The Narrow Path Ministries

I have found that debating eschatological viewpoints was a LOT of fun back 10 - 15 years ago when I first learned of the various different viewpoints that were available, but over the past 2 years or so, I have found myself much less interested in this aspect of theology. We started a Bible study group at my work that has been meeting since June 2009 weekly and have been going through Matt. We are only on Chapter 8 as we go very slow and dig in. I have been loving it!

One of the participants in the weekly Bible study is a dispensationalist and many times brings up this viewpoint even when we are not discussing a passage of Scripture that is dealing with eschatology in my opinion. I often try to point out there are different views that one should evaluate, and often bring up the partial preterist, amillenial viewpoint that I lean towards, but he is very strongly argumentative regarding his dispy understanding. It appears to me that my friend, who is a wonderful Christian, is not interested in even looking at other viewpoints and is DETERMINED that the dispy viewpoint is the only correct understanding. I now have no interest in debating with someone like this who does not even consider that what he has been told might not be correct. Particularly because he ignores any Scriptures I bring to challange his understanding.

I like the Bible study because we dig in and discuss things verse be verse but when my friend is so determined that his particular viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint regarding eschatology, I am not sure how to respond beyond just saying I disagree because any logical debate is impossible since it appears he turns off his logic center.

I am glad that most of the verses we have talked about up to Matt 8 have not related to eschatology, but you would be surprised how often my friend brings it up and spins whatever we are talking about into dispensationalism. I am a little worried when we actually get to Matt 24 and how I should participate in the discussion without it turning into something that is not edifying for all the people in the Bible study. The problem is my friend has such a strong personality and is very verbal regarding his viewpoint and also very confident in what he believes to be correct. It seems it might just be better to say I disagree and not try to debate when it comes to eschatology in the Bible study.

Have any of you had this problem?
Doug

Hey Doug,

Dispy view depends largely on how one interprets passages on "Israel" in the NT. I found it very helpful to go through and look at how Paul, Peter, etc. viewed this (esp Ephesians, Galatians, Romans 9-11, 1 Peter) Steve also talks about how NT authors view the fulfilment of OT passages talking about "the Kingdom" in his eschatology series. As a former dispy (hadn't been exposed to anything other than that view for the first 20 yrs of my Christian life) I found this very helpful too.

The third thing that really opened my eyes was to see language used by OT prophets WRT prophesies against Egypt, Assyria, Tyre, Babylon, etc. and how they were actually fulfilled. It opened my eyes to the symbolic use of language by the prophets. Phrases such as "the Lord coming on the clouds" are best taken metaphorically. At least they were in other prophesies that have already been fulfilled. Hyperbole also has to be understood. A locust plague "...such as has never happened before and never will again" is predicted. And then happens again! How can that be? Must be hyperbole.



See you at the pool.

Douglas, if you're going through Matthew slowly, you may be interested to incorporate some of the Sermon on the Mount stuff from http://www.duphorne.com/sotm -- I have put together passages and questions from points made by Steve in his Matt/SOTM lectures. We've been going pretty slowly, too, in our small group.

Awesome.
Thanks for the advise.
I have been using the verse by verse lectures that Steve has on Matt, and it has proven very effective in keeping our group on track for the most part. I will take any help we can get.
Doug

I like the Bible study because we dig in and discuss things verse be verse but when my friend is so determined that his particular viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint regarding eschatology, I am not sure how to respond beyond just saying I disagree because any logical debate is impossible since it appears he turns off his logic center.








I lead a bible study and when heavy theological doctrines come up like say Calvinism , i try to acknowledge that many smart theologians believe it but here are other views also that s/b considered , and i try to give the reasons why while trying to avoid a debate. If someone has no interest in exploring other possibilities a debate won't really help , but acknowleging their position while trying to explain why other possibilities have legitimacy may take the "ego" element out of the discussion.

Well, Jack Van Impe's TV show just ended.
'Wasn't anything else half-worth-watching on....
Hello, Douglas! (long time, no post)

But don't you know that ---
my entire family are dispensationalists.
"Wonderful" Christians in lifestyle and in good deeds, but theologically mistaken.

