Dispensationalisms [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

GrayPilgrim

January 27th 2003, 03:37 PM

I would somewhat fall in what is called Progressive Dispensationalism. I hold mainly because of my read of Genesis 15, where God walks between the animal carcasses and tells Abe that he will give this land to his descendents. God walking between the carcasses was an ANE custom of showing that if the maker of the covenant did not fulfill his part of the covenant, his curse would be that he would be like these animals. This conjoined with Leviticus 26 says that the Jews need to repent and turn to Christ before he will return them to this land, thus modern day Israel, as it is inhabited by the physical descendents and not the spiritual (read believing) descendents is not a fulfillment of the Promise.

It is labeled under the dispy camp but I think all the different dispensations are not helpful. I see that the explicitly stated covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New) are the lense through which to read the Bible (this is not "covenant theology" as they only hold to the Covenant of Works (pre-Fall) and the Covenant of Grace (post Fall)). I generally lean pre-trib, but other than that Christ will return and judge the living and the dead, I will not generally quibble over details as I see them as generally distractions from our Great and Glorious Gospel that God has entrusted to us.

There is more to it as well, but that is basically the stuff that I am dogmatic about when it comes to eschatology.

GP

Joe Corleone

January 27th 2003, 07:21 PM

Whatcha doing wandering around in the OT? I thought dispensationalism was strictly an endtime Revelation thing....Darby? Scofield? This stuff always scared the porcini out of me when I was a little bony Baptist beastie kid...Shudder!!!!

GrayPilgrim

January 27th 2003, 09:55 PM

I believe in continuity of the promises and the covenants of the Old Testament, which is why I don't completely fit within the bounds of dispensationalism, despite what people want to lable my poisiton.

GP

Jaltus

January 27th 2003, 10:06 PM

I'd be in the Progressive Camp as well, and I would also eschew the actual "dispensations" as unhelpful.

Hitch

January 27th 2003, 11:36 PM

There are the kind who teach the foul Parenthticial Church Age drivel. The rest are not dispensationalist.

H

Hitch

January 27th 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
I believe in continuity of the promises and the covenants of the Old Testament, which is why I don't completely fit within the bounds of dispensationalism, despite what people want to lable my poisiton.

GP LOL Thats like saying 'Im a devout jew I just happen to know Jesus Christ is the Messiah.'

Looks like you're completely delivered, and just have quite realized it yet...

H

Reba

January 27th 2003, 11:43 PM

When one finds out dispensationalism is not biblical they simply change it's name. ie; Progressive Dispensationalism.

automatthew

January 28th 2003, 12:04 AM

Reba dropped this one:

>> When [people find] out dispensationalism is not biblical they simply change its name. ie; Progressive Dispensationalism.<<

HA! HA! Good burn! Oh . . . wait . . . you're just assuming that dispensationalism is bunk and then scoring some snarky points. How does this further discourse?

That'll be 25 push-ups and a 100 word essay on either "Begging the question" or "God's first words in Job." Your choice.

Some call me a naked false-fence-sitter, but you can call me

Matthew

Reba

January 28th 2003, 12:20 AM

automatthew

"HA! HA! Good burn! Oh . . . wait . . . you're just assuming that dispensationalism is bunk and then scoring some snarky points. "

"HA! HA! Good burn! Oh . . . wait . . . you're just assuming that you know me

automatthew

January 28th 2003, 12:31 AM

Hitch finds hilarity in this statement from GrayPilgrim:

>>>I believe in continuity of the promises and the covenants of the Old Testament, which is why I don't completely fit within the bounds of dispensationalism<<<

After laughing out loud at GrayPilgrim's quaintness, he then delivers this similitude:

>>That's like saying 'I'm a devout Jew; I just happen to know Jesus Christ is the Messiah.'<<

The comparison is tendentious and tenuous at best, as well as based on an idea of what it means to be a devout Jew as defined by Jews who explicitly deny Jesus as the Messiah. Supposing a divine covenant has not ended even though a newer has been established is not in the same ballpark as defiant rejection of the new covenant.

Matthew

automatthew

January 28th 2003, 12:49 AM

Reba,

Perhaps I misunderstood. You said, "When one finds out dispensationalism is not biblical they simply change it's name. ie; Progressive Dispensationalism."

Does this statement not:

A) Assume that dispensationalism is not biblical?

B) Accuse dispensationalists of dishonesty in their beliefs and presentation?

C) Attempt to convey the above two contentions in a witty manner?

Those were my assumptions. They are clearly based on your statement, not on a presumed knowledge of your character. I recognize that I may have misinterpreted the meaning of your post, and I welcome correction. People have been known to honestly misinterpret the meaning of a text.:)

So, to which of these assumptions do you object in saying, "You're just assuming that you know me."?

Matthew

Reba

January 28th 2003, 01:09 AM

automatthew

Sheesh are you an english teacher?

GrayPilgrim

January 28th 2003, 01:23 AM

Thanks AutoMatthew! I beleive that the New Covanent makes no senes what soever without the Abrahamic Covenant on which it is predicated.

Philemon

January 28th 2003, 10:58 AM

Does anyone else think Paul rails against dispensational error in Galatians?

bar Jonah

January 28th 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Hitch
LOL Thats like saying 'Im a devout jew I just happen to know Jesus Christ is the Messiah.'

Looks like you're completely delivered, and just have quite realized it yet...

H
Except that I have met devout Jews who accept Jesus Christ as their prophecied Maschiach.

There is nothing more natural than a Jew accepting Yeshua as their savior. Jesus is Jewish, and in His earthly ministry, He came only for Israel.

bar Jonah

January 28th 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Philemon
Does anyone else think Paul rails against dispensational error in Galatians?
On the contrary, Truthman and I (and others) believe Paul is railing against non-dispensational error in Galatians. Paul specifically links his rebuke in Galatians to his rebuking Peter "to his face" at the Jerusalem council, concerning the issue of the Jerusalem church failing to understand the dispensational changes happening at that time.

