Hi. i was reading through this article and saw Revelation 20:4-6 cited in reference to a rebuilt temple and a return to animal sacrifice. i don't see either of these details mentioned (at least not in the NIV translation of the passage.) Could someone please correct the reference or clarify it? Thanks!! MrSock 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)MrSock Saturday August 12/07__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-08-12T01:20:00.000Z","author":"MrSock","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MrSock-2007-08-12T01:20:00.000Z-Return_to_temple_+_sacrifices_referenced_in_Rev_20:4-6?_Where?","replies":["c-Rossnixon-2007-08-12T05:09:00.000Z-MrSock-2007-08-12T01:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
Dave Hunt also has these insights in general about Israel and the Temple:
I would like to propose that the article Dispensationalist theology be merged into the "Dispensationalist theology" section of this article. About two-thirds the material in Dispensationalist theology is virtually copied word-for-word from this article, which seems rather pointless. In addition, I find it hard to see the distinction between "dispensationalism" and "dispensationalist theology". As far as I'm concerned, they are synonymous -- dispensationalism is a "theology". Tonicthebrown 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I oppose. It's too long to merge into another article.Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-04-15T11:31:00.000Z","author":"Tonicthebrown","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tonicthebrown-2007-04-15T11:31:00.000Z-Merger","replies":["c-Eleuthero-2008-03-10T04:53:00.000Z-Tonicthebrown-2007-04-15T11:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
The article is getting a bit long. I created Dispensationalist Theology and moved the majority of that section to the new article, but there is need for more of this sort of thing (perhaps an article on reasons for and against the theology). The new article also needs some cleaning up and hopefully someone else will have more time than I at the moment. We might also want to consider creating a discussion archive.--eleuthero 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-03-28T19:14:00.000Z","author":"Eleuthero","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eleuthero-2006-03-28T19:14:00.000Z-Article_Length","replies":["c-Jim_Ellis-2006-03-29T19:51:00.000Z-Eleuthero-2006-03-28T19:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
It strikes me as odd that all dispensationalists should be included with those who hold to a "special" tie to modern Judaism. While it is true that Jews are held to have a continuing role in God's work in history, it should not be stated that all dispensationalists view the current Israeli nation as an explicit example of that.--eleuthero 20:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-05-16T20:47:00.000Z","author":"Eleuthero","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eleuthero-2005-05-16T20:47:00.000Z-Separate_section_for_tie_to_Judaism?","replies":[]}}-->
I started out surprised by the claim that a post-millenialist could be listed as a dispensationalist (Edwards); but as I went to address this issue I found other things that I couldn't let go, and it all turned into a significant re-write of key sections. Mkmcconn 22:07, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"Dispensationalism has had a number of (arguably) positive effects on Protestantism..." On what basis are they arguably positive? Additionally, the article assumes that an anti-Roman Catholic view is a negative. Personally I agree with the assessment that these effects are positive, but that assessment is not NPOV. Including the "(arguably)" doesn't really fix the problem. I removed the "(arguably) positive". This leaves the statements about the content and impact of the teaching intact, without statements as to its value.
In the paragraph which began with "On the other hand, it is a curious fact that dispensationalists tend..." I simply removed the curious fact bit and instead started the paragraph with "On the other hand, Dispensationalists tend..." I don't actually know if the remaining statement is true or not, but it is at least something that could be proven or backed up by referencing some action by Dispensationalists somewhere, whereas "curious fact" is just an opinion (which might be right or not, but it is opinion).
Later in the same paragraph it mentions that Jerry Falwell and evidently others "have asserted that the Antichrist will be a Jew". I assume that the implication is that the proponents of that position are anti-Semitic. I do not know if they are or not, but their position as stated in this article is not necessarily anti-Semitic. The Antichrist would have to be from some ethnic group, and the mere fact that someone comes from a nationality or ethnicity does not necessarily say anything at all about the entire group. If other statements made by the Dispensationalists show that they move beyond the mere statement that the Antichrist will be a Jew to suggest that reflects on Jews in general, the point would be much stronger. The reverse argument could easily be made that because (I assume) Dispensationalists believe that Jesus and most or all of the earliest apostles were Jews that Dispensationalists are pro-Jewish. It may be that the motivation for saying that the Antichrist will be a Jew is anti-Semitic, but the case is not made here well enough to tell either way. I'm not sure what to do with this, though, so for the moment I'm leaving it alone. Someone should clarify this section.
The next paragraph claims to discuss criticisms of Dispensationalism. However, not all of the criticisms are adequately explained. How specifically is an expectation that social conditions will decline a thing to be criticized? The same applies to distrust of the UN and similar organizations. Maybe the point made here is valid, but if so it isn't adequately presented. It would help to state what in the view of the critics makes these criticisms as opposed to observations about what Dispensationalists teach.
The statement regarding the Dispensationalist belief that peace will not be attained in the Middle East being inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount is markedly POV, I think, at least as it reads now. I would like to hear an explanation of the inconsistencies. In the meantime I left it alone in the hopes that someone will expand on the criticism in a way that makes it clear that it is reporting on the criticism rather than presenting the view of the author of the article.
Finally, my understanding of the Dispensationalist view on the Jews is that it teaches that the only way to salvation is through Jesus, and that Jesus is the Messiah anticipated by Judaism. The position therefore is that in the end the Jews will accept Jesus as the Messiah. In that case, in the Dispensationist view the Messianic Jews are not a curiousity so much as a precursor of the future of the Jews. The idea is that Messianic Judaism is the completion of Judaism rather than really being a departure from it or even a replacement for it. I have not made any edits based on this, though, because I think it would require major changes to a couple of paragraphs, and I didn't want to do that without hearing about how I'm wrong first. EditAnon 07:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I left this alone for a while because I'm not sure I'm neutral on this point. However, I don't see the inconsistency between the two statements "Almost all dispensationalists reject the idea that a lasting peace can be attained by human effort in the Middle East" and "Blessed are the peacemakers". The dispensationalists would not claim that peacemakers are not blessed, merely that in the particular instance of conflict between Israel and its adversaries that conflict will not come until we reach the next stage of history. To me, there is no logical conflict between the two. I would like to be enlightened, though. I don't hold to the dispensationalist view here, but I don't see that it is inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount. EditAnon 23:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is probably a mistake to describe "date-setting" as an argument against dispensationalism. In fact, one of the major appeals of dispensationalism was that it reconciled the contradictory passages about Jesus' second coming. Jesus would come "like a thief in the night" to rapture the saints without warning, but a host of signs would precede the Battle of Armageddon when Jesus returned to cast down the Antichrist. Although American dispensationalists did expect the world to end soon they were generally very clear that no date could be set--remember that the first generation of American dispensationalists, people like James Brookes, were old enough to remember the Great Disappointment. I'm not a dispensationalist, but I wouldn't lay that particular error at their feet.
