hence my confusion! My puzzlement is quite real, because these people I've been listening to aren't stupid. I can't see that...even wanting to see Dispensationalism as correct, they'd make a huge assumption like that without at least some passages to back it up. So...I'm just asking if people know which ones they use....which ones they cite?

The wrath thing? Again...it's quite frustrating for me. I'm sitting right on the edge of going: "alright, yeah...I may not think Dispensationalism is the best choice...biblically...but I can see that it's valid...it fits." And goodness...who knows what steps I may take after that, or where God leads me. But I keep headbutting these two questions that I just cannot find any answers to! I listen to these teachers or pastors as they teach on this. And they give these verses about us being "out of here" in the Rapture. They say that:
1 Thess 1:10 "Jesus, who will deliver us from the wrath to come." and 1 Thess 5:9 "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." or Luke 21:36 "praying that you may have the strength to escape all these things.."
these verses are speaking of the Church escaping the wrath and destruction that will come upon the Earth in the Tribulation. Most Dispensational teachers I've listened to teach this. And I cannot quite look at the passages that way. To me the reading seems to suggest the wrath that will come upon the people of the Earth in final Judgement.
It's sort of like those optical illusions, you know? You see the picture and you see an image clearly, and then someone will point out another image hiding in it. And when you see it, you can clearly see both images. It can be both images, or either, depending on which one you focus on. Sometimes with bible verses it can be like that, depending on which 'point of view' your looking at it from...but you can admit that it could fit either one. With this issue, I can only see the one image...I can only see the "wrath at final judgement" image. But again, these scholars and preachers aren't stupid or sloppy....so are there verses, or reasons that they see these verses as speaking to this 7 year period? I'm trying to see the other image....

As far as a literal 7 years or a literal millennium. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have told you a strong "no". Now....it's like that double image. I can see both in scripture...I can see God fitting his will into either scenario, should he choose to. I think one of the things that appealed most about Amillennialism, was that it made sense and was logical. I'd ask myself, what was the purpose for both a 7 year tribulation or a 1000 year Kingdom? Both seemed very "second or third chance luck" when the bible didn't seem to speak of any such thing. But I've realised this year that God rarely chose the logical way in the OT, and usually his people didn't see or understand very clearly what he had coming. And it always was perfect. So...I think really what I'm searching for at this point is....finding out what is biblically valid...any of it...all of it....and watching and praying and being open...if that makes sense.

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger. Yes, I agree that too often people are out to fish. Even on Christian boards. It's sad.
Let's see...who have I been listening to...my funds are a little tight, so I mostly search out free stuff. I've been listening to Mark Hitchcock, Thomas Ice...some Jack Hibbs. Some Amir Tsarfati. I also went back and read "late, great planet earth", since it seems to have been a game changer for so many. It's a bit hard knowing who are good, solid teachers and who are more...sensational types, if you know what I mean?
They do cover the Tribulation and the Day of the Lord, but as I said in my OP, most of them seem to just assume that the "Day of the Lord" means the Tribulation. I'm not saying they just pulled that out of thin air (although they may have!!), I just can't seem to find where they deduce it from. In the OT the phrase seems to vague to pin it concretely on the 7 year Tribulation. And in the NT the phrase seems too definite to use for a 7 year time period! Hence my confusion! My puzzlement is quite real, because these people I've been listening to aren't stupid. I can't see that...even wanting to see Dispensationalism as correct, they'd make a huge assumption like that without at least some passages to back it up. So...I'm just asking if people know which ones they use....which ones they cite?

The wrath thing? Again...it's quite frustrating for me. I'm sitting right on the edge of going: "alright, yeah...I may not think Dispensationalism is the best choice...biblically...but I can see that it's valid...it fits." And goodness...who knows what steps I may take after that, or where God leads me. But I keep headbutting these two questions that I just cannot find any answers to! I listen to these teachers or pastors as they teach on this. And they give these verses about us being "out of here" in the Rapture. They say that:
1 Thess 1:10 "Jesus, who will deliver us from the wrath to come." and 1 Thess 5:9 "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." or Luke 21:36 "praying that you may have the strength to escape all these things.."
these verses are speaking of the Church escaping the wrath and destruction that will come upon the Earth in the Tribulation. Most Dispensational teachers I've listened to teach this. And I cannot quite look at the passages that way. To me the reading seems to suggest the wrath that will come upon the people of the Earth in final Judgement.
It's sort of like those optical illusions, you know? You see the picture and you see an image clearly, and then someone will point out another image hiding in it. And when you see it, you can clearly see both images. It can be both images, or either, depending on which one you focus on. Sometimes with bible verses it can be like that, depending on which 'point of view' your looking at it from...but you can admit that it could fit either one. With this issue, I can only see the one image...I can only see the "wrath at final judgement" image. But again, these scholars and preachers aren't stupid or sloppy....so are there verses, or reasons that they see these verses as speaking to this 7 year period? I'm trying to see the other image....