Note, Paul didn't rebuke Peter for teaching the necessity of the Law to Jewish believers. Only for teaching such things to unsaved Gentiles.

Philemon

January 28th 2003, 04:04 PM

The problem with your assertion is that Paul makes it clear that Israel is not of the flesh but spirit. He also goes to great lenghts to demonstrate what was previously two separate entities is now one. The national Israel and the Gentiles.

truthman

January 28th 2003, 04:30 PM

Yes. You just perfectly described the first part of the mystery, that Israel and the Gentiles are the same!

But the second part of the that mystery is that they are same in that they must come to Christ through faith alone, apart from works. This sets the previous Israel apart in that those (Peter, James, John) who were already saved were not saved by faith alone.

truthman

bar Jonah

January 28th 2003, 04:36 PM

In other words, what Truthman just said is that when Paul wrote there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, this was only after Israel was cut off and the gospel of the Gentiles was brought by Paul.

Reba

January 28th 2003, 04:42 PM

:huh: How many salvations are there?

bar Jonah

January 28th 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Reba
:huh: How many salvations are there?
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean how many ways to salvation have there been? One. How many ways have there been to be justified? Several.

Dark Knight

January 28th 2003, 04:57 PM

I intend to dispense some hurt on all sinners!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!!

Philemon

January 28th 2003, 04:58 PM

Okay, begin by explaining what you think is meant by your statement Israel was "cut off".

Lets look at Paul in (Gal 2:16)(Gal 3:6). Emphatically he says the Jews were saved by faith alone. Now, ofcourse "previously" Israel was set apart. No one here disputes that, but it can be argued effectively and reasonably that it was that "national identity" Israel that was cut off, not the those who were faithful to God, or the "true" Israel if you will. Hence Paul's "remenant". The Pharisees and other such un-believers were identified with the "national" Israel. Paul shows us that the true Israel is one of the heart, not outward action/appearance. This was true from Abraham till now. Paul tells us in (Gal 3:6) how we, as those who have faith are part of Abraham's seed. If we are his seed through faith, then by logic we are included in the Kingdom of Israel, meaning it was a Gentile inclusion into the true Israel, not a cutting off of "everything named Israel" to come back around at some later date 2000+ years later.

On top of all that (Gal 3:8) demonstrates that this inclusion of the Gentiles was prophecied from the begining. (John 10:16 & John 12:20-23) Also prove this for you OVT luvers out there. =)

bar Jonah

January 28th 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Dark Knight
I intend to dispense some hurt on all sinners!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!!
Makes me glad I'm not a sinner!

Hitch

January 28th 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Thanks AutoMatthew! I beleive that the New Covanent makes no senes what soever without the Abrahamic Covenant on which it is predicated. Predicated? It is fulfilled according to the prophet;

Luke 1:31-33
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
(KJV)

Luke 1:50-55
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
(KJV)

Luke 1:68-75
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
(KJV)

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

But you can keep waiting if you like.

Take care

Hitch

Hitch

January 28th 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by RightIdea
Except that I have met devout Jews who accept Jesus Christ as their prophecied Maschiach.

There is nothing more natural than a Jew accepting Yeshua as their savior. Jesus is Jewish, and in His earthly ministry, He came only for Israel. LMAO

Luke 2:30-32
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
(KJV)

This is one place where the heresy of the multiple Gospel drivel will be exposed.

H

Philemon

January 28th 2003, 08:14 PM

The heresy of the multiple Gospel drivel? OUCH!:(

Hitch

January 28th 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Philemon
The heresy of the multiple Gospel drivel? OUCH!:( On top of all that (Gal 3:8) demonstrates that this inclusion of the Gentiles was prophecied from the begining. (John 10:16 & John 12:20-23) Also prove this for you OVT luvers out there. =)

The heresy of the multiple Gospel drivel?

Dont worry all DF distinctives are drivel but specificly the above is reference to:

Acts 1:1-3
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
(KJV)

Acts 28:30-31
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
(KJV)

And this is the same Kingdom, the same Gospel the same Spirit.

Take care

Hitch

GrayPilgrim

January 28th 2003, 09:49 PM

I think you are not listening to my point. I concur that there is only one Gospel, One Lord, One Savior! If you would take time and read through my position you would see that I clearly believe that if anyone is outside of Christ he is dead in his sins, regardless of their ethnic derivation.

joelkaki

January 28th 2003, 10:13 PM

Dispensationalism is most clearly refuted, in my opinion, by Romans 11. There is only one olive tree of God's people. A new olive tree called the church was not started at Pentecost. We are grafted into the same olive tree as believing Jews in the OT were a part of.

Joel

Reba

January 28th 2003, 10:29 PM

Pleasure to see ya here Joel!

joelkaki

January 28th 2003, 11:36 PM

Thanks, reba. Pleasure to be here.

Joel

bar Jonah

January 29th 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Hitch
LMAO

Luke 2:30-32
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
(KJV)

This is one place where the heresy of the multiple Gospel drivel will be exposed.

H
You find Jewish Christians laughable, do you?

You know, Jerry Orbach of tv's "Law and Order" is Messianic Jewish. But I bet you don't laugh at him when you see him defending Creationism and Noah's flood on cable TV, putting his professional reputation on the line in an occupation that is otherwise rife with liberal and anti-Christian sentiment.

Before I respond to any posts about preterism and dispensationalism, I just want to say... Can we all please be adult here and refrain from name-calling and accusations of "heresy?" Such mudslinging is childish and certainly not edifying. It makes it appear as if you can't actually stand on your arguments, and I'm sure that's the last impression you want to give to the board. So please, let's leave the patronizing chuckles and the cries of "Heretic!" at the door and talk like reasonable people.