By the way, I'm a Ph.D. student writing my dissertation on dispensationalism. I would be interested in editing this page (and others on Darby, Scofield, etc.), but don't want to just change a bunch of stuff without warning. atterlep 15:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think these changes are better. The use of the Sermon on the Mount does seem like a pretty weak proof-text against dispensationalism. Oddly enough, it always seemed to me that Gal 3 discouraged dispensationalism, for there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus. According to dispensationalists, Jews and Gentiles who accept Jesus as Messiah and Savior have radically different fates: Jews spend the millenium on earth and Christians spend it in heaven. atterlep 0:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a dispensationalist, I haven't come across any proponents of such that teach that an Armageddon is, by itself, desirable. I myself am averse to war, and I don't think that the death of millions is God's perfect plan; however, due to the presence of sin and rebellion, God has taken measures that He wouldn't have in a perfect world. I have found that dispensationalists focus on leading as many people to Jeshua as possible while there is still time (Rom 13:11), and rejoice in the fact that Christ will come back to establish His kingdom, in Israel, from which He will rule the world, where there will be perfect peace, no war, and Armageddon will be a thing of the past. That the battle of Armageddon will be a reality, there is no doubt, it is another fulfillment of prophecy amongst hundreds, but, many wars are going on right now, with the loss of many lives, and causing much pain throughout the world. At Armageddon, all wars will come to an end. I would be shocked and would cease respecting the theological underpinnings of a person who would even think to try to sway political events to "force God's hand." Isn't that what Judas did? As to the separate section on dispensationalism's ties to Judaism, I would think that the section on Messianic Judaism would be a good place to start. It's already there. —Preceding Yruymi (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) • contribs) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-11T18:49:00.000Z","author":"Yruymi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Yruymi-2009-02-11T18:49:00.000Z-Separate_section_for_tie_to_Judaism?","replies":[]}}-->
Is the Watt quote in Miles' book demonstrated to be bogus? Or just the Congress context Grist erroneously added? Or TBD? Alai 06:26, 15 February 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-02-15T06:26:00.000Z","author":"Alai","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alai-2005-02-15T06:26:00.000Z-Miles,_Grist,_Moyers_Chinese_whispers","replies":[]}}-->
I, personally, am a dispensationalist, so I find the comment that "Blessed are the peacemakers" being contradictory to this position odd. You see, I was under the impression that the comming of the anti-christ was not particularly something that we should seek to avoid, but rather something that is going to happen and thus we should get ready beforehand. This means that while we might look at peace talks with a bit of trepidation and fear, we wouldn't try to PREVENT it, or seek to have said talks stop.
I mean, WE won't be around for the tribulation, and as mentioned, it's easy enough to avoid being around for the tribulation (if we the church do our jobs), and we get to come back AFTER the tribulation and that time will be the most fantastic thing imaginable. I mean, no more sorrow? That sounds pretty awesome to me. So why try to prevent the anti-christ by stopping peace talks? Besides, even if it were a bad thing, stopping the peace talks would be as impossible as making them succeede according to this view... the 2nd comming comes when God decides. If peace in the middle east is dependant on the 2nd comming, then God decides that too, despite our actions and efforts. 198.200.181.205 23:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see this comment has already been made above (oops). Well, now there's a topic header for this discussion... all the stuff above is kinda disorganized and hard to find if you (like me) are glossing.
So that said, what can we do about this? I understand that wiki, being encyclopedic, needs to list positions, but I think this particular position needs to have the rebuttle position listed as well. The problem here being how to organize said rebuttle. As listed in the article right now, it seems difficult to insert an opposing view to the opposing view section, esspecially since this particular bit may require more than a single sentence explanation. 198.200.181.205 23:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As Christians, we aren't mainly to be involved in political activism; though we can have some dealings with this, our main goal is to lead others to Christ by our witness, and pray for leaders so that we can conduct ourselves peaceably as ambassadors of Christ. That is the whole purpose of our being here. We aren't here to change the world, except by helping individuals in the world change by being born again. We are in the world, not of it. We want peace above all else, we have the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor 5:17-21) by which we are leading people to have peace with God (Rom 5:1). That is the peace we are seeking in this world; Jeshua said that there will be wars, until the end comes. There is nothing we can do to change that, and if we spend all our time and energy trying to clean the outside of the cup (working on changing the political scene), we will not have this time and energy to build and edify the church. We glory in the fact that God's prophetic timetable is proceeding according to plan, because He really knows best, but we exert ourselves out of love for everyone God puts in our lives. We want to show God's love to all, that some may be saved, so when Christ does come back, we will have treasures in heaven (those we have helped lead to Christ). I pray for the peace of Jerusalem every day. I cry when Jews and Palestinian Arabs die for such a sad war. God isn't happy when any soul dies, so we should work even harder to pray, be faithful, and be strong witnesses for our Lord. Yruymi (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-11T19:01:00.000Z","author":"Yruymi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Yruymi-2009-02-11T19:01:00.000Z-Peace_Talks","replies":[]}}-->
If you want to read the best presentation of traditional dispensationalism go to www.godinvitesyouministry.com Click the Progressive Dispensationalism tab and read the best critique available on Progressive Dispensationalism and the status of Recent Dispensationalism.
Isn't that the more precise term for the subject of this article? That is how it is usually referred to elsewhere. After all, there have been other dispensationalisms before Darby's.
In any case, I have created the new page "Premillennial dispensationalism", and have redirected it to this page.