A few years ago, at a family reunion, I was asked what I believe on eschatology.
(Amillennial/partial-orthodox preterist).
My mom asked, "What is amillenialism?"
"When Jesus comes back, that's it," I replied.
"But what is the next event on the stage of prophetic events?" she inquired.
"Well, I suppose the preaching of the gospel to all nations is primary," I replied.
"But what is going to happen next to fulfill prophecy?" she continued.
"Like I said, mom, He's coming back."
Well, she looked at me like how a little puppy turns its head sideways.
So to try to help her out, I asked her to restate what I had said.
But she simply didn't get it and couldn't restate my beliefs.
(It was apparently beyond her comprehension that I don't 'see' any other events happening)....

So.
I concluded -- (and other discussion happened 'that lead to no where') -- that it would be best that we didn't discuss eschatology. Not to discuss, leave alone to debate! I came to this conclusion because, and as it was quite apparent, that if a person simply cannot understand a view different than theirs at least on a basic level; there's no point in going into it. For whatever reason(s) they don't-get-it, they just don't-get-it....

Occasionally the topic comes up. And when it does, I just say, "Don't you remember? I don't believe the modern nation of Israel is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy." This has been effective in stopping 'debates' (of the not-so-civil variety). I will add that, from time to time, I get asked stuff. In my answers I try to keep it as simplistic as I possibly can. However, I avoid debating like the Plague, as my family believes "Israel will inherit all the land" (which was accomplished quite some time ago in Canaan and during David's reign). I recall one time when we looked at the relevant texts on this. They concurred that "they got the land then" but had no answer when I asked, "Where does the Bible say they will get it twice?" (and I left it at that)....

"Let's order a pizza."
"Okay."

At any rate, I suggest to Douglas:
Ask your dispensational friend to restate your beliefs.
If he can't and/or does not understand them, I further suggest that you ask him to "drop it."
And as other have suggested (here); perhaps "it can wait" till you get to Matt 24 (or elsewhere that are specific to eschatology), e.g.

Thanks.
Have a good day and new decade, all!

Hi Rick,

I get that "little puppy turns its head sideways"look when I speak to amillers about full-preterism, LOL. Good to see you brother.

Hello Douglas,

I thought I’d share about an ongoing experience I have with my father. He is absolutely the most godly man I know in his faithfulness to Christ—just to get that on the table. However, when it comes to his dispensational leanings, there are a few reasons that I believe contribute to his “unwillingness”, shall we say, to take an objective look at Amillenialism (which is where I am at, generally).

The first reason would be because he has been taught this view from very early on in his Christian life, and has never really encountered much teaching on other viewpoints (except the occasional negative comment by detractors, usually expressed in a way to show how silly or ridiculous a certain point is, if you know what I mean).

The second reason is related to the hermeneutical approach that he takes and which he has become convinced is the only “safe” way to interpret bible passages, which could be expressed in the statement I’ve often heard from him, “You should interpret everything as literally as possible.”

The third reason is really a combination of the first two, that being that he has lived his entire Christian life holding these views and many, many years studying the scriptures diligently (albeit through a dispensational lens) and has never been confronted, apparently, with anything he has found in his studies that would cause him to question the truth of what he believes.

In the few years that my millennial views have been changing, it’s been very difficult, at times, discussing eschatology with my dad. Whereas I felt a huge burden to share my newfound “truth” with him and to try and point out some of the major inconsistencies that I felt were easily shown from the scriptures, for whatever reasons, he was not convinced. And because prolonged discussions tended to get him upset I finally decided not to push the issue anymore, unless it could be done in love, honoring one another. Which is how I’ve always handled myself with other Christians with whom I know I disagree with, but I thought with my dad, I had more of a right to push things, because of our close relationship. Basically, we’ve agreed to disagree, but continue to talk about things on occasion.

One idea I wanted to share with you was to suggest to your bible study group, when the time comes, that perhaps you and your dispensational friend could take turns on corresponding weeks presenting your respective views, which might lead to some profitable discussions among the participants. Just a thought. Grace to you brother.

l2j

P.S. Good line Allyn! Although I have run into some pretty bright puppies!

You amill and postmill people have it easy!

