Pre vs Post Tribulation

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can also find the Geneva Bible translations notes for E-Sword = e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge

The e-Sword version is a good tool, however users should be aware that the notes are not all original (a fact not noted on the "information" page)--some have been altered to conform to baptist views (e.g. 1Cor7:14). I understand WHY they altered them, especially as it was a baptist group in the 1980s that republished the version which e-Sword got the electronic version of, but I do think that it should note that some of those notes are not all the 16th century Reformed version. In fairness to the e-Sword guy, I doubt that he was aware of the subtle changes.
 
Same deal with the notes on CrossWalk.com : Not to be confused with "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible" on Your Gateway to the Bible & Christian Resources which is not even a Geneva translation. All Geneva Bibles at Genesis 3:7 should read ...and made themselves breeches. Not aprons as the Crosswalk Geneva version and KJV have.
 
fDear Kevin,

If you choose to deny my statements in regard to Calvinism and Coventalism then first consider them in context of your statements. It was a comparison, not a claim.

Dear Ryan and Kevin,

It needs to be understood that the idea that there are two ways of salvation, while blasphemous, is not a necessary conclusion of dispensationalism. It's the "necessity" that is forced on the thought process that is central to the comparisons I made. There are many Dispensational preacher who teach this. I've heard it. I even thought if for a brief period. But it is neither a logical nor necessary conclusion of dispensationalism.

What are the core beliefs of dispensationalism? There are three. Perhaps that will help to clarify what is logical, what what is taken beyond reasonable conclusions.
 
Dear Ryan and Kevin,

It needs to be understood that the idea that there are two ways of salvation, while blasphemous, is not a necessary conclusion of dispensationalism. It's the "necessity" that is forced on the thought process that is central to the comparisons I made. There are many Dispensational preacher who teach this. I've heard it. I even thought if for a brief period. But it is neither a logical nor necessary conclusion of dispensationalism.

Hi Joe,

It was the necessary conclusion of the dispensationalism that I learned. I am thankful to know that there are dispensationalists that do not teach this way. Actually, now that I think about it there have been quite a few dispensationalists who I have heard teach that O.T. Saints are saved by grace by looking forward to the cross. So, it is true that there is a mixture in dispensationalism.

Blessings!
 
In keeping with what Joe said, we always need to consider the best proponents of any theological position. There are a lot of good targets to pick if you want to make any doctrine look bad, but that does little more than stroke our own ego.

I am anti-dispensational, but I am convinced that much of what I have heard from the Reformed group does not represent Dispensationalism in a very even light. Even those who "used to be Dispensationalists" often don't seem to have a very good grasp on the system as a whole, and I wonder if they really understand what they left behind and what they believe now.
 
In keeping with what Joe said, we always need to consider the best proponents of any theological position. There are a lot of good targets to pick if you want to make any doctrine look bad, but that does little more than stroke our own ego.

I agree.

I am anti-dispensational, but I am convinced that much of what I have heard from the Reformed group does not represent Dispensationalism in a very even light. Even those who "used to be Dispensationalists" often don't seem to have a very good grasp on the system as a whole, and I wonder if they really understand what they left behind and what they believe now.

I disagree. For those of us that were taught the two-salvation dispensationalism, we know exactly what it's about. That's why I related right away to Kevin's post. Trust me, when you've been there you know it.

Let's not pretend that the two-salvation dispensationalists don't exist, and not be afraid to call it what it is. It's a horrible error and comes from terrible exegesis of the Scriptures.
 
Hey, guys, just remember . . .

While the Baptists were running to the left (SBC up until the late 70s and ABC on the wrong side of every theological issue during the whole 20th century) and Presbyterians were either embracing neo-orthodoxy/liberalism or fragmenting into countless little micro-denominations, the dispensationalists were upholding the inerrancy of the Bible and the necessity of salvation by Christ alone AGAINST ALL COMERS! They preached, evangelized, discipled, covered the world as missionaries, raised up organizations to serve the church, promoted education in countless schools, colleges, and seminaries, and more.