Also, isn't the term "fundamentalist Christianity" (used in the first sentence of the article) POV? The more neutral term is "Christian fundamentalism". -- Hyperion 06:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This tenet of dispensationalism is not merely saying that the people of OT times did not anticipate the NT church as suggested by User:Eleuthero; it is saying that according to dispensational theology, the NT church was a parenthsis (or intercalation) in God's plan which was not anticipated or prophesied about by the OT Scriptures -- and I quote, "dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament," John Walvoord, The Millenial Kingdom (Zondervan, 1959) p.227. Jim Ellis 02:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
<-- signature? -- Good point, however, the article as written would seem to indicate God was not in on the plan either and had to create a stopgap measure to keep things running, which, to my knowledge, no dispensationalist is going to agree to with the possible exception of some who might hold to Open Theism (the two theologies would seem to be at odds however).--eleuthero 01:54, 21 June 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-06-21T01:54:00.000Z","author":"Eleuthero","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eleuthero-2005-06-21T01:54:00.000Z-The_NT_church_as_a_parenthesis","replies":[]}}-->
I reverted a sentence changed by User:Eleuthero. Here is why. Both Reformed Theology and Dispensationalism claim a "grammatical-historical" hermeneutic -- the term inserted by User:Eleuthero. However, the distinguishing aspect is the dispensationalist claim of consistently "literal" interpretation of OT prophecies referring to Israel. And I quote, "In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism," Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press, 1965) p. 97. Jim Ellis 02:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
<--Always good to sign those entries there. -- There has been an update to the the Ryrie book now titled, Dispensationalism. Thank you for the correction, however, "consistent literalism" as in the quote, would be more appropriate than simply "literal". I felt, in making the initial change, that "literal" alone was an incomplete view of Dispensationalism. It holds to a literalism which avoids allegory / spiritualization but also allows for the normal literary sense of symbols/metaphors... --eleuthero 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right. However, it ignores the question of genre, making it not so much a "literal" as a "textual" or even "hyper-textual" hermeneutic. --Midnite Critic 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-06T22:32:00.000Z","author":"Midnite Critic","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Midnite_Critic-2006-09-06T22:32:00.000Z-Literal_Hermeneutic","replies":[]}}-->
It would seem to me to be appropriate to view those who continue to hold to Chafer's Dispensationalism alone distinct from those who would identify with the clarifications made by Ryrie, and then there are those identify with Progressive Dispensationalism. You also have those who have taken an extreme apocalyptic view (such as you will find in some of the stuff on TBN - admittedly, not a developed theology like the other three). Some will argue for a chronological development scheme where Progressive Dispensationalism is merely the next incarnation of the theology, but since many would still hold to the traditional Dispensational viewpoint (be it the developed model by Ryrie or that presented by Chafer or what I have seen in Europe), this would appear to be inaccurate. Since both those who hold to the traditional (or "Revised" if you prefer Blaisings terminology) and the Progressives find many problems with some of the more pronounced apocalyptic viewpoints, it would seem appropriate to make the needed distinction in the article.--eleuthero 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good points. Dispensationalism is not a static tradition so views have changed over time. Dispensationalism is not centralized, there are a lot of ways to "slice" it and different "pockets" of influence. Classic dispensationalism was expressed by Chafer, Darby and the early edition of Scofield Reference Bible - few modern day dispensationalists hold to it. Traditional or revised dispensationalism expressed by Walvoord, Ryrie, and the Revised Scofield Reference Bible (1967) is the most common view today among dispensationalists. Progressive dispensationalism as expressed by Blaising, Bock, and Saucy is popular in the academic settings. Dispensationalists range all along the fundamentalist-evangelical scale, i.e. from KJV-only to prominent conservative modern translation scholars.
Lamorak 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-17T15:28:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-05-17T15:28:00.000Z-Many_Branches?","replies":[]}}-->
From the article, under the above heading:
"Abraham was saved by faith, 430 years before the Law was given to Moses. (See Galatians 3:6,16-19.)"
How is this an argument in favor of dispensationalism? It would seem to me to be the opposite, indicating that salvation is always "by faith" (whether that phrase is understood in a Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox way). --Midnite Critic 05:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-11T05:28:00.000Z","author":"Midnite Critic","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Midnite_Critic-2005-10-11T05:28:00.000Z-RE:_\"Biblical_arguments_in_favor_of_dispensationalism\"","replies":["c-Midnite_Critic-2005-10-13T07:14:00.000Z-Midnite_Critic-2005-10-11T05:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
Okay. Opinion noted, and that from a credible source. The more I think about it, however, I am inclined to move it to the next section, "Biblical arguments opposed to Dispensationalism." Any of you hardcore Darbyites have any comment on that? --Midnite Critic 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-13T21:26:00.000Z","author":"Midnite Critic","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Midnite_Critic-2005-10-13T21:26:00.000Z-RE:_\"Biblical_arguments_in_favor_of_dispensationalism\"","replies":[]}}-->
I can only guess at the point the author was trying to make here. Looking at the verses cited, Gal. 3:19 states that the Law was added "because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made". According to verse 16, this promised seed was Christ. Maybe the author meant to show that the Law entailed a specific dispensation, and Abraham lived prior to that dispensation. Reading down a little farther, a Dispensationalist would conclude that the dispensation of the Law ended when "that faith" of verse 25 came into effect. I have added a paragraph regarding these concluding verses to the Favorable Arguments section. But unless the sentence in question receives further clarification, I can't see it as being an argument either for or against dispensationalism. It's only a statement of fact. I'm not a Darbyite, but if you think it fits better in the "Opposed to Dispensationalism" section, I have no problem with that. Brwebb
Alas, the weakness of Wikipedia: continuous meddling from pro and con sources. Jim Ellis 19:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-19T19:22:00.000Z","author":"Jim Ellis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jim_Ellis-2005-10-19T19:22:00.000Z-RE:_\"Biblical_arguments_in_favor_of_dispensationalism\"","replies":[]}}-->
Sorry about that; I was just trying to expound on some of the more commonly-held dispensational beliefs concerning the Millennium (certain beliefs attributed to dispensationalists are not necessarily held by all dispensationalists). I'm sure there are enough non-dispensationalists around who can weigh in on the "Oppsed" section, and add to that. Or, I can delete some of the things I wrote. You guys just let me know what you decide. Brwebb 19:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-19T19:48:00.000Z","author":"Brwebb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Brwebb-2005-10-19T19:48:00.000Z-RE:_\"Biblical_arguments_in_favor_of_dispensationalism\"","replies":[]}}-->
I've deleted two paragraphs from this section that were not biblical arguments. If they are to be reinstated, I would recommend either deleting the word "biblical" from the heading or creating another section for non-biblical arguments. - 1/5/2006
Don't want to see this turn into an edit war; can we get some references on the existence of Margaret McDonald, her prophecies, and her alleged influence on Darby? Smerdis of Tlön 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-12-19T17:19:00.000Z","author":"Ihcoyc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ihcoyc-2005-12-19T17:19:00.000Z-Margaret_McDonald","replies":["c-Rossnixon-2005-12-20T10:03:00.000Z-Ihcoyc-2005-12-19T17:19:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Smerdis of Tl\u00f6n"}}-->
I suggest using an independent source to verify this. Raptureready.com is hardly an "unbiased" source regarding Margaret McDonald. It is well know that Dispensationalists are denying that Darby met with McDonald and have gone so far to even deny her existence. Dave McPherson documents in detail the meeting between Darby and McDonald in his book "The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin." Denying something happened, doesn't make it so. Furthremore, the statement added to the article is in fact ambiguous enough to NOT be discarded: "some historians are pointing out that the beginning of the movement could be rooted in" -- "That this was the origins of Darby's thinking on the subject is a hotly disputed topic.