Rubia Warren

January 29th 2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Solly
Since this one is still empty, let's ask a question.

Could we have a breakdown of the different brands of Dispensationalism, ie Acts 9, Acts 2, or whatever they are called.:hrm:
Yeah... can somebody break it on down for me, please?

bar Jonah

January 29th 2003, 01:55 AM

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. I was getting ready for work, and ran out of time. Just got home a little while ago.
Originally posted by Philemon
Okay, begin by explaining what you think is meant by your statement Israel was "cut off".

Lets look at Paul in (Gal 2:16)(Gal 3:6). Emphatically he says the Jews were saved by faith alone.
No argument here. I have always stated that everyone in history who gained salvation was saved by faith alone. We meet every Friday morning; you should know this, Drew. :) What Acts 9 dispies believe is that some people were justified not by faith alone but by works also. (See the epistle of James.)
Originally posted by Philemon
Now, ofcourse "previously" Israel was set apart. No one here disputes that, but it can be argued effectively and reasonably that it was that "national identity" Israel that was cut off, not the those who were faithful to God, or the "true" Israel if you will. Hence Paul's "remnant".
Again, I couldn't agree more. Acts 9 dispies believe this Jewish Christians continued under the covenant they had been saved under, and were not cut off. This you should also know. :) Although I would replace the word "national" with "corporate," just to be more clear.
Originally posted by Philemon
The Pharisees and other such un-believers were identified with the "national" Israel. Paul shows us that the true Israel is one of the heart, not outward action/appearance. This was true from Abraham till now. Paul tells us in (Gal 3:6) how we, as those who have faith are part of Abraham's seed.

If we are his seed through faith, then by logic we are included in the Kingdom of Israel, meaning it was a Gentile inclusion into the true Israel, not a cutting off of "everything named Israel" to come back around at some later date 2000+ years later.
Here is where you begin to be mistaken. Being of Abraham's seed makes you privy to Abraham's covenant. Not Israel's covenant. All of Israel falls under Abraham. But not all of Abraham is synonymous with Israel! Stop confusing the grandfather with the grandson. There are many of the seed of Abraham outside of Israel. Anyone who looks at a typical family tree can understand this basic principle. All of those who came from the line of Ishmael, for example, are outside of Israel, but they were from the seed of Abraham. So, the two are not synonymous at all. Don't confuse the two promises. Israel begins with Jacob. If we are Israel, Paul would have referred to Jacob here, not Abraham.
Originally posted by Philemon
On top of all that (Gal 3:8) demonstrates that this inclusion of the Gentiles was prophecied from the begining. (John 10:16 & John 12:20-23) Also prove this for you OVT luvers out there. =)
Yes, the inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation. Not our inclusion in Israel. You yourself pointed out that inclusion in Israel is not synonymous with inclusion in salvation. I agree, it was intended by God all the way back in the writings of the prophets that the rest of the world would be saved through Israel, that Israel would be a light to the rest of the world. But, instead, Israel (as a corporate body) was cut off, and God went via Paul to the Gentiles directly, instead.

One last note -- I fail to see the relevance of John 12:20-23. Please clarify?

And one note to GreyPilgrim -- we agree that anyone who is outside of Christ has no eternal life. So what is your statement supposed to mean? You seem to be inferring that we believe people can be saved through some gospel that doesn't involve Christ. Where are you getting that? If you believe that, then you seriously misunderstand the Acts 9 dispensational view.

And if Paul's message was the same as Peter's, why is it that Paul had to rebuke Peter for the Jerusalem church's teaching of a works-faith gospel to Gentile believers, and why did Peter himself write in one of his letters that the teachings of Paul are "hard to understand?" Peter, the number one disciple of Jesus Christ, and he has a hard time understanding Paul's message? And you think they taught the same message? How stupid do you think Peter was?

Hitch

January 29th 2003, 02:04 AM

You find Jewish Christians laughable, do you?

I find you laughable .

Before I respond to any posts about preterism and dispensationalism, I just want to say... Can we all please be adult here and refrain from name-calling and accusations of "heresy?" Such mudslinging is childish and certainly not edifying. It makes it appear as if you can't actually stand on your arguments, and I'm sure that's the last impression you want to give to the board. So please, let's leave the patronizing chuckles and the cries of "Heretic!" at the door and talk like reasonable people. LOL The heresy of multiple Gospels will be exposed for what it is. It just another lie based on the antichirst 'parenthitical church age' drivel and building on such nonsense does not lead to a sound construction.

H

bar Jonah

January 29th 2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Hitch
I find you laughable .
How mature of you.
Originally posted by Hitch
LOL The heresy of multiple Gospels will be exposed for what it is. It just another lie based on the antichirst 'parenthitical church age' drivel and building on such nonsense does not lead to a sound construction.

H
So now you are not only calling us heretics, but you are naming us as "antichrist."

At least we have that on record.

Hitch

January 29th 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by RightIdea
How mature of you.

So now you are not only calling us heretics, but you are naming us as "antichrist."

At least we have that on record. Well I m glad thats done. You again demonstrated your oh so DF tedency toward subtle alteration. As any good DF knows its a skill you need to hone.

Of course actually I said the 'parenthetical church age' doctrine is antichrist, although not in the strictest sense.

But as you say my stament in on record , as is your alteration of it.

H

Philemon

January 29th 2003, 10:29 AM

First of all to Hitch,
Please allow me to give you some critisicm of your posts for the benefit of the discussion at hand:
If you are going to proclaim certain things are heresys and of the antichrist bent, then please make your arguement clear and the basis for it founded. You have been making statements as opinions and have not yet provided evidence that you have taken the time to explain in context. Please do this so we may respect your wisdom and your arguement. Otherwise, please observe or ask questions. :help:

Right Idea
You say salvation has been the same for everyone from the beginning. The differentiation is based on justification differences. Please define what justification is AND please define what salvation is. Whatever you definitions will be, they must be significantly different for your premise to still be vaild.

