Who Said That?
Monday, November 20, 2006 at 10:34AM 
Who said that?
"We have discovered some interesting facts about covenant theology. . . . Its origin was relatively recent. It was not the doctrinal system of the ancient church. It did not originate with the Reformers, and actually its present form is a modification of the original covenant idea proposed by Cocceius and the Westminster Confession. . . . The theological covenants on which covenant theology is based are not specifically revealed in Scripture. Other covenants (such as the Abrahamic and Davidic) are specifically revealed, and in great detail, but the all-embracing covenants of covenant theology are not in the Bible. The whole covenant system is based on a deduction and not the results of an inductive study of Scripture."
You guys know the rules. The fun is in the guessing . . . not in google searching and spoiling it for everyone else! Place your guess in the comments section.
Kim Riddlebarger
Reader Comments (31)
Both dispensational and covenant theology are relatively recent <i>systems</i>, though the roots of both go back to the early church. Anyone who says differently simply isn't telling the truth.
If you study you will find that dispensationalism is a system of interpretation that is not scriptural.
Amillennialism was not found in the church until later ... probably the 3rd century or more. The early church was predominantly premillennial, and with good reason ... It was what they found in the Scripture. Only after the coming of hte Lord was delayed beyond their patience did they decide the kingdom was really simply other than what Scripture said it was.
Amillennialism has no real support in Scripture that does not derive from first assuming amillennialism. In other words, in order to see amillennialism in Scripture, you have to first believe it exists. If you did not start with amillennialism, honest study of the Scripture would most certainly lead to premillennialism.
Having studied both covenantalism (post mill, amill, historic premill) and dispensationalism, I found far too many holes in the former and for too much cogency in the latter. So I have opted to be a dispensationalist because it makes hte most sense of Scripture.
Perhaps you need to return to your study. Don't base your beliefs on what your favorite authors or preachers tell you to believe. Study to show yourself approved unto God. Study the Scriptures alone without preconceived ideas.
You wrote:
"Amillennialism has no real support in Scripture that does not derive from first assuming amillennialism. In other words, in order to see amillennialism in Scripture, you have to first believe it exists. If you did not start with amillennialism, honest study of the Scripture would most certainly lead to premillennialism."
I beg to differ.
But first a couple of comments: (1) it's certainly true that good, Bible-believing Christians differ on this issue; and (2) whatever the merits or demerits of Rev. 20 re: this issue, there is clearly no explicit passage in the entire Bible that speaks of a 1000 year rule of Christ other than Rev. 20.
That said, I find your comment nothing short of incredible. Why?
First, your classic dispensational view of the millennial kingdom has very much to do with the Jews and their land. Yet Rev. 20 says NOTHING about the Jews or their land! In fact, a good case can be made that the millennium of Rev. 20 is about Christ's current interadvent reign at the right hand of His Father in heaven. Moreover, the many details about the millennium in Rev. 20 --as to how it begins, how it proceeds, and how it ends--
indicate an interadvent period that ends with and at the same battle as that of Rev. 19 - namely the battle that occurs at the second advent of Christ. (I believe what Rev. 20 says about the first/second death/resurrection also better fits the amil view.) So Rev. 20 simply doesn't ring true to what dispensationalists say the millennium is, nor does it ring true to when dispensationalists say the millennium occurs!
Second, while classic dispensationalists backed up their "prophecy/fulfillment dump trucks" to the OT covenant promises, and then drove them forward, clean past the church age (without dropping as much as a grain of sand), to the millennium of Rev. 20, and dumped everything (by way of the fulfillment of such prophecies - including the kitchen sink!) into this conjectured post-second advent kingdom, it's clear that many prophecies are already seeing a partial and preliminary fulfillment in the present age ("this age") - e.g., the Abrahamic and new covenants (cf. the books of Galatians and Hebrews), and that many prophecies will yet see their full and final fulfillment in a future age ("the age to come" - i.e., the new heavens and earth) - e.g., think of the way the future aspect of the kingdom is described as perfect and eternal (cf. Lk. 1:32,33), and thus as an utter mismatch for the imperfect/temporal millennium of Rev. 20. (And it's high time that dispensationalists acknowledge how the OT covenant promises really are related both to the church and to the eternal state!) Thus when one studies the prophecies and the time of their fulfillment, there seems to be no point for such a millennium. The already/not yet fulfillment of these prophecies either relates to the present age and/or to the age to come!