I would hope that we could be a bit charitable towards our brethren in Christ who took most of the major hits in battle while so many of our groups were playing with our constitutions or cutting pages out of our Bibles.
 
While the Baptists were running to the left (SBC up until the late 70s and ABC on the wrong side of every theological issue during the whole 20th century) and Presbyterians were either embracing neo-orthodoxy/liberalism or fragmenting into countless little micro-denominations, the dispensationalists were upholding the inerrancy of the Bible and the necessity of salvation by Christ alone AGAINST ALL COMERS! They preached, evangelized, discipled, covered the world as missionaries, raised up organizations to serve the church, promoted education in countless schools, colleges, and seminaries, and more.

Dennis,

Praise God for the dispensationalists that did all of these things in faithful service for our Lord.

I even know many two-salvation dispensationalists who did these things. Unfortunately their teaching on grace and law and the way of salvation in the O.T. have done a lot of damage as well.
 
Ryan,

Granted.

I guess there are two ways people go when they leave an old ideology behind. Some become like the ex-alcoholic and becme a scold and a prude. Others, remember with fondness the first flush of excitement and zeal and recall the earlier days with great tenderness. Drs. Gerstner, Palmer Robertson, and Riddlebarger are more like the second. Having outgrown their earlier years in dispensationalism, they are intellectually sharp critics as only a former insider can be. Yet, when you read their books, you sense the love and fondness they feel for their former co-religionists as well as the passion burning within them (much like the Apostle Paul towards his kinsmen "after the flesh") to see others come out of that camp.
 
Ryan,

Granted.

I guess there are two ways people go when they leave an old ideology behind. Some become like the ex-alcoholic and becme a scold and a prude. Others, remember with fondness the first flush of excitement and zeal and recall the earlier days with great tenderness. Drs. Gerstner, Palmer Robertson, and Riddlebarger are more like the second. Having outgrown their earlier years in dispensationalism, they are intellectually sharp critics as only a former insider can be. Yet, when you read their books, you sense the love and fondness they feel for their former co-religionists as well as the passion burning within them (much like the Apostle Paul towards his kinsmen "after the flesh") to see others come out of that camp.


Hey Dennis,

I can't speak for others, but I hold no ill will toward my dispensational brethren.

However, and it's a big however, I feel no fondness toward the Ruckman crowd I used to be a part of. Their teachings, including their teaching on dispensationalism, is filled with private interpretations. And it is doing damage to young Christians, some of whom I still personally know. It saddens me.
 
:eek::eek::eek:
Ruckman?

I was thinking about people like John MacArthur, D. Bock, Marvin Pate, the profs at Moody and Dallas when I wrote about dispensationalists.
 
Ryan,

Granted.

I guess there are two ways people go when they leave an old ideology behind. Some become like the ex-alcoholic and becme a scold and a prude. Others, remember with fondness the first flush of excitement and zeal and recall the earlier days with great tenderness. Drs. Gerstner, Palmer Robertson, and Riddlebarger are more like the second. Having outgrown their earlier years in dispensationalism, they are intellectually sharp critics as only a former insider can be. Yet, when you read their books, you sense the love and fondness they feel for their former co-religionists as well as the passion burning within them (much like the Apostle Paul towards his kinsmen "after the flesh") to see others come out of that camp.


Hey Dennis,

I can't speak for others, but I hold no ill will toward my dispensational brethren.

However, and it's a big however, I feel no fondness toward the Ruckman crowd I used to be a part of. Their teachings, including their teaching on dispensationalism, is filled with private interpretations. And it is doing damage to young Christians, some of whom I still personally know. It saddens me.


Ryan, like you, I hold no ill will toward my dispensational brethren.

My original quote (which I am afraid may have been the springboard for this ongoing discussion on "dispyhatred") went like this:

"BTW Dispensationalism seems like pure heresy to me. Maybe I'm being too harsh. I know that the people that I know (Huh! The majority of modern Christianty!) who hold to Dispensational theology don't seem like heretics to me. But the theology itself seems like heresy to me; especially when taken to it's logical conclusion."