Lastly, which promised that were given exclusively to Jacob(Israel) are you refering to when you say I am coinfusing the grandfather with the father? Please cite scripture refs for my own study. Thanks! :yipee:

PIH,
Philemon

Hitch

January 29th 2003, 09:47 PM

Hey Phil,, how about this.

I wont tell you how to post, you dont tell me either.

Hitch

Philemon

January 30th 2003, 11:00 AM

Dear Hitch,
I welcome your edifiying critiques as scripture directs us (Eph 4:12)(1Th5:11). If you don't welcome mine thats fine. I am sure the moderator of this forum will be more that happy to guide you. I appologize that my attempt at trying to be an edifying brother in Christ has offended you. :)

YFS,
Philemon

bar Jonah

January 30th 2003, 11:16 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with Philemon.

Hitch, please clarify for me. Do believe I am going to Hell? Yes or no?

Hitch

January 30th 2003, 12:04 PM

RightIdea:
I wholeheartedly agree with Philemon.

Hitch, please clarify for me. Do believe I am going to Hell? Yes or no? Well I reckon that God's province.

But to answer more directly; It is a standard approach of DFs to cast doubt on the very salvation of opponents. In my experience on web forums this particular attack is all but 100% of the time from the DF side. Which demonstrates the foolishenss of futurism in that in nearly every instance when eschatological positions are used as a test of spiritual regeneration it comes as a depserate measure on part of the futurist.

A Covenantal ,for the most part, and 100% of those I know, simply does not apply eschatological positions to basic salvation questions. Obviously you can say there is more to DF than eschatological distinctives, true, but it is in this area where the differences are well established and easily seen and understood.

Take care

Hitch

Darth Xena

January 30th 2003, 01:08 PM

Dear Everyone:

There have been some charges of heresy and antichrist doctrines in this thread. This post is simply a clarification that the position of the leadership at TheologyWeb is that the term "heresy" is generally reserved for the denial of the essentials of the historic Christian faith and not to be used lightly. The doctrines that we hold as essential are what all Moderators and Admin of TheologyWeb subscribe to, no matter what other theological divergences we may have.

That being said, it is certainly well within anyone's right if it is their firm theological conviction that a certain doctrine is rightly called heresy or antichrist to say so (as Paul did not hesitate to use strong words with those whom he opposed); however, we do request (and a rules modification will be put in place) that with strong charges come proof and clarification (i.e. in this case, are we talking about salvation??) of one's position without which the use of such terms should be dropped. It is also wise in debates of secondary issues to consider whether the inflammatory effect of such phrases is really outweighed by its probative value. By use of the phrase "secondary" I am in no wise saying that these issues are not important.. but do we divide over them is the question.

Please feel free to contact me for any further clarification.

As an example, in my normal signature line there is a link defending my use of the term "heresy" for Hymeneaenism which denies the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection... the article is www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

Hitch

January 30th 2003, 09:54 PM

Well,,, does teaching that Christ came to install a geo-political kingdom and failed and only then went to do the work of the cross consititute heresy or not?

Does the teaching that the Kingdom of God is not yet ,despite Christ's personal claims to the contrary constitute heresy?

I say both of the standard DF claims are 180 degrees contrary to the Scriptures. What is the official position here?

I have not and do not say adherence to either ,in and of itself, places one in mortal danger. Any more than a 1950's Southern Baptist would be in such danger for his belief in racial segragation. Another theme directly contrasting the teachings of our Lord yet held by many thousands of otherwise devout and in my opinion true believers.

Take care

Hitch

bar Jonah

January 30th 2003, 11:19 PM

Hitch:
Well,,, does teaching that Christ came to install a geo-political kingdom and failed and only then went to do the work of the cross consititute heresy or not?
I don't know who believes that, but I have yet to ever meet a dispy or an open theist who believes that. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
Hitch:
Does the teaching that the Kingdom of God is not yet ,despite Christ's personal claims to the contrary constitute heresy?
This is obviously a matter of interpretation, especially considering the vast majority of members of the Body of Christ disagree with you on this issue. Doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make them right. But it is obviously not nearly as cut and dried obvious as you make it out to be.
Hitch: I have not and do not say adherence to either ,in and of itself, places one in mortal danger. Any more than a 1950's Southern Baptist would be in such danger for his belief in racial segragation. Another theme directly contrasting the teachings of our Lord yet held by many thousands of otherwise devout and in my opinion true believers.

Take care

Hitch
I take that as meaning you don't believe I am necessarily going to Hell. Good thing, otherwise, I would have refused any further discussion. Thank you for the clarification.

Hitch

January 30th 2003, 11:42 PM

RightIdea:
I don't know who believes that, but I have yet to ever meet a dispy or an open theist who believes that. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Well I cant say Im surprised; when Christ appeared to teh Jewish people the next thing in th eorder of revelation as it stood should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom Cyrus Scofield. Now you are informed.

This is obviously a matter of interpretation, especially considering the vast majority of members of the Body of Christ disagree with you on this issue. Doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make them right. But it is obviously not nearly as cut and dried obvious as you make it out to be. LOL [quote]

I take that as meaning you don't believe I am necessarily going to Hell. Good thing, otherwise, I would have refused any further discussion. Thank you for the clarification. Threat or promise?

bar Jonah

January 30th 2003, 11:51 PM

Doesn't surprise me either, Hitch. I've never read a word Scofield wrote -- even though I am distantly related to him and have the same last name, it just so happens. And even still, Scofield states that this "should have been" the "next thing in the order of revelation." Which is a rather odd statement for ANYONE to make, regardless of theological view. Which begs the question -- what was the context of that quote?