Third, whether one exegetes the key NT eschatological texts (Mt. 24/25; I Cor. 15; I Thes. 4/5; II Thes. 1/2; II Pet. 3; Rev.), or deals with the theology of such texts (i.e., what they say about the resurrection, the judgment, the two ages, the renovation of the cosmos, etc.), it's clear that the NT REPEATEDLY indicates neither a gap of 1007 years nor one of 1000 years between the resurrection/judgment of Christians (on the one hand) and that of unbelievers (on the other). And it's not just that such passages fail to speak of a millennium that follows Christ's second advent; it's that they pinpoint the resurrection and the judgment of believers and unbelievers alike, as well as the renovation of the cosmos, etc. precisely at the second advent (cf. esp. I Cor. 15:20-28 with vv. 50-57; II Thes. 1:6-10 and II Pet. 3:3-18; cf. also Jn. 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24 with Jn. 12;48; as well as Jn. 5:28,29; Acts 17:31 and 24:15; cf. also I Jn. 4:17 with II Pet. 2:9; 3:7; cf. also the parables in Mt. 13; cf. also Rom. 2:1-16; 8:18-25; etc.). Moreover,there is no "age" between "this age" and "the age to come." There's no living in natural bodies and having kids after the resurrection. There's no second chance for salvation after the parousia. So there's not just an absence of evidence for a future millennium; there's actually an avalanche of evidence against the possibility of one!
CONCLUSION: When it comes to the conjectured premil millennium, there's no rhyme, no reason, no room for it. In other words, no such millennium.
No wonder Psa. 110, the most quoted OT passage in the NT, says, "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" (And cf. the allusion to this psalm in I Cor. 15:25.)
I challenge anyone who, due to a prior bias in favor of the premil theory, believes in the dispensational concept of such a kingdom to do the following: (1) leave Rev. 20 aside for the moment (we should always interpret the unclear in the light of the clear, anyway); (2) do an open and honest examination of passage after passage throughout the OT and NT in search of a future millennium; (3) pay careful attention to the simple eschatology of II Thes. 1 and II Pet. 3 ... and particularly to I Cor. 15, where Paul indicates that the dead will be raised = death will be abolished = death will be swallowed up in victory AT the very time Christ comes again and Christians put on their imperishable and immortal bodies (thus ruling out the prospect of a future millennium); and (4) then go back and see what Rev. 20 really says, in context.
Wayne Rohde
Formerly classic D, then progressive D, and now (finally!) amil ... for one reason only: the force of Scripture
As for 1, you are correct. As for 2, the earthly reign of Christ and the restoration of Israel to the land is an OT teaching completely supported without Rev 20. The only thing Rev 20 adds is a time line.
You harp on Rev 20. But that is really a minor point in premillennialism. The OT clearly teaches the restoration of Jews to the land.
To assert that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in the church 1) ignores the actual promises; 2) ignores the differences between Israel and the church, and 3) ignores the NT words that are used to support this fulfillment. It just doesn’t work exegetically.
Having just done sustained study on the minor prophets for a class I was teaching, with absolutely no reference to Rev 20 (I didn’t even look it up or reference it one time), I am again amazed that anyone can deny the existence of a future kingdom in the land with Christ as the king. The Scriptures inspired by God are just too clear.
Your technique of study is seen in that you assume that all these passages are talking about the same thing, or talk about it in exactly the same way.
Use an analogy: If I say, I will go to the store. Then later I say, I will get gas. Does that imply one trip? Of course not. You can read that in there, but only if you start with that presupposition. In the same way, you are taking passages about different things, or passages that give an overview, and trying to put more weight on them than they can bear. And then you ignore the differences.
Again, Wayne, I simply say without any disrespect to you, that I can find no legitimate biblical way to be anything but premillennial. Any other option involves too much “messing with” the text of Scripture.
So I am premillennial because that is the only thing I can justify from Scripture.