The bottom line is that muzzling history is not the way to provide accurate information to end users. If anyone is going to talk at all about the history of Dispensationalism without mentioning Margaret McDonald, then question marks are immediately raised in my mind regarding the intellectual honesty of the individual.
--Virgil Vaduva 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-12-20T18:05:00.000Z","author":"Virgil Vaduva","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Virgil_Vaduva-2005-12-20T18:05:00.000Z-Re:_Margaret_McDonald","replies":["c-Ihcoyc-2005-12-20T20:35:00.000Z-Virgil_Vaduva-2005-12-20T18:05:00.000Z","c-208.4.153.208-2005-12-20T21:27:00.000Z-Virgil_Vaduva-2005-12-20T18:05:00.000Z"]}}-->
Here is a much more ballanced article dealing with MM's possible influence on Darby. History of Pretrib Development User:Pfrs 18 Feb. 2006
I am adding back in the links to the traditional Catholic view of dispensationalism and the "End Times" because that position isn't otherwise represented. Malachias111 15:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-12-22T15:39:00.000Z","author":"Malachias111","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Malachias111-2005-12-22T15:39:00.000Z-Link_added","replies":["c-Just_zis_Guy,_you_know?-2005-12-22T15:42:00.000Z-Malachias111-2005-12-22T15:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
Catholics who believe in a "pre-Tribulation Rapture" believe against the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church has always defined itself as Israel itself (see writings from the early Fathers to Nostra Aetate). Catholic teaching is that the Church will go through the Tribulation, following Christ in His Passion. Then He will come again to judge the living and the dead in the Last Judgment. See the catechism http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm and listen to the Audio called "The Rapture Trap" here [spam block]TigerLille 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-12-28T19:18:00.000Z","author":"TigerLille","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TigerLille-2005-12-28T19:18:00.000Z-Link_added","replies":["c-Brwebb-2005-12-29T04:13:00.000Z-TigerLille-2005-12-28T19:18:00.000Z"]}}-->
OK, time to grasp the nettle. WP:EL makes it pretty plain that the primary function of external links is as sources. What we have here is apparnetly a group of sites arguing point of view, as a sort of collective offsite fork. The article itself is comprehensive, well written and highly informative. I propse that any external links which are not sources for the article be removed, to avoid distracting from what is a very clearly stated presentation. I believe the links spoil it, rather than improving it. This is a really good article.
Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-12-30T21:57:00.000Z","author":"Just zis Guy, you know?","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Just_zis_Guy,_you_know?-2005-12-30T21:57:00.000Z-Critics_of_Dispensationalism","replies":[],"displayName":"Just zis \u00a0Guy, you know?"}}-->
I moved this sentence to talk. At least one evangelical Christian thinks that Hislop's The Two Babylons is a load of myth-mongering horsepuckey. The rest of the edit I removed this from may say things that ought to be said --- certainly, some identification of the Papacy with apostate Christianity remains in the Scofield Reference Bible, I really don't think that many evangelical Christians take The Two Babylons that seriously anymore. Smerdis of Tlön 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-01-21T23:34:00.000Z","author":"Ihcoyc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ihcoyc-2006-01-21T23:34:00.000Z-The_Two_Babylons","replies":["c-Rossnixon-2006-01-22T03:12:00.000Z-Ihcoyc-2006-01-21T23:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Smerdis of Tl\u00f6n"}}-->
I made a number of edits to the history of dispensationalism sections based on my dissertation research. The information I've found is all available in well-known references, including Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, Rowdon, Origins of the Plymouth Brethren, and Findlay, They Called Him Mister Moody. The only thing that requires serious primary-source reading is the comment that Darby and Brookes both rejected the possibility of finding prophecy fulfillment in current events, but I could provide citations to this from their writings.
It would be worth mentioning more clearly that dispensationalism was exclusively pre-trib for at least 30 years. I didn't want to push that point too hard because it might seem POV, but the historical record is unambiguous.
I think it is also worth noting that while Darby didn't invent futurism, he was one of the major influences that made it popular.
Atterlep 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-03-01T19:23:00.000Z","author":"Atterlep","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Atterlep-2006-03-01T19:23:00.000Z-Messing_things_up?","replies":[]}}-->
As a current student at Philadelphia Biblical University, I can assure all involved that the school's creation was in 1913, not 1914. Trust me, half my school t-shirts all say 1913, not 1914. Minor change, hope this is acceptable to all involved.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMRE5150 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-03-15T18:26:00.000Z","author":"JMRE5150","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JMRE5150-2006-03-15T18:26:00.000Z-Changed_PBU_date_of_origin","replies":[]}}-->
I removed this section from the history portion of the article as it 1) did not add to the immediate context of the discussion 2) had no introduction (why was it included? -- reasons one and two are thus related) and 3) in its current form and position it seemed to be a POV effort to discredit the movement as a whole.
Text removed: There is some question as to whether Darby was the first theologian of his time to propose a secret Rapture. Dave MacPherson, in his 1975 book Incredible Cover Up, stated that the idea was first expressed in 1830, in the visions of a fifteen-year-old girl named Margaret McDonald who claimed to have the gift of prophecy and visions of the end of the world. McDonald would often go into "prophecy trances" and write down her visions soon after. MacPherson claimed that Darby learned of McDonald's visions during a visit to Scotland in the 1830s. Whether this was the origin of Darby's ideas on the subject is a hotly disputed topic, because Darby publicly rejected the validity of McDonald's visions. One account of the early Plymouth Brethren attributes the idea of the secret Rapture to an otherwise unknown Irish evangelist named Tweedy. --eleuthero 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-03-28T19:14:00.000Z","author":"Eleuthero","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eleuthero-2006-03-28T19:14:00.000Z-\"Visions\"_and_Darby's_Secret_Rapture","replies":[]}}-->
Chiliasm (embryonic premillennialism) in the early church and the acknowledgement of God 's dealing in successive economies (ala Augustine and/or Poiret) contain elements which may be common to Darby's dispensationalism, but they do not involve the the defining tenets of dispensationalism. To suggest that "dispensationalism" may be "traced" to any point prior to Darby is POV. The basic tenets of classic dispensationalism (set forth in the article) are not found in the early church fathers, Augustine, Poiret, or anywhere else prior to Darby. The proposed edit may be the position of certain recognized dispensational writers, but that does not make it NPOV. If the proposed edit were to say something like "certain elements of dispensationalism (e.g. premillennialism and successive divine economies) may be found here or there," it would be acceptable. But to say that dispensationalism per se is found in antiquity is POV and a misrepresentation. I believe changes can be made to make valid points, but the proposed change is not the way to do it. Jim Ellis 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-12T21:31:00.000Z","author":"Jim Ellis","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jim_Ellis-2006-04-12T21:31:00.000Z-Proposed_major_edit_recently_reverted","replies":["c-Rossnixon-2006-04-13T01:50:00.000Z-Jim_Ellis-2006-04-12T21:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
I respectfully suggest that the "four basic tenets" be replaced with something which more accurately describes dispensational beliefs today. The first tenet of two peoples of God characterizes classic dispensationalism but not traditional or progressive dispensationalism. As worded with the multiple "gospels" it is more in line with ultradispensationalism rather than mainstream dispensationalism. The second tenet of law/grace was never really a tenet of dispensationalism; it was rather a (mis)interpretation of earlier classic dispensationalist statements. The third tenet on the parenthesis does describe classic and traditional dispensationalism, but not progressive dispensationalism.