Regardless of the context (though I'm now interested in the surrounding text), I will not be held responsible for what Scofield believed. I am a very different kind of dispy, so don't use him as a straw man against me; it's a waste of your time and mine.

And a threat? A promise? Just telling you where I stand. I will not continue to debate with a brother in Christ who believes I am so lost I am going to Hell. It is not edifying, and that also would be a waste of both your time and mine.

Hitch

January 31st 2003, 12:00 AM

And a threat? A promise? Just telling you where I stand. I will not continue to debate with a brother in Christ who believes I am so lost I am going to Hell. It is not edifying, and that also would be a waste of both your time and mine.

I agree it is a waste of time.

DeeDee saved herslef a lot of trouble by including an ignore feature.

Hitch

bar Jonah

January 31st 2003, 01:52 AM

Philemon:
Right Idea
You say salvation has been the same for everyone from the beginning. The differentiation is based on justification differences. Please define what justification is AND please define what salvation is. Whatever you definitions will be, they must be significantly different for your premise to still be vaild.

Lastly, which promised that were given exclusively to Jacob(Israel) are you refering to when you say I am coinfusing the grandfather with the father? Please cite scripture refs for my own study. Thanks! :yipee:

PIH,
Philemon
Long post, so buckle your seatbelt. LOL

Salvation: God's gift of freedom from sin and death, and the granting of the ability to enter into fellowship with God, both relationally and eventually proximally. No person ever saved himself from sin and death. God saved us through nothing but the work of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.

Justification: how the individual sinner is able to enter into fellowship with God, and thus receive the gift of salvation. It is a judicial act and pronouncement. To be justified means that some requirement(s) have been met in order for something else to happen. Ie. I am justified in receiving a paycheck every two weeks, because I have met the requirements of labor set forth by my employer. I may or may not "deserve" the paycheck I get, but I am justified in getting it because I have met the requirements set by the one who has authority over me.

As for "the grandfather and the grandson," let us compare and contrast.

Genesis 17:1-14
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly." Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

God says Abraham will be the father of many nations -- plural. Israel is only one of many nations descended from Abraham. Let's look at God's covenant with Jacob/Israel.

Genesis 35:9-12
Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him. And God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name." So He called his name Israel. Also God said to him: "I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body. The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your descendants after you I give this land."

God narrows things down here, and now states the land he gave to Abraham, He is giving specifically to Israel (Jacob). This isn't a very big or comprehensive covenant, but God isn't finished creating this covenant, yet. Later, in Exodus 31, God adds to His covenant with Israel by adding the Sabbath Law. Still later, in Exodus 34, God adds the commandments of the Mosaic Law. This also is added specifically to the covenant with Israel. Not the covenant of Abraham.

God said He would be the God of the descendants of Abraham. A small portion of those descendents included the children of Israel, who had a far more extensive covenant that included the Mosaic Law. By the context of the Abrahamic passages and later scripture, we can surmise that this earlier covenant obviously doesn't mean that all people -- believers and not -- are saved. Of course not. Paul writes in Romans 4 about how we are adopted into Abraham's promise through faith. Through adoption, we become heirs to that promise, and thus become Abraham's "descendants." Paul could have easily said we gained the promise of Jacob/Israel. He is a well-educated former Pharisee. He chooses his words carefully and wisely. We aren't adopted into the covenant with Israel. Only into the covenant with Abraham.

Some here have noted that the books of the prophets foreshadow the salvation of the Gentiles. But this Abrahamic covenant predates that by a huge margin, obviously. It foreshadows the salvation of Gentiles long before any of those prophets were born. Because most of the descendants of Abraham were not of the line of Israel.

Reba

January 31st 2003, 09:33 AM

Was Abe blamless?

bar Jonah

January 31st 2003, 10:29 AM

Of course not, Reba. Who are you asking, and why? That seems like a very rhetorical question. :)

Solly

January 31st 2003, 10:48 AM

...before it comes to fisticuffs.

La Rubia and I are still waiting on a breakdown of the different varieties of Dispensationalism, rather than these in depth studies.

What I would like to see is a precise one paragraph statement for each type on what is distinctive about it. What makes them different? Perhaps a one para intro about how they are the same as well.

Thanks, Solly

Thread starter.

Philemon

January 31st 2003, 10:54 AM

Real quick Righty,
Your definition says that in order to recieve something, some work(s) must be performed. You then try to deliniate a difference by saying however we still don't deserve it. If we will recieve what we don't deserve anyways, what is the point of the works? I disagree that your paycheck analogy is relevant, because when I work for my paycheck, I certainly do deserve it! Thats the point. Its a relationship based upon conditions. Tit for tat. You do this work and ye shall receive this as reward ro payment. God's grace is the opposite. A free gift for NO work we have done and in spite of the fact we actually deserve the opposite of what He doles out to us, i.e. eternal separation from Him. I submit this true for Jew or Gentile at any point of history as the scripture teaches. How we "respond" to the gift varies...but to obtain the gift there is no inital requirement we must fufill, save that of being completely unworthy of it. Please let me know where the confusion between us lies. :huh:

Anyone else like to chime in?

YFS,
Phi:hi:

truthman

January 31st 2003, 11:24 PM

Philemon and RightIdea, please continue your debate at this link http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=411

thanks..............truthman

GODISNOWHERE

February 1st 2003, 01:46 AM

Dispensationalism has great interpretive power and should not be so quickly ignored.

Daniel
Col 1:26

Hitch

February 1st 2003, 10:51 AM

GODISNOWHERE:
Dispensationalism has great interpretive power and should not be so quickly ignored.