Here's my perspective on the issues you raised:
1) I agree that the OT repeatedly speaks of the reign of Christ, as well as His reign in relation to the Jews and in relation to the land. No argument from me on this! However, unlike many of the "older" covenant theologians who, in my opinion, either jettisoned God's promises to His people (by claiming that the promises have already been exhausively fulfilled in OT days, or by claiming that such promises were conditional and thus that God is no longer obligated to keep His promises) or spiritualized them (by saying that they're exhaustively fulfilled in the present age by the church), the newer and modified covenant position taught by people like Anthony Hoekema, Cornelis Venema, Vern Poythress, Kim Riddlebarger, Sam Waldron, etc. places great emphasis on the need for the ultimate fulfillment of such promises in the future ... but with respect to the new earth. Even premillenarians like Randy Alcorn are seeing less and less justification for a future golden age shy of the new heavens and earth, and are placing greater emphasis on the new heavens and earth itself. In this regard I think of what Isaiah said about all the nations streaming to Jerusalem, and of what Paul said about Abraham being heir of the world. Etc. So there's no question in my mind that Christ will reign on the earth in the future. It's just that I see this reign as occurring on the new earth. (After all, the old order will be wiped out when the day of the Lord comes like a thief, per II Pet. 3:10, and the new order is the hope of Christians, per II Pet. 3:13. One might also think of passages such as Mt. 25:31-46, where Christ, when He comes, sits on His glorious throne, and at that time judges all peoples, with immediate eternal consequences.) I am hard-pressed to think of a single passage that must see fulfillment in some conjectured intermediate millennium between "this age" and "the age to come."
2) As for the notion that a person is ignoring the promises themselves by saying that they are being fulfilled (at least in part) by God's people in the present age... Well, I guess Paul (cf., e.g., Gal. 3:6-9,29) and the author of Hebrews (cf., e.g., Heb. 8:6-13) are guilty of the charge! They most certainly apply OT promises, initially given to the Jews, to God's people in the present age - whether believing Jews or Gentiles. And given the notion of progressive revelation (cf., e.g., Heb. 1:1f), doesn't the NT help us understand the OT? Shouldn't God's final revelation be given priority? Isn't Scripture itself a better interpreter of itself than we are?
3) As for the idea that I'm ignoring the distinction between Israel and the church... Whatever happened to Ephesians 2 and 3? Or I Cor. 12:13? Or Gal. 3:28? To be sure, God once differentiated between the Jews and the Gentiles. But the barrier between Jews and Gentiles was obliterated at the cross. The two are now one. (And what God has joined together, let no man separate!) I'm not saying that God doesn't recognize the physical differences between Jews and Gentiles (He does), but that: (a) even the OT predicted blessings for Gentiles as well as Jews (per Gen. 12:3); and (b) the NT clearly indicates that believing Jews and Gentiles are fellow members of the body of Christ, fellow heirs of the promises of God, etc. (per Eph. 2/3).
4) As for the charge that I simply assume that the NT terminology re: Christ's comimng, etc. refers to the same event (and the implication that there are different events that occur at different times - such as a rapture seven years before the second advent, and a final judgment 1000 years after the second advent)... I assume none of this. Rather, that's what (in my opinion) the NT repeatedly teaches! As I mentioned, Paul, in II Thes. 1:6-10, places the deliverance of believers and the eternal destruction of unbelievers at the second advent of Christ (not 1007 years apart); Peter, in II Pet. 3:3-18 places the hope of believers and the final judgment of believers at the second advent of Christ (not 1007 years apart). I Cor. 15 may be even stronger: Paul is clearly emphasizing the resurrection of believers, and says that the abolition of the last enemy, death, will occur at the time that the perishable and mortal give way to the imperishable and immortal (cf. esp. v. 54). (Surely dispensationalists believe that death will occur after the rapture during the tribulation, and after the second advent during and at the end of the millennium!) Time and time again, the NT indicates, rather clearly, that events which dispensationalists separate from one another will, in reality, take place essentially simultaneously in connection with Christ's glorious return.
My belief in a simple eschatology rests not on assumptions, but on what I believe the Word of God demands. And while agreeing that we do need to distinguish the things that differ, we certainly also need to refrain from distuinguishing between the things that don't!