The first tenet: Only ultradispensationalists would make a mutually exclusive distinction between Israel and the church. While Traditional and progressive dispensationalists do perceive a distinction between Israel and the church, there is some acknowledged overlap: Jewish believers in the early church (Paul, Peter, John, etc) are members of both Israel and the church. Mainstream dispensationalists do not hold that Israel and the church have different eternal earthly/heavenly "destinies." The "earthly" purpose of Israel will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom. Mainstream dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Pentecost hold that the church and Israel will be together in the heavenly Jerusalem in the eternal state. With regards to the wording, mainstream dispensationalists believe there is only one gospel. Only ultradispensationalists would refer to plural "gospels" and distinguish between a gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of the Grace of God.
The second tenet: Statements by Scofield and other early classic dispensationalists were misconstrued by opponents to teach a radical law-grace distinction and law-based salvation. Charles Ryrie's book Dispensationalism Today and The New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) notes explain how dispensationalists hold that grace is present in all dispensations, dispelling the earlier charges. Daniel Fuller, a non-dispensationalist, stated in his book Gospel and Law (p. 51) that "Although today's dispensationalism explains the relationship between law and grace in wording that is different from that of covenant theology, there is no substantial difference in meaning."
The third tenet: While traditional dispensationalists do hold to the idea that the present dispensation is a parenthesis, progressive dispensationalists do not. Progressives hold that the present dispensation is a progression or link between the past dispensations and the future dispensations. In general that means God's plans have continued in this present dispensation, marking it as a crucial link between past and future dispensations and not a parenthesis. This idea of "progression" between the dispensations is where the name [b]progressive[/b] dispensationalism comes from.
I would suggest what dispensationalists hold in common together are: 1) Israel and the church are distinct and 2) Israel has a prophetic future. The major reason why dispensationalists hold these is the heavy emphasis on progressive revelation, which in turn means dispensationalists will interpret the OT in such a way as to retain the original meaning and audience.
Lamorak 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-15T18:35:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-05-15T18:35:00.000Z-The_four_basic_tenets","replies":[]}}-->
I have replaced the "Four basic tenets" with a more accurate "Basic Tenets of Dispensationalism." Lamorak 22:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T22:19:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-11-15T22:19:00.000Z-The_four_basic_tenets","replies":["c-Dominick-2006-11-16T15:43:00.000Z-Lamorak-2006-11-15T22:19:00.000Z","c-MonkeeSage-2007-04-26T03:04:00.000Z-Lamorak-2006-11-15T22:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
"The most obvious and striking division of the Word of truth is that between law and grace. . . . Scripture never, in any dispensation, mingles these two principles. Law always has a place and work distinct and wholly diverse from that of grace. . . . Everywhere the Scriptures present law and grace in sharply contrasted spheres. The mingling of them in much of the current teaching of the day spoils both, for law is robbed of its terror, and grace of its freeness." (C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, ch. 6, pp. 34, 36.)
"There is the greatest possible contrast between law and gospel. Paul calls the one the ministration of death and of condemnation, and the other the ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness. [. . .] There is no grace in law (the two are opposed to each other), but God's grace dealt with individuals." (John Nelson Darby, The Law, and the Gospel of the Glory of Christ, pp. 431, 432.)
This extensive article includes a single reliable source. To be compliant, the article needs to be fully referenced and supported by verifiable, published sources as per WP:V, and it needs to describe any conflicting viepoints and attribute these viewpoints to notable sources in accordance to WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-17T00:09:00.000Z","author":"Jossi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jossi-2006-07-17T00:09:00.000Z-Non_compliant","replies":["c-Wayward-2006-07-17T00:47:00.000Z-Jossi-2006-07-17T00:09:00.000Z","c-Eaglizard-2006-07-17T12:21:00.000Z-Jossi-2006-07-17T00:09:00.000Z","c-Jossi-2006-07-17T15:10:00.000Z-Jossi-2006-07-17T00:09:00.000Z"],"displayName":"\u2248 jossi \u2248"}}-->
I also agree that inline references are needed. I have access to large number of dispensational references, pro and con, so I'll make an attempt to cite supporting sources. --Lamorak 16:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-18T16:53:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-07-18T16:53:00.000Z-Non_compliant","replies":[]}}-->
"Some dispensationalist Christians note that the name Maitreya, spelled in all seven possible ways in the Hebrew alphabet, adds up to the number 666 (that of the Beast in the Book of Revelation) when traditional Jewish numerical values for letters are used."
I quoted this from the ariticle about Maitreya, a buddhist deity. Is the above quote a true replection of dispensationalist thinking? Does it not border on religious discrimination to call other religion's deity the Beast?
The quote does not reflect dispensationalism. The quote should be attributed to Harry Walther, not "some dispensationalist Christians." Mr. Walther and his website clearly reject dispensationalist beliefs and teachers, so he is not a dispensationalist. Also the reference to Maitreya is not to the buddhist deity, but to a person promoted by Benjamin Creme called "Lord Maitreya" who claims to be Christ. --Lamorak 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-18T16:44:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-07-18T16:44:00.000Z-Views_on_Buddhism","replies":["c-Itsmejudith-2006-07-20T17:30:00.000Z-Lamorak-2006-07-18T16:44:00.000Z"]}}-->
The current section on Messianic Judaism commences with a long rambling verging-on-vanity disclaimer, whereafter the actual text of the section begins with an incoherent "per above disclaimer" remark, all of which is highly irregular, and reeks of POV editing. I don't know much about Dispensationalism, but I can authoritatively tell you [the editors whose brilliant idea this "style" choice was], that that's not the way Wikipedia nor any other encyclopedia article is to be written. All of that, however, doesn't even begin to address the attrociously Messianic POV of the section, which _also_ requires clean-up. If I knew more about the subject, I'd clean the section up myself, but I don't--which leaves me itching to just delete it instead...not only is it an embarrassment to the article, but to WP as well. 4.158.156.184 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-18T23:21:00.000Z","author":"4.158.156.184","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-4.158.156.184-2006-07-18T23:21:00.000Z-wth?","replies":["c-Eaglizard-2006-07-19T02:29:00.000Z-4.158.156.184-2006-07-18T23:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
I made redirects from Dispensational theology and Dispensation theology. Why the word dispensation? What is the basic definition of this term?