Daniel
Col 1:26 Well I ve asked for defintion and delineation of the various Dispensations(6-8 depending) on several different boards. Trying to be fair the specific names were not valued but only a clear identifialbe distinctive with one or two NT references confirming XYZ as a distinguishable 'a period of time' . I also included the definition of a 'dispensation' from the SRB.

The 'great interpretive' power though remained hidden as the DFs kept what ever knowledge they had with respect to the challenge to them selves.

This isnt really the thread to continue with this,,, but maybe its time to post that question again...

Take care

Hitch

bar Jonah

February 3rd 2003, 08:56 PM

Let me try to help you out, Hitch, now that I am Moderator here. By obvious necessity, my explanation will be simplified and brief, so don't hang me if I leave out a detail. If something isn't clear... ask.

Also, PLEASE remember these are not written in stone. As I explained in another thread, you can divide geography into all kinds of sets, from continents to nations to time zones to states to counties and city limits, etc. It depends on how absolutely specific you want to get. You can see 7 dispensations, or 27. Heck, maybe even more. I've heard it posited that you could technically say the Thief on the Cross had his own personal dispensation -- after all, he didn't even technically confess with his mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God rose Him from the dead. Jesus wasn't even dead yet, much less risen! The covenant of the Law was still in force, but the man didn't get circumsized, didn't do a blessed thing in relation to the Law of Moses, etc. Didn't become a proselyte Jew, nothing. But.. I digress!

One last thing -- dispensationalism is also founded on the principle that God has had different ways of relating to people via different rules and covenants with His people down through human history. This can't even be debated; it is true prima facie. Each dispensation ended in failure, leading to another attempt by God to relate to human beings. Failure on the part of people, not God. God did everything right, but we failed His will, again and again.

Dispensationalists generally agree the first is the Dispensation of Innocence. No Law, no offense, no sin, just one rule -- don't eat of that one tree. We failed that, obviously. Lucifer lied to Eve, promising she and Adam could be like God if they ate, and they did. Disaster.

The fall of mankind led to what may be called the Dispensation of Conscience. Still no codified Law, no prophets, no judges, no kings, no human government; only the universal moral law written on the hearts of men. Cain murdered, and was convicted by God Himself. But if you read the passages immediately prior to the Deluge, you can see the result of this dispensation -- a world so full of evil that only eight people were righteous enough to save; the rest was washed away in the biggest mass baptism in history. Disaster.

What followed was a new beginning on Earth, and the institution of the Dispensation of Human Governments. One of the most telling was that of Nimrod, one of the most evil men who ever lived, a "hunter of men," the first dictator, the first true oppressor of men. This dispensation ended with the events of the Tower of Babel. Disaster.

God chose to set up His own people among the unbelieving nations of the world, and began with one man -- Abraham. Through this patriarch and his descendants, God created a people of His own, and this was the Dispensation of the Patriarchs or Family. But this also ended in disaster -- the bondage in Egypt.

God brought them out of Egypt and made this family into a nation of its own, with its own land. And with this new situation, God gave them the Law through Moses, for a family doesn't need a codified law, but a nation does. However, this Dispensation of the Law also goes through many tribulations, many ups and downs, as Israel falls away from God several times. It ends with Israel under the thumb of the Roman Empire. Disaster.

How does God bail humanity out? With the ultimate rescue of all time, the event planned since the moment of Man's fall -- Jesus Christ. And His death and resurrection usher in a new dispensation. Now, this is where Acts 2 dispensationalists disagree with Acts 9 dispies. An Acts 2 Dispy would say this heralded a new Dispensation of Grace that exists to this day, with one gospel to Jew and Gentile alike. But an Acts 9 Dispy like myself and several others at this board recognize two dispensations here, and they overlap. They were both intended to be Dispensations of Grace, but to differentiate, they will be given different names.

Jesus' resurrection ushers in what you might call the Dispensation of the Jerusalem Church, in which the Jewish believers were saved by grace but still lived in their Jacobic covenant with God, which included the Law of Moses (although some of the Mosaic Law was completely fulfilled in Christ, such as sacrifice). However, Israel failed her election, and God cut Israel off, then grafting in the Gentiles. But this didn't mean God was going to pull the rug out of the Jews who were saved under their dispensation. So their dispensation continued among their number until the last of the Twelve passed away, ending that dispensation. Their dispensation ended with Israel being cut off. Yes, again, disaster.

But our current dispensation began before theirs ended -- with Paul's conversion. Here is the Dispensation of the Mystery of the Gentiles. God brought Paul in because the whole group of the Twelve couldn't do what this one man would do -- introduce the unique Mystery of the Gentiles, never before revealed until that time. That mystery being that the Gentiles could be saved outside of Israel, without becoming proselyte Jews, and outside of the Law of Moses. While the believers under Peter and the Twelve were "zealous for the Law," Paul on the contrary referred to the Law as a "ministry of death," and proclaimed they didn't need the Law at all! And this dispensation will end with what is only described as the "fullness of the Gentiles," whatever that means. This dispensation will end with the Tribulation. Yet again, disaster.

After the Tribulation comes the last dispensation before eternity -- the Dispensation of the Millenial Kingdom, in which Israel will be held above all other nations, and Christ will reign over His earthly kingdom. This dispensation will end with the Final Judgement and disaster just like all the others -- with a final great battle with Satan, after which the Deceiver and his ilk will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

After that, both Jew and Gentle have Eternity in Heaven. :)

Any questions, class?

smilax

February 3rd 2003, 09:23 PM

Where's the Scripture to back up the system?

Rubia Warren

February 3rd 2003, 09:38 PM

RI-
Thank you for posting all of that. I appreciated it!

Hitch

February 3rd 2003, 10:52 PM

Yawn,,,,,

Dedfine and delineate from Scripture the Dispensation of Innocence and show two or more NT references to that period as a dispensation as distinguished by apstolic authority.