It's no secret that dispensationalists, who claim to be literal in their interpretation of God's Word, s t r e t c h the day of the Lord into 1007 years. It's no secret that their system demands two (or, in some cases, more) days of the Lord, last days, comings of Jesus, revelations of Jesus, appearings of Jesus, gatherings of the elect, receptions of believers, meetings in the air, resurrections of the just and the unjust, judgments of the just and the unjust, last trumpets, ends of the age, etc., etc., etc. (I've catalogued about two dozen such "distinctions" made necessary to preserve the pretrib/premil scheme. At some point, these distinctions begin to look not just silly, but ludicrous!)
My challenge remains. Read the great eschatological passages in the NT, and what they say about the fulfillment of God's promises. Other than a precommitment to premil theory, I see no reason why such promises cannot have their ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and earth. At the minimum, it seems singularly strange to me that there will be a future millennium, if all we really have is Rev. 20. Again, where do we see such a millennium in Mt. 24/25? Mk. 13? Lk. 17/21? Jn. 14? Rom. 8? I Cor. 15? I Thes. 4/5? II Thes. 1/2? Beats me!
By the way, I mean none of this disrespectfully. I've been an avid student of God's Word for around 35 years, and especially enjoy the subject of eschatology. And, to me, it is absolutely refreshing (as I've said before) to see the beautiful simplicity of what I think Scripture asserts: Jesus is coming again. When He does, He will raise the dead, judge the world, and renovate the cosmos. Things will get worse before He returns, but dramatically better as soon as He returns. We don't know when He's coming. So we need to be ready: watching, waiting, working.
One final note: He will come and carry out His plan to perfection, regardless of our frail grasp of things to come! Praise be to God for that!
You say, “I guess Paul (cf., e.g., Gal. 3:6-9,29) and the author of Hebrews (cf., e.g., Heb. 8:6-13) are guilty of the charge! They most certainly apply OT promises, initially given to the Jews, to God's people in the present age - whether believing Jews or Gentiles.” I would seriously disagree. I don’t think Paul applied any promise to Israel to the church. I think you have to read that in to the text. It is true that the church participates in some blessings of the promises to Israel, but the promises are not fulfilled to the church, and no passage in the NT demonstrates that.
You say, “Shouldn't God's final revelation be given priority? Isn't Scripture itself a better interpreter of itself than we are?” I say, absolutely. This is exactly my point, and it is why I cannot be anything but a premillennialist. Too much of the word of God points otherwise.
You say, “Whatever happened to Ephesians 2 and 3? Or I Cor. 12:13? Or Gal. 3:28?” Nothing. It is about the church. They are letters to the church (as we can tell by reading them). In the church, all are one. But as Paul reminds us in Galatians 3, the promise was not made null. It is still good
As for the DOL, it clearly involves judgment and blessing, separated by time. I don’t think that is deniable from the text of Scripture. 2 Thess 1 does subsume it all in a single description, but that doesn’t mean it all happens immediately together.
So again, I think the text of Scripture such as you list here do not demand your interpretation, and other texts of Scripture forbid your interpretation. We must interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, as you say. But I don’t think you are doing that. You are subjecting certain passages (that promise a future for Israel on this earth) to other passages (that do not require no future for Israel on this earth). In other words, you are saying something like “Because 2+2=4, the car must be red.” Those things are unconnected causally.
You say, “It's no secret that dispensationalists, who claim to be literal in their interpretation of God's Word, s t r e t c h the day of the Lord into 1007 years. It's no secret that their system demands two (or, in some cases, more) days of the Lord,” If the DOL is 1007 years, then we have stretched it into nothing. We have simply left it as it is described. Second, the end time DOL is not multiple, but single. All these distinctions you mention are clearly defensible from Scripture, if you do not start with your presupposition that they all must be one.
You say, “Read the great eschatological passages in the NT, and what they say about the fulfillment of God's promises.” I have.
You say, “ Other than a precommitment to premil theory, I see no reason why such promises cannot have their ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and earth.” Because that is not what the text says. And since the text should be the determiner, why doesn’t that reign supreme?
I completely agree that it is refreshing to see the simplicity of Christ’s return. We share a common belief in that. We disagree on what the Bible teaches about it. We can certainly rejoice together in the coming of Christ.
I think it's pretty clear from what you've written that we "flat out disagree!" Can we agree on that?
As for the specifics, here's my reply to some of them...