The article seems to be about the practices of groups that are categorized at dispensational. My filmmaking group has chips and salsa at events but I wouldn't define filmmaking in terms of serving chips and salsa.
"Dispensationalism teaches biblical history as a number of successive economies or administrations..." This says how some practitioners organize and present their views. It does not say what dispensationalism is.
--Gbleem 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-05T15:55:00.000Z","author":"Gbleem","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gbleem-2006-09-05T15:55:00.000Z-Basic_definition","replies":[]}}-->
In this context, a "dispensation" is an era in which God is dealing with the world in a distinct way, a way which is unique to that time period. For example, according to this scheme, during the time between Moses and Christ, God was primarily dealing with one nation, the Hebrews, by way of a covenant he made with them through Moses, usually called the Torah. This thought is called "dispensationalism" because while all Christians recognize differences between the periods before Christ and the era after the coming of Christ, dispensationlists emphasize these differences, these discontinuities, while most Christians would emphasize the continuity. See the edits I made to the first paragraph, and see the second paragraph as well. This may clear things up a bit for you. If not, feel free to ask further questions. --Midnite Critic 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-06T01:34:00.000Z","author":"Midnite Critic","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Midnite_Critic-2006-09-06T01:34:00.000Z-Basic_definition","replies":[]}}-->
I have had a go at a revised section on Attitudes to Judaism incorporating my previous text on “Attitude to Judaism” and the section “Dispensationalism and Messianic Judaism”. I expect there’s a lot wrong with it, so please treat as just an attempt to get things moving, and ignore if necessary. Proposed text follows.
Christian Dispensationalists sometimes embrace what some critics have pejoratively called Judeophilia -- ranging from support of Zionism and the state of Israel to observing traditional Jewish holidays and practicing traditionally Jewish religious rituals. (See also Jewish Christians and Judaizers.)
Dispensationalists tend to be energetically evangelistic, with special interest in the Jews because they are "God's chosen people." There are some parallels between Dispensationalism and Messianic Judaism. Followers of Messianic Judaism usually call themselves Jews rather than Christians. They follow most traditional Jewish rituals while believing Jesus (whom they call by his Hebrew name Yeshua) to be the Messiah. However, some followers of Messianic Judaism explicitly reject Dispensationalism and proclaim Olive Tree Theology (as detailed in David H. Stern's Messianic Jewish Manifesto).
In some dispensationalist circles, the Jewish converts to Christianity are sometimes referred to as "completed Jews". Thus, while it is at odds with traditional supersessionism (which was formulated to discourage directly carrying over Jewish practice into the Christian Church), dispensationalism generally is markedly at odds with modern religious pluralism, which is typified by the view that proselytism of the Jews is a form of anti-Semitism. Also, some dispensationalists, such as Jerry Falwell, have asserted that the Antichrist will be a Jew, based on a belief that the Antichrist will falsely seem to some Jews to fulfill prophesies of the Messiah more accurately than Jesus did. This assertion stems from the dispensational belief that "he" who confirms "the covenant with many for one week" (Dan 9:27) refers back to "the prince that shall come" in verse 26. In turn, this "prince" will stand up "against the Prince of princes" and destroy many "by peace" (Dan 8:25); and will be responsible for the false "peace and safety" that will precede the destructive day of the Lord (1 Thess 5:2–3). Many dispensationalists believe this man will be a Jew, based in part on John 5:43, where the Lord stated that the unbelieving Jews would receive another who "shall come in his own name" (as opposed to the Lord Himself, who came in the Father's name). Further evidence is from Daniel 11:37, "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all," although in a passage as late as Daniel, a better translation is probably that "He will reject the gods (Eloha) of his fathers." The prophet Daniel refers to this man as "a vile person", who will "obtain the kingdom by flatteries" (Dan 11:21). This belief is not essential to dispensationalism.
Itsmejudith 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-06T20:33:00.000Z","author":"Itsmejudith","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Itsmejudith-2006-09-06T20:33:00.000Z-Attitudes_to_Judaism_section","replies":[]}}-->
The current "Attitudes to Judaism" section is of minimal content, and that content is and should not preceed the more important theology section. In the current "Dispensationalism and Messianic Judaism" the initial paragraph criticizing the subsequent content does not belong in the article, but rather on this discussion page. I would much rather see a single "Dispensatoinalism and Judaism" section discussing all these issues.
As a former member of an independent Baptist church, I offer the following insights on the dispensational view of Judaism. I can offer some Biblical support for our own particular views, however, I will not go into detail here.
Our general attitude towards Jews was one of deeply respectful disagreement, seeing mainstream Jews as "enemies for the gospel's sake", because they held to the Mosaic law, while also "beloved for their fathers' sake", being God's chosen people and keepers of his Scripture.
We believed that the Mosaic law was unfulfillable except by Christ, and, when Christ had fulfilled the law through obedience to God, God accepted Christ's death and innocent blood as fulfillment the law for those others who would freely partake of them through faith.
We believed that after the Resurrection, Christ stayed on Earth for forty days preaching the Kingdom of God (the Millenial dispensation), and that had the Jews accepted him collectively at that time, he would have ushered in the Kingdom immediatly. However, as he had prophesied, he was rejected, and therefore offered salvation to any, including Gentiles, who would partake in his offering through faith. Thus began the Church age (dispensation of grace).
We understood that it was the Jews' rejection of Christ that opened the door to the salvation the Gentiles, and that had the Jews accepted Christ, the Gentiles would not have had that opportunity, and there would have been no Church Age (dispensation of grace). Furthermore, the primary purpose of the Church Age was to provoke the Jews into accepting Christ. In that respect, we subscribed to Olive Tree theology, understanding that our salvation as Gentiles was a step in God's plan for the salvation of the Jews.
On the other hand, we believed that there was no salvation in the Mosaic law per se, that breaking the law resulted in condemnation, whereas keeping the law did not necessarily result in salvation, which brought us into disagreement with mainstream Judaism. Rather, we believed that salvation always has been, and always will be, contingent on faith in God, although this may entail different behaviors in different dispensations. In the present dispensation of grace, there is "no difference between the Jew and the Greek" with regard to salvation. Consequently, seeing that obedience to Mosaic law is not sufficient for salvation, and that without the Temple and proper sacrifices obedience to Mosaic law is effectively impossible today, we advocated proselytization of Jews.