Hitch

bar Jonah

February 4th 2003, 01:07 AM

Hitch, I have said over and over... these dispensational periods are not absolute. They are a way of recognizing and defining and delineating the various changes in the rules God has used to define His changing relationship with His children.

Define the Dispensation of Innocence? God created Man. Man sinned. Beginning and end. During that period of time (which was exceptionally short, and considered by most theologians to have been anywhere from a few hours to a few days or a week), God had no Law, no government, no judges, no kings, no salvation message (none needed), and only one rule -- don't eat from that one tree.

All that is unarguable. Also unarguable was that God's relationship with Man changed when Man fell into sin. Suddenly, God is rebuking them, and actually cursing them. I'd say that's a pretty drastic change. Suddenly, men are making sacrifices to God, and so forth. The rules changed, and the relationship changed.

A dispensational view simply is a way of describing God's changing relationship with His children. No more, no less. You can say there were four dispensations -- Innocence, Law, Grace, and Eternity. You can say there are 7 or 8. You can say there are 12, or 20, or 28, or whatever you want. I think I heard that one exhasperatingly thorough dispensationalist biblical scholar defined over 40 ultra-detailed nuances of dispensational change. I think that's going a bit far, but as I noted above, the Thief on the Cross can be argued as having his own dispensation. God didn't require anything of him other than a profession of faith. Period. A dispensation with a population of 1? Maybe, I don't know. But how we specifically define these "separate" dispensations isn't the point.

The point is that if I lived 3,000 years ago, the only way I'd be able to get to Heaven is if I get "snipped," make sacrifices, observe the Law of Moses, and have faith in the symbolically foreshadowed Mashiyach of God's chosen people. And there's no question of that. But that's not true today, is it? You agree with that, and I agree with that. That is common ground, my brother. And all I'm saying is that some of us refer to that as a "dispensational change." A change in the way human beings relate to God, based on the requirements God sets for us. That's what "dispensational" means. The "house rules." If you don't live by the "house rules" of your dispensation, you are out of luck. You are lost. You are damned.

There are more then one set of "house rules" set forth in the Bible. So to have a dispensational hermeneutic means that you "rightly divide the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) Divide the word of truth! If you don't divide the word of truth, you'll have a bunch of sets of rules and laws that will be jumbled up, most of it not even intended for you. You already have some dispensational understanding of scripture -- you don't try to fulfill the Law of Moses, do you? You ever worn cotton-polyester? Against the Law of Moses, you know.

But Hitch, you have such an ingrained presuppositional hatred of anything labeled "dispensational" that you can't even recognize you have some dispensational understanding of scripture, yourself. You know you're not under the Law of Moses. Again, common ground, something we agree on. So stop fighting against the word "dispensation," and start accepting the fact that you ARE your own enemy. You are a dispensationalist. :)

GrayPilgrim

February 4th 2003, 01:31 AM

Hitch:
Yawn,,,,,

Dedfine and delineate from Scripture the Dispensation of Innocence and show two or more NT references to that period as a dispensation as distinguished by apstolic authority.

Hitch

FYI In Covanent Theology, this is called "The Covenant of Works"

Hitch

February 4th 2003, 07:56 PM

Period. A dispensation with a population of 1? Maybe, I don't know. But how we specifically define these "separate" dispensations isn't the point.

This is the mark of an institutuion dieing. The system that referes to itself as 'Diispensationalism' in the person of RI has basically revised the dispensations into meaninglessness.(not just RI of course ) This is a comon view. Any school of thought so disavowing its distinctives is not long for this world. What had in the begining been the standard unheld in common has become an embarrassment.

A few of the more popular notions will prove temporarily self sustaining, the 'rapture .'ect. And as the structural integrity is increasingly suspect, meaning basics such as the very definition of 'dispensation' itself not to mention the various dispensations, come into question , as is demonstrated in RIs post and shown in the dismembering of the classical literalsism at DTS, that which can nolonger withstand internal examination will fisrt be explained away as unimportant(see above) and later face out right denial. Such straight forwardness is rare in DF circles major consessions have been found in whispered revisions before , even Petnecost revised away the DF distinctive leaven is always evil . But most of us looking at a foundation might be able to identify something that doesnt look quite right an engineer might well be horrified by the same sight, having a better understanding of the situation.

In the case of American DF the last of the old guard is almost gone. They have known of the structural problems for a long time but were certain the rapture would solve any problems before they became too noticable. Ooops. In the mean time the GITP (guy in the pew) doesnt know that one of the main supports, leaven is always evil was quitely removed. He still thinks its true,,, after all he heard it in church ,,,more than once, it must be true. Besides he knows the rapture is really soon this time ,,, he's read the papers....He may never undertand the the 'official' support for the ending he expects has been 'officially' if quietly discarded.

So that just a long way around to say ;without a clear and Scriptural definition of the dispensations ,,, there are no dispensations. Or as RI puts it paraphrazed , 6,8 15 or 20 who cares? Dosnt matter how it said it means the same thing.

Take care

Hitch

bar Jonah

February 5th 2003, 02:19 AM

So, Hitch, what you're saying is that if we hold to those dispensations, we're being too rigid. But if we realize there's more than one way to define those dispensations (to be flexible), then this is a sure sign that dispensationalism is on its way out.

Either way, we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't. We can't do anything right in your eyes. Regardless of what we do, you see it as proof we are wrong and you are right. Which only further illustrates your massive anti-dispy presupposition. You are not a truth seeker. If you were, you'd actually listen with open ears what other people say, and you would actually consider the possibility that you could very well be wrong. I consider that possibility every single day of my life. Granted, I'm a tough sell on any issue; I strive to be both skeptical and open-minded at the same time. But when I do realize I'm wrong about something, I actually look at it as an opportunity, a positive thing. After all, I know I am wrong about something. Now I have learned one thing I was wrong about -- I can stop being wrong about that, and start being right! :)

It's can be a wonderful feeling. I'm not saying if you don't change your mind and agree with me, you're being unreasonable.