I'll admit that these are strong words and looking back on it I wish I had selected my words more wisely. But by no means was I trying to say that people who believe in Dispensationalism are heretics and frankly, that's not what I said. If I was "perjorative" I meant it toward the system, not it's proponents or it's students. I am certainly not a "Dispensational-hater." (We need to send that new term off to Merriam Webster :lol:) My point simply is and always has been that to believe that God has saved people differently in different dispensations is dangerously wrong.

Scofield knew well what he meant by the footnote in his study Bible, “As a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation.”

When I was a Charismatic I actually heard Kenneth Copeland refer to two methods of divine healing. According to Copeland there was one way that people recieved divine healing through the law and the other (now) through the Holy Spirit. This could have (and may have) come straight from Scofield and his footnotes on Romans 7:6 in his study Bible:

The letter" is a Paulinism for the law, as "spirit" in these passages is his word for the relationships and powers of new life in Christ Jesus. In 2 Cor. 3. a series is presented of contrast of law with "spirit," of the old covenant and the new. The contrast is not between two methods of interpretation, literal, and spiritual, but between two methods of divine dealing: one through the law, the other through the Holy Spirit.

I am very graciously thankful to those of you who have posted ideas on this thread showing the newest ideas on this subject and I plan to look into them further. But I'm afraid that I'm sold on the Amil position. ;)
 
Last edited:
Kevin,

I resonate with your comments more than your may realize. Permit a few late night autobiographical notes.

The re-kindling of faith during my teen years was at the hands of dispensationalsits who presented me with a Scofield Bible on my 16th birthday. Since then, I have had a positive appreciation for dispensational teachers I have known (long after leaving their ranks), gratitude for the blessing they were to two of my children who attended a dispensational college and came out even stronger disciples of Jesus Christ, and tactical satisfaction with the times they have stood with other evangelical brethren against liberalism in the church. My own private peace with dispensationalists was also continued since, as an historic premil, I shared with them a "literal" interpretation of Rev. 20. And, the fact that some of them (e.g., Johnny Mac) are strong proponents of the Doctrines of Grace didn't hurt either. Letting John MacArthur run your interferance makes for a very strong front line.

Frankly, my tolerance also comes because of my bitter experience with the struggle between evangelicals and mainline liberals. When my group of churches left the mainline ABCUSA, no other region joined us. The "conservative evangelicals" in the ABC (a plurality if not a majority) were either buried in their denial or fearful of losing the financial perks of the generous ABC retirement program.

Looking at the last half century, I have come to the conclusion that Carl Henry's grand experiment in "evangelicalism" has been a miserable failure. It has seen the charismatization, seeker-sensitization, and Willowcreeking of conservative Protestantism. His flagship seminary (i.e., Fuller) now promotes Emergent Church events as the last best thing since sliced bread, makes peace with Islam, and apologizes to Mormons when not demanding complete egalitarianism and revisionist interpretations of the Bible! What is left of evangelicalism cannot seem capable of drawing lines between truth and error. Believing in nothing firmly, they seem to fall for everything. As a subscriber to Christianity Today for almost 40 years (39 actually), I sorrow at how far it has fallen from its original vision, even during my lifetime!

In the face of all of this, just about the only two groups that seem to have "kept the faith" are the confessionally Reformed and the dispensationalists.

Grudem presciently predicts that evangelical feminism inevitably leads to tolerance of homosexuality. This tallies with my experience at FTS (e.g. Jewett came out on that side before his death). "Evangelical egalitarian" David Scholar's memorial service was last Saturday. He was a kind and gentle man and a brilliant NT scholar who blessed me greatly when I was the interim pastor at his church. Yet, he had begun to equivocate on homosexuality and I remember his wife, still a FTS administrator, as one who defended the church having a gay minister of music!