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You talk about seeing “ultimate fulfillment of such promises in the future ... but with respect to the new earth.” The difficulty with this, yet again, is the language of the text. The text will not permit such a fulfillment. The words mean something, and the words used indicate that the land from which the Jews were evicted is the land to which they will be restored. Inasmuch as they were not evicted from the new earth, they cannot be restored to it in fulfillment of a promise. That would be like saying, I promised you a house, but I will give you an office building instead. It is a great gift. Just not what was promised.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
Clearly I disagree.
Just as the earth was not annihilated at the time of Noah's flood, so I see no reason to think that the present earth is annihilated at the time of its destruction by fire in the future. II Pet. 3 outlines three periods of earth history: past, present and future - with the past and the present separated by the flood, and with the present and the future separated by fire. Think about Gen. 6-8 and what it says about Noah. Did Noah leave one planet and exit the ark to another?
To put it another way, there can be continuity as well as discontinuity between the present earth and the new earth, just as there will be similarities as well as differences with respect to our present bodies relative to our future resurrection bodies. You claim that Israel must get her land, and that the new earth cannot be that land. But why not? Why not?
Besides, didn't God repeatedly tell Israel that she would dwell in the land FOREVER? So what happens when (for the sake of argument) the millennium ends? Hmmm...
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You say, “I guess Paul (cf., e.g., Gal. 3:6-9,29) and the author of Hebrews (cf., e.g., Heb. 8:6-13) are guilty of the charge! They most certainly apply OT promises, initially given to the Jews, to God's people in the present age - whether believing Jews or Gentiles.” I would seriously disagree. I don’t think Paul applied any promise to Israel to the church. I think you have to read that in to the text. It is true that the church participates in some blessings of the promises to Israel, but the promises are not fulfilled to the church, and no passage in the NT demonstrates that.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
What an incredible statement. Again, I strongly disagree. But trying to convince a dispensationalist about this particular matter seems to me to be like smashing one's head against a wall.
Numerous texts could be cited, including some very pointed ones in Acts. For now I'll simply mentioned what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, when he introduced Joel's prophecy by saying, "This is that." One might also consider what Peter said in Acts 15 and I Pet. 2 when he quoted from the OT and applied what it says to Christians! This kind of thing happens again and again and again in Scripture; what was anticipated during the OT is realized and/or will be realized in the NT.
The classic dispensational notion that the present age is nothing but a grand bracket [intercalation] in God's plan, with no relationship to the OT promises, utterly baffles me, when the NT repeatedly quotes from and alludes to the OT, and indicates its fulfillment in an already/not yet sense throughout the pages of the NT. I'm not saying that the church exhaustively fulfills the promises, but that it does so in a preliminary and partial way ... and that what has already occurred is a precursor and harbinger of all that's to come.
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You say, “Shouldn't God's final revelation be given priority? Isn't Scripture itself a better interpreter of itself than we are?” I say, absolutely. This is exactly my point, and it is why I cannot be anything but a premillennialist. Too much of the word of God points otherwise.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
Too much of God's Word points otherwise?Like what? Yes, like what? Other than Rev. 20, what? I'm waiting...
You keep saying that some promises can only be fulfilled in a future millennium, but I have yet to hear one. Other than your belief that the land must mean the land on the present earth but not on the new earth, I have yet to hear any substantive argument from you that the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises cannot occur in the new heavens and earth. So I'm still waiting...
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You say, “Whatever happened to Ephesians 2 and 3? Or I Cor. 12:13? Or Gal. 3:28?” Nothing. It is about the church. They are letters to the church (as we can tell by reading them). In the church, all are one. But as Paul reminds us in Galatians 3, the promise was not made null. It is still good
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
Your comments about Eph. 2/3 certainly don't surprise me. And this is what bugs the living daylights out of me re: the retrogressive nature of classic dispensationalism. It ends up giving priority to the OT over the NT. It ends up undoing what Christ did on the cross when He broke down the barrier between Jew and Greek. It reverts to the old way, much like the author of Hebrews warned his readers.
I don't know whether you believe that the millennium will be a time for animal sacrifices or not, or whether you believe that it will entail a different gospel and way of salvation or not. But the old classic dispensational perspective on these matters needs to be thoroughly purged. Dispensationalists need to reckon with Hebrews!
