Dissecting Dispensationalism: Prologue
Yet another topic thanks to Bro LA Marzulli's blog (and Sandie). Sandie had asked me to address dispensationalism, and linked me a few things that are all addressed after this.
I apologize that I'm not 100% clear on the issue, at first glance, some of the things I saw appeared to be unrelated. Once i started digging though, things coalesced and things started falling into place.
This topic is from a hotly debated subject, that is: Dispensationalism, Israel, the Millenial reign of Christ, Ezekiel 37 and the Jews.
This also entails the fact that there's something of a divide among some Christians that: either the current nation of Israel is God's chosen people (fulfilling Ezekiel 37), is equivalent to the ancient nation of Israel and (some believe) should have carte blanche to do anything, and the opposing view that Israel is not necessarily Biblical Israel but is actually part of a Jewish plot to take over the world. the second group also tends to lean towards replacement theology and that there is no Millenial Reign of Christ.
That is the debate, as near as I figure, in a nutshell. I'm sure I've made everyone angry, but for simplicity's sake, i had to generalize.
Part of the debate is posted here:
http://www.thewatchmanforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1314
And some general background info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._I._Scofield
(From the below linked article)
"Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel (not necessarily the same as the state of Israel) is distinct from the Christian Church,and that God has yet to fulfill His promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future world to come result in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon His return, will rule the world from Jerusalem[3] for a thousand years. In other areas of theology, dispensationalists hold to a wide range of beliefs within the evangelical and fundamentalist spectrum."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
My Presuppositional Bias:
Without fully realizing it , i guess i fall in with this general idea i quoted. So, you know the bias i start from. The reason being, is that if you read certain prophecies in the Bible, there are a number yet to be fulfilled (like Zechariah 14; Book of Revelation). I don't think anyone in their right mind could say that those have happened yet. So, I believe Christ has yet to return and will reign literally and visibly for 1000 years. I believe God also has promises to keep to Israel. But will this change in the coming weeks?
Who's right?
I'm inclined to look at Scofield skeptically. We're not concerned with him in any event right now, other than to acknowledge he made the theory of dispensationalism popular.
I also see the danger in dispensationalism. If you read the wiki, the section of Judaism is where I think some Christians go a tad too far.
This is a huge HUGE topic, one not easily addressed.
We can start to unravel some of this topic by looking at dispensationalism and its components. These sort of all fit into the dispensationalism bag.
Here's a breakdown of topics for the coming weeks
1) The protocols of the Elders of Zion
2) The Star of David
3) Ezekiel 37 and the nation of Israel
4) What do the Jews think?
5) Jesus' return and 1,000 year reign
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteNice to see you able to make time for this subject. You are sure right about it being hotly debated,if it is debated at all! As you know,I am banned from Lynn's blog for this very subject,but you were correct to assume I still read it! (You could say I am watching the "watchers".)
I would only urge you to not consider Wikipedia the final word on any subject. Seriously. Not on a subject this controversial. Look for those sites brave enough to say what others aren't.
Since you linked to the thread at the forum,I may add another video to it that is well worth the time for anyone who is interested in thoroughly looking at this subject from all sides,as I have urged people to do repeatedly. However,I have lost my interest in doing much more on the forums over the last couple of weeks. My final thought being if people are seeking truth earnestly and are right with God,He will reveal whatever it is He would have them understand. I am not a teacher,anyway,I can only say what I see. To others who can read the same thing and see something different,I have no answer for that.
And yes,it is a huge subject,and it makes for fascinating study, You have a nice study laid out,and I will check back to see where you wind up with it,and may add my two cents worth along the way.
Thanks for the heads up,and I wish you well in covering this most awkward topic!
In Christ,
Sandie
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteWhile my previous comment awaits approval,I thought to correct myself where I said "Watching the watchers...",I meant to say 'Watching the "watchmen"'.
Anyway,I also wanted to tell you I added a video to the thread you linked to on the Watchman forum,with a link back to this blog and reference of the study you have laid out.
Here is the video,for those who have the nearly two hours to devote to it.
Rekindling the Reformation Series,
"The Heritage of Israel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E-WMjEl9fQg#!
Sandie
Like everything else,we see many different interpretations. If this is the passage you were referring to in Zechariah....
ReplyDeleteFrom
http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarzechthree.html
Quote:
"This is the passage that futurists use to support their claim that Jesus will return from heaven with his raptured saints and touch down on the Mount of Olives and set up His millennial kingdom. Of course, one of the problems in making Zechariah 14:4 refer to Christ´s second coming is the absence of any reference to Him coming down to stand on the Mount of Olives or describing a previously raptured church following Him. The verse states simply "in that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives."We´re not told by Zechariah how He got to the Mount of Olives. Since we know that Jesus came to earth (John 1:14), and these events are described in the Old Testament, and Jesus did stand on the Mount of Olives, it´s logical to conclude that the reference to the Mount of Olives refers to Jesus´ first coming."....
Hi sandie, thanks for the comments!
ReplyDeleteSorry, I had to turn mods on again, see the comments for my firstrecent UFO post.if you don't see your comment right away, give it a few days.
Most certainly, I don't give wiki the final say, but they serve well as a quick reference, with other links (usually) and often convey the most basic level of a topic. In short, I'm lazy. I will try to use more sources in the future though.
I'll have to check out the video and other links.
See you soon, and just an FYI, you probably won't agree with all of my coming conclusions.
#2 on zechariah, interesting take on that passage. The more I study passages like these, the less I think I understand about end times prophecy. I'm trying to unravel 30+ years of prophecy books and what they say on the second coming and Israel and trying to figure out what the Bible actually says. It's not easy.
Pray for my wisdom!