Here in SoCal, only Talbot, Masters, and WS-Cal resist the encroachments of evangelical feminism. And, of the three, one is Reformed and the other two are dispi havens! Time and again, the confesionally Reformed, the dispensationalists, and the relative handful of Reformed Baptists are about the only ones who seem to retain a commitment to the Bible, to the exclusivity of Christ, and to a belief in the efficacy of the Gospel.

Now that my eschatology has become more Reformationally mainstream (i.e., leaning so far to the amil side, I may fall over), more of the errors of dispensationalsim stand out to me in stark relief. Even though progressive dispensationalists seem to have eliminated most of the more odious features of their former system, the classical Reformed view is neater, tighter, and easier to defend as "biblical" (in my opinion).

But, still licking my wounds from the denominational wars, reeling at the dizzying spin of evangelicals trying to defend everything from the Lakeland "Revival" to revisionist views of traditional biblical teaching, to the drift (and in some cases pellmell run) to the left leaves me more than a little appreciative of my faithful and orthodox dispensational friends in places like Masters and Talbot.

Bless their pointed heads, our dispensational brethren are wrong on some very important things. But, they are just about the only allies we have in America during this time of secularization. Who else will stand with us on issues of historical-grammatical hermeneutics? Who else still believes that Jesus meant what he said in John 14:6? Who else will stand up and disagree with majoritarian thinking in a secular world? The mainline is just a few years behind the cultural leading indicators in places like Berkeley and Harvard.

Yes, you are correct. I'm soft on dispensatinalism. The evangelical ship is sinking and the confessionally Reformed and (non fundy) dispensational brethren have all of the life rafts. I don't agree with their system. But, there are so few of us without them. And, lately, their leading voices are becoming more Calvinistic. Give it a few years. Progressive dispensationalism will collapse into Reformed (or at least Calvinistic) thinking. It is an intrinsically unbalanced system that cannot sustain itself independently.
 
:eek::eek::eek:
Ruckman?

I was thinking about people like John MacArthur, D. Bock, Marvin Pate, the profs at Moody and Dallas when I wrote about dispensationalists.

:lol:

Exactly my point with all the eek faces. I know Ruckman is not the standard of dispensationalists, but we have to remember there are little pockets of groups like his out there that teach a mixture of private interpretations which spill over into their dispensationalist teaching.

I was hardcore into that type of two-salvation dispensationalism and I've seen it do a lot of damage. That's why I keep saying praise God for those dispensationalists who have been faithful and not taught the two-salvation way, but let's remember there are those out there that are doing so and it is hurting a lot of Christians.

I just didn't think you were seeing where I was coming from. I still hold no ill will toward that crowd (Ruckman's), I just try and forget them.
 
Last edited:
Kevin,

I resonate with your comments more than your may realize. Permit a few late night autobiographical notes.

The re-kindling of faith during my teen years was at the hands of dispensationalsits who presented me with a Scofield Bible on my 16th birthday. Since then, I have had a positive appreciation for dispensational teachers I have known (long after leaving their ranks), gratitude for the blessing they were to two of my children who attended a dispensational college and came out even stronger disciples of Jesus Christ, and tactical satisfaction with the times they have stood with other evangelical brethren against liberalism in the church. My own private peace with dispensationalists was also continued since, as an historic premil, I shared with them a "literal" interpretation of Rev. 20. And, the fact that some of them (e.g., Johnny Mac) are strong proponents of the Doctrines of Grace didn't hurt either. Letting John MacArthur run your interferance makes for a very strong front line.

Frankly, my tolerance also comes because of my bitter experience with the struggle between evangelicals and mainline liberals. When my group of churches left the mainline ABCUSA, no other region joined us. The "conservative evangelicals" in the ABC (a plurality if not a majority) were either buried in their denial or fearful of losing the financial perks of the generous ABC retirement program.