I have many friends who are dispensationalists, and I'm glad that they hold to many so-called fundamentals of the faith. But I've come to the conclusion that a good deal of the classic dispensational thinking about the millennium is almost cult-like. Good grief, Jesus has come! And the Spirit has come! We are in days of fulfillment! And the dispensational zeal to turn back the clock to OT ways is really, really off base.
LARRY'S COMMENT:
As for the DOL, it clearly involves judgment and blessing, separated by time. I don’t think that is deniable from the text of Scripture. 2 Thess 1 does subsume it all in a single description, but that doesn’t mean it all happens immediately together.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
Incredible. So the day of the Lord really is 1007 years long? And the blessing/judgment aspects are "clearly" separated by time? Clearly??? Ha! So much for the dispensationalist's literal hermeneutic! I'll say this: the ONLY reason for thinking the day of the Lord = 1007 years is to accomodate the pretrib/premil system. It's an interpretation of convenience ALONE, not necessitated at all by the text itself! The minute one juxtaposes I Thes. 5:2 and II Pet. 3:10, the problem for the dispensationalist surfaces. Walvoord is right: I Thes. 5:2 does refer to the rapture. I Thes. 4:13-18 is the antecedent of I Thes. 5:2 (even as II Thes. 2:1 is the antecedent of II Thes. 2:2, and even as II Pet. 3:3-9 is the antecedent of II Pet. 3:10).
It's pretty clear to anyone but a dispensationalist that Paul and Peter, in speaking of the day of the Lord, were referring to the day of Christ's return. Paul said it would come like a thief, and so did Peter. But if Paul was referring to the rapture (which he was), and if Peter was referring to the time when the heavens and earth would be destroyed (which he was), then the day of the Lord (assuming the dispensational chronology) must be 1007 years long. So what about the day of the Lord in II Thes. 2:2? Is this 1007 years long too? Is Paul saying that the man of sin won't be defeated until 1007 years after the rapture? And what about the day of the Lord in Acts 2:20? Is this also 1007 years long? Will the second advent occur about 1007 years after the tribulation begins? Oh, what tangled webs dispensationalists weave!
LARRY'S COMMENT:
So again, I think the text of Scripture such as you list here do not demand your interpretation, and other texts of Scripture forbid your interpretation. We must interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, as you say. But I don’t think you are doing that. You are subjecting certain passages (that promise a future for Israel on this earth) to other passages (that do not require no future for Israel on this earth). In other words, you are saying something like “Because 2+2=4, the car must be red.” Those things are unconnected causally.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
What can I say? Here's what I'd like to say: Not only is there no evidence for the premil view, there's an abundance of evidence for the amil view. Not only is there no evidence against the amil view, there's an abundance of evidence against the premil view.
Scripture has a lot to say about the coming/revelation/appearing of Jesus, and about the day when He comes/is revealed/appears. It uses all kinds of timing indicators. These indicators include passages that place various events at the same time (e.g., II Thes. 1:6-10; II Pet. 3:3-18), and passages that sequence events relative to one another (e.g., II Thes. 2:1-12). There are scads of passages that tell us what will take place "until," and "at," and "on" (etc., etc., etc.) the day that Jesus comes again. And there are passages like I Cor. 15. I never cease to be amazed at how dispensationalists either refuse to address I Cor. 15 at all, or focus on their view of vv. 20-28 (the "then" business!) without considering the bearing of vv. 50-57 on vv. 20-28.
Besides all this, there's that almost endless double vision business - where any time a dispensationalist meets a text that doesn't fit with his groundless distinctions, he just gets out his special glasses, allowing him to see two of everything. More on this below, but the very thought of the diplopia is already giving me a headache!
What do you do with Tit. 2:13 and Acts 24:15? The blessed hope IS the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus. There is but ONE resurrection of the righteous and wicked.
Again, I challenge dispensationalists to truly engage in anything remotely like exegesis! Dispensationalists have "proof-texted" for too long. True theology arises from accurately exegeting the relevant passages.