As far as a literal 7 years or a literal millennium. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have told you a strong "no". Now....it's like that double image. I can see both in scripture...I can see God fitting his will into either scenario, should he choose to. I think one of the things that appealed most about Amillennialism, was that it made sense and was logical. I'd ask myself, what was the purpose for both a 7 year tribulation or a 1000 year Kingdom? Both seemed very "second or third chance luck" when the bible didn't seem to speak of any such thing. But I've realised this year that God rarely chose the logical way in the OT, and usually his people didn't see or understand very clearly what he had coming. And it always was perfect. So...I think really what I'm searching for at this point is....finding out what is biblically valid...any of it...all of it....and watching and praying and being open...if that makes sense.

I understand there are 'sensational' types of teachers and writers and then there are those that are more theological and precise in their presentation. You asked me for some of those and I gave you a list. Yet you didn't mention any as those you read or listened to. Hal Lindsey's book, 'The Late Great Planet Earth' is very good, but he states it is not a theological treatise in the introduction.

I understand finances can be tough. But, you express a strong desire to know about these 'last days' or eschatology. Years ago, not long after I got saved, I was without a job and broke. No computers back then. Books were the source of knowledge. I would visit Christian book stores and saw two books I really wanted, one of which pertained to the very subject we are talking about. I borrowed money from someone to buy them. But I lied about what the money was for as they would never have given it to buy those books. Then after I bought them, and would read them, I had to keep them hid from this individual else they would have known their money went for books. My point being your desire doesn't seem to match 'just going for the free stuff'. Just an observation.

The existence of the Tribulation does not hinge on the verses you are concerned with concerning 'wrath.' They add to it, yes. But they don't prove or disprove the Tribulation period. If you don't believe there is any Tribulation period, then of course 'wrath' cannot speak to such a period.
So, if we begin discussing this we are always going to revert back to our method of interpretation, especially of interpretation of prophecy. In other words, I cannot, nor can anyone else, prove to you Dispensational, pre-millennial doctrine using the Amillennialist's method of interpretation.

Wouldn't you agree?

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.

Since I know practically nothing of eschatology, I thought I might take a different approach. Just exegete the verses you've posted and see what I come up with.

1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.

The Thessalonians were literally waiting for Jesus to come back any day and lived as such. I would suppose that the important part of the verse above is what does "the wrath to come" is referring to.

Since I have NOT studied the end times, I'd have to say that the wrath to come is referring to judgement. Jesus saves us from the wrath of God, the judgement which we fear if we were to be lost, the certainty of doom. Of not spending eternity with God in heaven. That is our doom.

1 Thessalonians 5:9
9For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

As I said for the previous verse, Paul is definitely speaking here of salvation. God did not destine us for wrath, but for salvation. Wrath refers to judgement.

Luke 21:36
36“But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

Here Jesus is talking about the end of the world. OR, He might be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, as per veses 20-24 when He tell them to depart the city when they see soldiers camped out.

But I doubt it means Jerusalem, due to verse 27. Jesus didn't come back at the destruction of Jerusalem. So He must have been speaking of the last days. When the earth ends, we WILL be standing before the Son of Man for the final judgement (the judgement seat of Christ?)

John 3:36
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.

This would tend to be reconciled with the other verses. The wrath of God in the sense of judgement.

Romans 9:22
Is perfectly explained by you.

as is Romans 2:5


Guess I had to get involved with this eventually.
But not sure what my deduction is.
Maybe I don't even believe in the rapture??
Unless, as it pertains to the end of the world, when ALL will be taken away -- either to one place or the other.
Just thinking out loud...

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand there are 'sensational' types of teachers and writers and then there are those that are more theological and precise in their presentation. You asked me for some of those and I gave you a list. Yet you didn't mention any as those you read or listened to. Hal Lindsey's book, 'The Late Great Planet Earth' is very good, but he states it is not a theological treatise in the introduction.

I understand finances can be tough. But, you express a strong desire to know about these 'last days' or eschatology. Years ago, not long after I got saved, I was without a job and broke. No computers back then. Books were the source of knowledge. I would visit Christian book stores and saw two books I really wanted, one of which pertained to the very subject we are talking about. I borrowed money from someone to buy them. But I lied about what the money was for as they would never have given it to buy those books. Then after I bought them, and would read them, I had to keep them hid from this individual else they would have known their money went for books. My point being your desire doesn't seem to match 'just going for the free stuff'. Just an observation.

The existence of the Tribulation does not hinge on the verses you are concerned with concerning 'wrath.' They add to it, yes. But they don't prove or disprove the Tribulation period. If you don't believe there is any Tribulation period, then of course 'wrath' cannot speak to such a period.
So, if we begin discussing this we are always going to revert back to our method of interpretation, especially of interpretation of prophecy. In other words, I cannot, nor can anyone else, prove to you Dispensational, pre-millennial doctrine using the Amillennialist's method of interpretation.

Wouldn't you agree?

Stranger

Which biblical verses speak about the tribulation period??

 

[Stranger]

Which biblical verses speak about the tribulation period??

You could start with (Deut. 4:23-31) "...When thou art in tribulation and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days...."

Stranger