Looking at the last half century, I have come to the conclusion that Carl Henry's grand experiment in "evangelicalism" has been a miserable failure. It has seen the charismatization, seeker-sensitization, and Willowcreeking of conservative Protestantism. His flagship seminary (i.e., Fuller) now promotes Emergent Church events as the last best thing since sliced bread, makes peace with Islam, and apologizes to Mormons when not demanding complete egalitarianism and revisionist interpretations of the Bible! What is left of evangelicalism cannot seem capable of drawing lines between truth and error. Believing in nothing firmly, they seem to fall for everything. As a subscriber to Christianity Today for almost 40 years (39 actually), I sorrow at how far it has fallen from its original vision, even during my lifetime!

In the face of all of this, just about the only two groups that seem to have "kept the faith" are the confessionally Reformed and the dispensationalists.

Grudem presciently predicts that evangelical feminism inevitably leads to tolerance of homosexuality. This tallies with my experience at FTS (e.g. Jewett came out on that side before his death). "Evangelical egalitarian" David Scholar's memorial service was last Saturday. He was a kind and gentle man and a brilliant NT scholar who blessed me greatly when I was the interim pastor at his church. Yet, he had begun to equivocate on homosexuality and I remember his wife, still a FTS administrator, as one who defended the church having a gay minister of music!

Here in SoCal, only Talbot, Masters, and WS-Cal resist the encroachments of evangelical feminism. And, of the three, one is Reformed and the other two are dispi havens! Time and again, the confesionally Reformed, the dispensationalists, and the relative handful of Reformed Baptists are about the only ones who seem to retain a commitment to the Bible, to the exclusivity of Christ, and to a belief in the efficacy of the Gospel.

Now that my eschatology has become more Reformationally mainstream (i.e., leaning so far to the amil side, I may fall over), more of the errors of dispensationalsim stand out to me in stark relief. Even though progressive dispensationalists seem to have eliminated most of the more odious features of their former system, the classical Reformed view is neater, tighter, and easier to defend as "biblical" (in my opinion).

But, still licking my wounds from the denominational wars, reeling at the dizzying spin of evangelicals trying to defend everything from the Lakeland "Revival" to revisionist views of traditional biblical teaching, to the drift (and in some cases pellmell run) to the left leaves me more than a little appreciative of my faithful and orthodox dispensational friends in places like Masters and Talbot.

Bless their pointed heads, our dispensational brethren are wrong on some very important things. But, they are just about the only allies we have in America during this time of secularization. Who else will stand with us on issues of historical-grammatical hermeneutics? Who else still believes that Jesus meant what he said in John 14:6? Who else will stand up and disagree with majoritarian thinking in a secular world? The mainline is just a few years behind the cultural leading indicators in places like Berkeley and Harvard.

Yes, you are correct. I'm soft on dispensatinalism. The evangelical ship is sinking and the confessionally Reformed and (non fundy) dispensational brethren have all of the life rafts. I don't agree with their system. But, there are so few of us without them. And, lately, their leading voices are becoming more Calvinistic. Give it a few years. Progressive dispensationalism will collapse into Reformed (or at least Calvinistic) thinking. It is an intrinsically unbalanced system that cannot sustain itself independently.

Dennis,
You don't know how much I have enjoyed recieving your information on this thread! I'm going to step out of the doctrinal for a moment if I may and say to you that you seem to be one of the most humble people on this board. I pray for such humility. You are also one of the most brilliant and you speak of many things and people involved in Dispensationalism that I know nothing of. This humbles me and causes me to know that no matter how many things I may think I can find wrong with Dispensationalism, there is a world of information that I was not aware of. And I agree with you that the Dispensationaltists have been amongst the ranks of those who have kept conservative Christianity afloat.
You have the most positive view of the future of the Church that I've seen in a long time. If I were a Dispensational pastor or teacher I would be honored to have you as a mentor. You know much more about Dispensational than anyone I know. And you have such a gentle, pastoral way of presenting your case without being arrogant.
Blessed to know you,
Kevin
 
What is your viewpoint on the pre/posttrib discussion. Frankly Im not sure. As always please use scripture :confused:

Joseph,

I’m sorry that no one really tried to answer your question

AMEN! :ditto: to Bill! Last night I was so caught up in what I was writing that I never got back to it. But I do remember thinking that Joseph must feel left out of his own thread. I'm so sorry Joseph!
My personal experience over the past couple years or so has been that I don't really so much know what to believe as I know what NOT to believe. I'm still working on the "what to believe." But I believe that Dennis is on to something when he speaks of Riddlebarger's books.
If there is a future tribulation I believe we will go through it. I believe that Bill made some good points on this post that you should consider. There are many more like these in the Bible. http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/pre-vs-post-tribulation-37000/#post459870
 
Kevin,

Way too kind. Thank you.