You are unreasonable because you can't even fathom the possibility that dispensationalism could be true. That's your presupposition. You must always be right.

Darth Xena

February 5th 2003, 04:57 AM

A brief comment...

And this dispensation will end with what is only described as the "fullness of the Gentiles," whatever that means. This dispensation will end with the Tribulation. Yet again, disaster.

Actually I think this statement is inconsistent with your own views if I may be so presumptous. From what I understand you hold to a pretrib rapture (which of course I vehemently deny - since the Trib happened about two thousand years ago.... but continuing...) which then means that this dispensation will not end in disaster but simply abruptly. The Tribulation will begin the next dispensation, and I find it telling here that you admit that the Trib is about disaster. I am used to Acts 9ers telling what a good thing it is for Israel. So the next one, the one where Christ will be here again phsyically (allegedly) in your view then both begins and ends with disaster.

bar Jonah

February 5th 2003, 10:41 AM

Dee Dee Warren:
A brief comment...

Actually I think this statement is inconsistent with your own views if I may be so presumptous. From what I understand you hold to a pretrib rapture (which of course I vehemently deny - since the Trib happened about two thousand years ago.... but continuing...) which then means that this dispensation will not end in disaster but simply abruptly. The Tribulation will begin the next dispensation, and I find it telling here that you admit that the Trib is about disaster. I am used to Acts 9ers telling what a good thing it is for Israel. So the next one, the one where Christ will be here again phsyically (allegedly) in your view then both begins and ends with disaster.
While I am a pre-tribber like the GODISNOWHERE founder, Daniel... I like to take his philosophy and say that, ultimately, I am a pan-tribber. "However it pans out is fine with me." ;)

I don't see the consistency you're trying to point out, here, so please help me understand. Do you think "disaster" means something against God? Hardly. God has many times used disaster in His plan. For example, the Deluge. So the Tribulation is hardly a break in the pattern I described. Was the Flood a bad thing? Hey, it was a great thing! Wouldn't you agree? And just like the Flood, the Tribulation will be a terrible thing... but it will be a good and righteous thing, according to God's will.

Isaiah 45:7
Isaiah 45
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.'

Darth Xena

February 5th 2003, 08:37 PM

Dear RI:

While I am a pre-tribber like the GODISNOWHERE founder, Daniel... I like to take his philosophy and say that, ultimately, I am a pan-tribber. "However it pans out is fine with me."

It panned out very badly for the first century apostate Jews.

I don't see the consistency you're trying to point out, here, so please help me understand. Do you think "disaster" means something against God?

Oh no, I did not necessarily mean to imply that disaster is a smear against God. God uses His judgment for His glory. All I was trying to say is that I do not think that within your view you can say that the dispensation of the Gentiles ends with disaster for it does not. It ends with the Rapture before the Tribulation starts. No disaster. So, only to the extent that you may have been attempting to demonstrate a pattern that each dispensation ended with disaster is it even a big deal.

I apologize if I was nitpicking. I tend to get very, very specific.

bar Jonah

February 6th 2003, 12:43 AM

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear RI:

It panned out very badly for the first century apostate Jews.
LOL :p
Dee Dee Warren:
Oh no, I did not necessarily mean to imply that disaster is a smear against God. God uses His judgment for His glory. All I was trying to say is that I do not think that within your view you can say that the dispensation of the Gentiles ends with disaster for it does not. It ends with the Rapture before the Tribulation starts. No disaster. So, only to the extent that you may have been attempting to demonstrate a pattern that each dispensation ended with disaster is it even a big deal.

I apologize if I was nitpicking. I tend to get very, very specific. :p
But you're still looking at it wrong. Did the Deluge end in disaster for Noah's family? No, it was a huge blessing ending with a beautiful promise! They were spared the disaster of the end of their age. Just like the Gentile believers, which is exactly why the Rapture must happen before the future Tribulation if dispyism is going to be consistent. This is why I disagree with mid-tribbers, post-tribbers and (real) pan-tribbers. (Heck, I don't even know what pan-tribber really means, but I've heard the term. LOL)

So you see, just because the Gentile believers are spared doesn't mean the end of the age isn't disastrous for the vast majority of the rest of the world's population.

Darth Xena

February 6th 2003, 04:20 AM

Dear RightIdea:

I see that we are simply looking at two different aspects. In what you are saying, in your view, this dispensation ends with disaster, not for the people who are the focus of the dispensation (ie the Church) but the world in general, while I am pointing out that it does not end in disaster for the people who are its alleged focus, but rather they escape.

But.. this has brought to my attention to what I see as another disconnect/inconsistency in your view then (though not a major one probably and actually more so in mainstream dispensationalism than in your view) and that is that allegedly during this time God's attention is turned away from ethnic Israel and He is working with the Gentiles, and thus a different dispensation, but you have God turning back to dealing iwth the Jews in the same dispensation, and indeed during the same "age." For all this major alleged disconnect between Israel and the Church you would think that we would be in a different "age" but dispensationalism is clear that we are in the same "age" in which Jesus' ministry occured. That makes no sense though just simply logically (and I have a chronology that proves it is impossible for us to be in the same age) or Biblically. You should really take a good gander at the end of the age chronology stuff that I posted in the eschatology section.

So you see, just because the Gentile believers are spared doesn't mean the end of the age isn't disastrous for the vast majority of the rest of the world's population.

So bad that all they have to do to escape is flee Jerusalem? Doesn't seem like that will affect me too much. I am nowhere near Jerusalem... but I guess that would be a different thread....