If Olive Tree theology, the purported theology of Messianic Jews, teaches that Jews have some sort of special position with regard to salvation at the present time, then this is where it diverges with our version of dispensationalism, and presumably mainstream dispensationalism. Otherwise, I see no conflict between mainstream dispensationalism and Olive Tree theology. I recognize that some variants of dispensationalism preach replacement theology and would thus disagree with OTT, but IMHO, replacement theology is independent of dispensationalism, and is certainly not part of mainstream dispensationalism.
We also believed that God's special protection of the Jews (whoever blesses the Jews will be blessed and whoever curses them cursed) is still in effect at this time. We did not condone anti-Semitism in our ranks, although there is a visible streak of anti-Semitism in the Baptist faith as a whole, though I don't think it is emblematic of dispensationalism.
We understood the Kingdom of God (Millenial dispensation) to be a time when God would rule visibly on earth, with Jews in a pre-eminent political position. This dispensation would begin with Christ's second coming.
So, to summarize, our form of dispensationalism took a position of respectful disagreement with Judaism, active proselytization of Jews, and a generally positive attitude toward Zionism and Jewish concerns.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.254.88 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-10-05T22:55:00.000Z","author":"66.31.254.88","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-66.31.254.88-2006-10-05T22:55:00.000Z-Dispensationalism_and_Judaism:_Cleanup_issues","replies":[]}}-->
Whoever is trying to keep this article biased is missing the point - please stop removing the links to Preterism or explain why you are calling it "spam" before you remove it. --Virgil Vaduva 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-02T03:37:00.000Z","author":"Virgil Vaduva","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Virgil_Vaduva-2006-11-02T03:37:00.000Z-Additional_sources","replies":[]}}-->
The history section has a serious omission, namely the fact that in Great Britain, many evangelical Anglicans in the 1900s were also dispensationalists. The ideas popularised among the Plymouth Brethren by Darby and others certainly found a hearing among some clergymen of the Church of England, such that some of the evangelical leaders among them actively taught the dispensationalist view of Christian eschatology. This fact of religious history is not sufficiently widely recognised, even though it has been noted by several historians. DFH 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-05T15:32:00.000Z","author":"David Haslam","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Haslam-2006-11-05T15:32:00.000Z-Nineteenth_century_Anglicans_who_were_dispensationalists","replies":["c-Jim_Ellis-2006-11-05T15:52:00.000Z-David_Haslam-2006-11-05T15:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"DFH"}}-->
I think this section has gotten overgrown. If there are notable links, maybe those can be included. This should not be a collection of ministries for or against dispensationalism, and links to the sites. I was WP:BOLD and chopped them off. Dominick (TALK) 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T14:25:00.000Z","author":"Dominick","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dominick-2006-11-15T14:25:00.000Z-External_links_2","replies":["c-David_Haslam-2006-11-15T19:48:00.000Z-Dominick-2006-11-15T14:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have removed this line from the References section, as there is no mention of him in the text. I am aware that he is thought to have influenced those who first popularised the pre-trib rapture, but I don't think this is the right article to mention him. DFH 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T19:20:00.000Z","author":"David Haslam","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Haslam-2006-11-15T19:20:00.000Z-Francisco_Ribera,_Jesuit_priest_(1537-1591)","replies":[],"displayName":"DFH"}}-->
I have doubts about this disputed discussion being in the main article on Dispensationalism. It would perhaps be better to move it to Messianic Judaism, and just leave a link in its place. What do others think ? DFH 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T19:26:00.000Z","author":"David Haslam","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Haslam-2006-11-15T19:26:00.000Z-Dispensationalism_and_Messianic_Judaism","replies":[],"displayName":"DFH"}}-->
I agree it should be moved. Lamorak 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T22:17:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-11-15T22:17:00.000Z-Dispensationalism_and_Messianic_Judaism","replies":[]}}-->
I have tried to give the article an improved structure. I hope others will view this favourably. DFH 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T19:43:00.000Z","author":"David Haslam","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-David_Haslam-2006-11-15T19:43:00.000Z-Article_restructured_today","replies":[],"displayName":"DFH"}}-->
I think its an improvement. I also think the section "Dispensationalism alleged as heresy" should be placed elsewhere and not in the main section on dispensationalism. Gerstner's view of dispensationalism as a non-Christian "cult" is very rarely held by folks these days. Lamorak 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-15T22:30:00.000Z","author":"Lamorak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lamorak-2006-11-15T22:30:00.000Z-Article_restructured_today","replies":["c-Itsmejudith-2006-11-17T15:34:00.000Z-Lamorak-2006-11-15T22:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
I also think its an improvement, agree with Lamorak. The "Dispensationalism alleged as heresy" should be placed elsewhere and not in the main section on dispensationalism. (Froggy) M-filecastle --M-filecastle 05:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-18T05:06:00.000Z","author":"M-filecastle","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-M-filecastle-2006-11-18T05:06:00.000Z-Article_restructured_today","replies":["c-David_Haslam-2006-11-18T22:53:00.000Z-M-filecastle-2006-11-18T05:06:00.000Z"]}}-->
The section is not so much a critique as a defense, and as such, should be either redone or removed. Maxbaroi 08:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Maxbaroi 12:10, November 29, 2006__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-26T08:11:00.000Z","author":"Maxbaroi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Maxbaroi-2006-11-26T08:11:00.000Z-Critiques_of_Dispensationalism","replies":["c-Itsmejudith-2006-11-26T16:42:00.000Z-Maxbaroi-2006-11-26T08:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
I was confused by the combination of Darbyite and LDS dispensationalism in the same section. LDS dispensationalism does not fit the flow of the main thrist of the article. If it needs to be there it ought to have a section of its own.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.73.98 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-07T21:29:00.000Z","author":"84.9.73.98","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-84.9.73.98-2007-01-07T21:29:00.000Z-LDS_dispensationalism","replies":[]}}-->
The problem with merging these two subjects is the fact that they are two separate Theologies. One would not merge an article on Covenant Theology with Dispensational Theology, of which Progressive Dispensationalism is a dabble of both. Just because Judaism is similar to Christianity does not warrant a single article, but two. They are 2 different topics.
Not only are these two issues different in topic only but they are contra-one another. They work against eachother and cannot be equated to eachother.
My vote is no if it matters at all.
KataProginosko 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-01-12T02:26:00.000Z","author":"KataProginosko","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KataProginosko-2007-01-12T02:26:00.000Z-Absolutely_not","replies":[]}}-->
It seems that someone always wants to merge (i. e., spidle, fold, and mutilate) one article or another, usually for no good reason. I mean, hey why not merge Satanism and Christianity? They're both about the worship of supernatural entities, right? Or why not merge articles on DC and Marvel comics? They're both comic book publishers, rught?