However, as a non-dispi for the past 35 years, I doubt if any dispensationalist would be much interested in ANYthing I had to say on the subject.
 
I've seen a lot of dispensational bashing but not much support to the contrary. I don't want to know what makes dispensationalism wrong but what makes other theological systems right. Please use scripture to support your positions.
 
I've seen a lot of dispensational bashing but not much support to the contrary. I don't want to know what makes dispensationalism wrong but what makes other theological systems right. Please use scripture to support your positions.

The Westminster Confession, taken as a whole, is covenant theology (a very different system than the more recent "dispensationalism"). Every statement and proposition of the Confession is footnoted with Scripture "proofs."

To appreciate the systematic theology that makes up covenant theology, takes a lot of careful study. Dispensationalism is based on pre-suppositions as is covenant theology. One must take the time to study those in light of God's Word.

Here's a link to get you started:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
 
kalawine;


Dispensationalism teaches that he came to establish an earthly kingdom which "his people," the Jews, rejected. Because of his rejection by the Jews he had to resort to "Plan B" and come up with a new idea (the Church).


I have heard it taught that Jews were/are looking for their Messiah to establish an earthly kingdom, but I have personally never heard *Christians* believing Christ came to establish an Earthly Kingdom and the Jews rejected Him, so he had to resort to a plan B, and it's never been taught at any church I've ever attended.
 
I've seen a lot of dispensational bashing but not much support to the contrary. I don't want to know what makes dispensationalism wrong but what makes other theological systems right. Please use scripture to support your positions.

The Westminster Confession, taken as a whole, is covenant theology (a very different system than the more recent "dispensationalism"). Every statement and proposition of the Confession is footnoted with Scripture "proofs."

To appreciate the systematic theology that makes up covenant theology, takes a lot of careful study. Dispensationalism is based on pre-suppositions as is covenant theology. One must take the time to study those in light of God's Word.

Here's a link to get you started:
Westminster Confession of Faith


When I say dispensationalism I mean it in its broadest sense referring to the end times and the church. I understand and affirm the reformed tradition in all other areas but the Westminster Confession doesn't confirm any one form of eschatology. What I'm asking is for scriptural (not traditional) support for an amil perspective or historic premil or postmil of the end times.
 
the Westminster Confession doesn't confirm any one form of eschatology.

The WCF, in my opinion, does advocate a position on eschatology.

This can be seen, at the barest minimum, by its teaching that the "Pope" of Rome is the anti-Christ, and is the man of sin. Clearly this is a promotion of the histocist view of eschatology (which, fyi, I reject)

other examples could be given. Stating that the wcf is basically neutral in regards to eschatology would be a mistake.
 
the Westminster Confession doesn't confirm any one form of eschatology.

The WCF, in my opinion, does advocate a position on eschatology.

This can be seen, at the barest minimum, by its teaching that the "Pope" of Rome is the anti-Christ, and is the man of sin. Clearly this is a promotion of the histocist view of eschatology (which, fyi, I reject)

other examples could be given. Stating that the wcf is basically neutral in regards to eschatology would be a mistake.

I will agree to that in a sense, but it does not however explicitly confirm that position nor do many other people in the reformed tradition. What I still seek is confirmation of a non-dispensational eschatology based on God's Word not man's traditions.
 
I will agree to that in a sense, but it does not however explicitly confirm that position .
Well it does explicitly teach that position...so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that it does not "confirm" that position. If it explicitly teaches it then that would be a sort of confirmation, right?