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You say, “It's no secret that dispensationalists, who claim to be literal in their interpretation of God's Word, s t r e t c h the day of the Lord into 1007 years. It's no secret that their system demands two (or, in some cases, more) days of the Lord,” If the DOL is 1007 years, then we have stretched it into nothing. We have simply left it as it is described. Second, the end time DOL is not multiple, but single. All these distinctions you mention are clearly defensible from Scripture, if you do not start with your presupposition that they all must be one.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
Larry, you need to take your own medicine! Let me put it this way: The distinctions of dispensationalism are NOT defensible from Scripture. They're contrived in a vain attempt to bandage a system that's badly broken. And yet they must be assumed if the dispensational scheme is to be regarded as correct.
But then again, what do I know? I guess first resurrection really doesn't mean first resurrection. I guess last trumpet and last day and last enemy and last battle really don't mean last trumpet and last day and last enemy and last battle. I guess end of the age really doesn't mean end of the age. I guess there are really two peoples of God, and two versions of the gospel, and two ways of salvation, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, IF the day of the Lord is 1007 years long, then ... wow! ... it's 1007 years long. And yes, IF one can maintain that all these distinctions made by dispensationalists are really legitimate, then ... guess what? ... dispensationalism may just be right. But this is an awful burden to bear. After being dispensational in my perspective for 20+ years, I'm glad I've left such absurdity far behind.
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You say, “Read the great eschatological passages in the NT, and what they say about the fulfillment of God's promises.” I have.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
And?
LARRY'S COMMENT:
You say, “ Other than a precommitment to premil theory, I see no reason why such promises cannot have their ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and earth.” Because that is not what the text says. And since the text should be the determiner, why doesn’t that reign supreme?
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
The text does reign supreme. Check out Isa. 65/66. Here's a passage dispensationalists like to apply to the millennium. Yet what does the text ACTUALLY SAY? It says that these prophecies are about the NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH!
LARRY'S COMMENT:
I completely agree that it is refreshing to see the simplicity of Christ’s return. We share a common belief in that. We disagree on what the Bible teaches about it. We can certainly rejoice together in the coming of Christ.
WAYNE'S RESPONSE:
Amen. In the end it really is good to agree about this!
1) Indicators of a single resurrection (Dan. 12:1f; Jn. 5:28,29; Acts 24:15).
2) Indicators of a single judgment (Acts 17:31; Mt. 16:27; Rom. 2:1-16 with II Cor. 5:10; Mt. 13:24-20,36-43,47-50; Mt. 25:31-46; II Thes. 1:6-10; II Pet. 3:3-13; I Jn. 4:17 with II Pet. 3:7,10,12; Rev. 20:11-15 with Rom. 14:10-12 and II Cor. 5:10).
3) Indicators that the resurrection of believers and the judgment of unbelievers both occur on the last day (Jn. 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24 with Jn. 12:48).
4) Indicators that the hope of Christians and events at the second advent and inception of the new heavens and earth occur at the same time (II Thes. 1:6-9; II Pet. 3:3-18).
5) Indicators that death is abolished and swallowed up in victory at the time of Christ's coming, when the last trumpet is sounded, the dead are raised, the living are raptured, the end comes, and the perishable and mortal give way to the imperishable and immortal (I Cor. 15 - esp. vv. 20-28,50-57).
6) Indicators that the cosmic renovation occurs at the time of Christ's second advent (Mt. 19:28; Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:18-25; II Pet. 3:3-13).
7) Indicators that there are only two ages ("this age" and "the age to come"), with no millennial gap between, and with no people being in a conjectured millennium on earth in non-glorified bodies, getting married, having children, etc. (Lk. 20:34-36; I Cor. 15:50,53).
SORRY FOR USING SEVEN ARGUMENTS!
What seems impressive to me is not only that there are several lines of argumentation that "rule out" a premil gap between the parousia and the new heavens and earth, but that the passages in which these lines of argumentation are presented reflect the key NT eschatological passages (e.g., Mt. 24/25; I Cor 15; the Thessalonian epistles; II Pet. 3; etc.). And these are not passing proof texts, but an essential part of the arguments offered by Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. re: the timing of end times events.
I would urge anyone who is interested in the millennial issue to spend considerable time looking at the above verses in their immediate contexts, and paying attention to the flow of thought and the resultant conclusions.
Thought for the day: Don't be "snowed" by the premil view!