Have you ever tried to convince a dispensationalist of full-preterism? No, I guess not...

In my dealings with one dispie (not derogatory, just shorter), I found it best to get him to answer "yes" or "no" questions. I find them rather "slippery" and "sort of" change views once they have been caught.

For instance, just a few hours ago, I sent this email to a dispie buddy of mine:

...anyway, I think you said once before that all or most of Luke 21 (beginning with the disciples’ question in verse 7) was strictly governing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I was just wondering if you could tell me:

1) which verses would apply to 66-70 AD IF there are some verses which don’t apply.

2) in case of an oversight, could you verify (yes or no) whether the following 4 verses all relate to that same 70 AD period as well:

Luke 21:20-22 – And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

Hopefully, I won’t forget the point I am attempting to make by the time you respond…

I am also fairly certain that you don’t believe verses 27 and 28 would apply to 70 AD, although I would be very curious to learn where you would consider the exact dividing line for the 70 AD destruction and your future destruction within Luke 21…that is IF you believe verses 27 & 28 do not apply to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

As you can see, I try to use some humour but I am definitely trying to get him to be very specific in his responses. There has been more than one occasion that what he said means something else than what it appeared that he said. This has been a continued source of frustration.

Also, I think it is impossible to talk to a dispie because he or she rejects covenant theology. They simply choose not to understand the fact of two covenants - old covenant (temple system) and the new covenant (Christ as the cornerstone of the spiritual temple). They are dispensationalists!

As Rick C. demonstrated with his mom, I believe most dispies don't understand enough Scripture to be able to understand covenant theology. They have a system. I have asked my buddy on NUMEROUS occasions to explain why they believe this or that and do you know what happens every single time? I get an attachment written by someone else. They are unable to go to the Scriptures to get the information themselves. My friend has been a dispie for almost 30 years. Surely, by now he could fend for himself...

I remember one time (actually a few times) that when I talked about Paul's quote or Peter's quote or James' quote of an OT passage and how it was OBVIOUSLY been used as a present fulfillment, I got back this answer. "Paul, Peter, or James quotes said passage as being in the future so therefore it is still a future prophecy to them." Now, I wasn't expecting that lack of understanding from this fellow. Of course, the passage is quoted as being in the future. It is, after all, A QUOTE!!!!. No matter how I tired to explain this unique concept to him he didn't want to get it. When I asked him what was the point of the NT apostles bringing up the OT passage in the first place it is either ignored or given some really awkward explanation like it won't be fully fulfilled until Israel this, or Israel that...

I have also learned that they have 2 interpretations of OT passages (when they see fit of course): a physical kingdom for future Israel and a spiritual kingdom for the church. This is how they get around the 100's of OT quotes as being fulfilled in the New Testament...

I have also learned that, according to my dispie buddy, there is a difference between the bride of Christ and His wife. That one really threw me for a loop! To him, our God is a polygamist! He does not understand that the unfaithful wife who committed "spiritual" adultery would be destroyed (stoned to death) - capital punishment for the crimes of adultery. And destroyed she was back in 70 AD in combination with the many internal factions of Jews and culminating with the Roman army.

Anyway, I have stopped (for the most part) a long time ago in trying to talk to him regarding full-preterism. If I can just get him out of disp-sensationalism, it will be a major victory. And yes, I know that it is God that opens our heart. I am just trying to be the one with the "feet."

Anyway, I applaud all your efforts in attempting to work with the dispies. Zionism must be destroyed before it destroys both our countries!

Blessings!

Mellontes wrote:I have asked my buddy on NUMEROUS occasions to explain why they believe this or that and do you know what happens every single time? I get an attachment written by someone else.

So True!! I just got a photo copy from my dispie friend Yesterday of some commentary in his study Bible that is regarding the Abrahamic covenant and how the land was an unconditional promise to the Jews (according to the commentary) and that they are still looking to the future for the fulfillment of that promise. And he tells me "see" here it is in the Bible as he points to the commentary. It is strange that my friend seems to put the commentary on the same level as Scripture it appears. I tried to point out that the commentary is just someones interpretation and it may or may not be correct. But because it ended up in his Bible, he seems to believe it to be correct.

Doug