What I still seek is confirmation of a non-dispensational eschatology based on God's Word not man's traditions.


I find this to be, in my opinion, a very interesting request.

e.g., Please someone prove to me that the bible explicity teaches that aliens do not exist...not from tradition, but, from the bible.
The bible will not specifically prove this wrong because it is irrelevant.

Likewise.
Dispensationalism is an theological invention that came 100s and 100s of years after the canon. So, the bible will not explicity teach against dispensationalism..Why would it need to.

So...really the test is not for "us" to prove non-dispensationalism from the bible. What really matters is for a dispensational to prove for himself that dispensationlism is truly biblical.

But anyhow..
A good place to start would be the gospels and Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God. Jesus' teachings are completely contrary to that which is found in dispensationalism.

Note: Just for clarification..What is dispensational eschatology in your view? How do you define it? Are you speaking strictly to the concept of the (supposed) "two" peoples of God...which is a big part of the Dispensational. system, or are you just suming it all up in the common Dispensational. premill futurist paradigm?
 
I will agree to that in a sense, but it does not however explicitly confirm that position .
Well it does explicitly teach that position...so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that it does not "confirm" that position. If it explicitly teaches it then that would be a sort of confirmation, right?

What I still seek is confirmation of a non-dispensational eschatology based on God's Word not man's traditions.


I find this to be, in my opinion, a very interesting request.

e.g., Please someone prove to me that the bible explicity teaches that aliens do not exist...not from tradition, but, from the bible.
The bible will not specifically prove this wrong because it is irrelevant.

Likewise.
Dispensationalism is an theological invention that came 100s and 100s of years after the canon. So, the bible will not explicity teach against dispensationalism..Why would it need to.

So...really the test is not for "us" to prove non-dispensationalism from the bible. What really matters is for a dispensational to prove for himself that dispensationlism is truly biblical.

But anyhow..
A good place to start would be the gospels and Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God. Jesus' teachings are completely contrary to that which is found in dispensationalism.

Note: Just for clarification..What is dispensational eschatology in your view? How do you define it? Are you speaking strictly to the concept of the (supposed) "two" peoples of God...which is a big part of the Dispensational. system, or are you just suming it all up in the common Dispensational. premill futurist paradigm?

This is really very simple. I am not asking anyone to break my request down into its various parts and determine what I really mean when I say this, that, or the other. Once again I simply want a clear biblical representation of a theological system of eschatology other than the dispensational position of premil pretrib. That is as simple as I can make it. Please don't read into this question any more than necessary. I say this with all due respect but a constant need to sound intellectually superior by condescending others is not at all maintaining a spirit of humility and gentleness. I do not mean to offend anyone or look down on the education and ability of others to understand the complexities of God's Word and theology, I just want a simple (albeit in-depth) answer to a simple question. Thank You.
 

:oops: OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

When Gundry came out with his The Church and the Tribulation in the 70s, his arguments were persuasive to quite a view in the dispensational camp. He was exegetical, brilliant, and . . . well . . . dispensational in his premises. By the way, Ladd hated it and dismissed it in class saying that he "heard" that Gundry wrote it before he went to Manchester to study for his PhD with F.F. Bruce. Ladd, was a classic historic premil all the way down to a natural aversion (sometimes delivered with sarcasm, often with anger) to the dispensationalism of his youth (which he evidently jettisoned during his PhD work at Harvard).

I don't know if it's accurate to say that Ladd is a classic historic premil. However his work has become so prevalent in some quarters (mainly academic it appears) that he is now considered the gold standard when it comes to historic premil. Walvoord reviewed one of Ladd's books and said it looked like the amils had another advocate to add to their ranks. Specifically what I am getting at is that Ladd repudiated the views of older (and to me, classic) historic or covenant premils like Horatius Bonar, C.H. Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, etc, particularly with regard to the issue of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. On that issue Ladd is more like the amils. Arguing that there will be a mass conversion of Jews before the end is not the same as seeing conversion as well as a physical restoration to the land, as most earlier premils (including non dispensationalists) did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top