With respect, I removed the Dispensation as Heresy section as it did not add anything to the article. It assumed a Christian, not a neutral POV, and indeed read like a sermon (as it was tagged before my edit). In almost all respects, it violated the spirit of Wikipedia. These are informational articles, not religious debates. Templetonbennett 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-03-19T07:42:00.000Z","author":"Templetonbennett","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Templetonbennett-2007-03-19T07:42:00.000Z-Dispensationalism_as_Heresy","replies":[]}}-->
{{JWProject}} It was not the Jehovah's Witnesses who articulated the doctrine of dispensationalism but J. N. Darby. The concept was later refined by and matured by Dallas Theological Seminary doctors and professors, specifically Pentecost, Walvoord and others.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderWatcher1 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-11T17:38:00.000Z","author":"MurderWatcher1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MurderWatcher1-2007-12-11T17:38:00.000Z-Why_is_this_tag_on_the_discussion_page?","replies":[]}}-->
i added part "Criticism of Dispensationalism". i didn't wrote it myself but rather copy-pasted it from wikipedia "Christian Zionism" article. i thought it will be useful to give opposed views. i am aware that original text contains rather offensive expressions. may be someone more familiar with subject will edit them. 78.185.144.23 (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-01-04T14:56:00.000Z","author":"78.185.144.23","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-78.185.144.23-2008-01-04T14:56:00.000Z-Criticism_of_Dispensationalism","replies":[]}}-->
Okay, the article has been POV tagged since February, 2007, yet there's no section herein that deals with it.
So I'll begin the dispute in earnest with the citation in the first section: "The Bible is to be taken literally, though the application of a literalistic interpretation is never consistent." --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-03T20:30:00.000Z","author":"Joe Sewell","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Joe_Sewell-2008-03-03T20:30:00.000Z-So_where's_the_neutrality_dispute?","replies":["c-Flex-2008-03-04T15:10:00.000Z-Joe_Sewell-2008-03-03T20:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
The existing article is not informative but completely biased. Detractors of dispensationalism have added in enough of their own opinion to make this article feel more like a critique than a neutral article explaining the belief. This article should be completely rewritten. 71.40.100.214 (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-03T11:38:00.000Z","author":"71.40.100.214","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.40.100.214-2008-04-03T11:38:00.000Z-This_article_needs_to_be_completely_re-written","replies":["c-Flex-2008-04-03T13:28:00.000Z-71.40.100.214-2008-04-03T11:38:00.000Z","c-Lamorak-2009-01-08T23:38:00.000Z-71.40.100.214-2008-04-03T11:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
Moved material below from article for review and discussion. (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-12T22:52:00.000Z","author":"WBardwin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-WBardwin-2008-05-12T22:52:00.000Z-Material_for_discussion","replies":[]}}-->
The Traditional dispensational position - A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Three important concepts are implied in this defination: ( 1 ) a deposit of divine revelation concerning God's will, embodying what God requires of man as to his coduct; ( 2 ) man's stewardship of this divine revelation, which is he responsible to obey; and ( 3 ) a time- period, often called an " age, " during which this divine revelation is dominiant in the testing of man's obedience to God. The dispensations are a progressive and connected revelation of God's dealings with man, given sometimes to the whole race and at other times to a particular people, Israel. These different dispensations are not seperate ways of salvation. During each of them man is reconciled to God in only one way, i.e. by God's grace through the work of Christ that was accomplished on the cross and vindicated in His resurrection. Before the cross man was saved on the basis of Christ's atoning sacrifice to come, through believing the revelation thus far given him. Since the cross man has been saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom revelation and redemption are consummated. On man's part the continuing requirement is obedience to the revelation of God. This obedience is a stewardship of faith. Although the divine revelation unfolds progressively, the deposit of truth in the earlier time-periods is not discarded; rather, it is cumulative. This conscience ( moral responsibility ) is an abiding truth in human life ( Ro. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Co. 1:12; 4:2 ) , although it does not continue as a dispensation. Similarly, the saved of this present dispensation are " not under law " as a specific test of obedience to the revelation ( Gal. 5:19; cp. Gal. 2:16; 3:11 ) , yet the law remains an integral part of the Holy Spiritures, which, to the redeemed, are profitable for " training in righteousness " ( 2 Ti. 3:16-17; cp. Ro. 15:4 ) . The purpose of each dispensation, then, is to place man under a specific rule of conduct, but such stewardship is not a condition of salvation. In every past dispensation unregenerate man has failed, and he has failed in this present dispensation and will in the future. But salvation has been and will continue to be available to him by God's grace through faith. ( THE NEW SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE, NIV, pg. 3-4 )
We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive.
We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.
We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).
We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7). ( Doctrinal Statement- Dallas Theological Seminary Article V )
I'm fairly new to this topic. Could someome more familar with the central beliefs of D'ism please have a look at point "2" - it seems to have an internal contradiction in the following statement:
The apparrant contradiction is between "Israelites who have faith in Jesus Christ" and "unconditional Covenants God made with Israel.". "Who have faith" strongly infers a condition. I'm assuming this could be worded better?
Also, there is another apparent contradiction on the diagram entitled "Comparison of Christian millennial teachings". Item 2 (Pre-tribulational Premillennialism) shows two events called second coming - one "for church" and one "with church". Obviously there can't be two "second" comings - that's not how counting works. Should the second second coming be entitled "third coming with church"? I'm not familiar enough with Dispensational theology to know what the accepted terms are.... Regards, Bernard S. Jansen (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-22T22:21:00.000Z","author":"Bernard S. Jansen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bernard_S._Jansen-2008-09-22T22:21:00.000Z-Apparent_Contradictions_in_Central_Beliefs_&_Diagram","replies":["c-Rossnixon-2008-09-23T02:07:00.000Z-Bernard_S._Jansen-2008-09-22T22:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
IMHO, the section "Differences of the dispensational periods" could stand to be rewritten, to make it fit more with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. It is perhaps a good description, but it still seems to represent much of the authors' interpretive understanding of many issues. It is better to focus on how the important authors and scholars of recent history have dealt with these issues, and to provide references to their works.
I would appreciate this content if I wanted an article designed to prove dispensationalism; but not if I just wanted a general overview of what dispensationalism is historically, and to understand how important dispensationalists have looked at various related issues (which is more along the lines of what I would expect from an encyclopedia). Choward wiki (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-23T05:57:00.000Z","author":"Choward wiki","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Choward_wiki-2008-09-23T05:57:00.000Z-Differences_of_the_dispensational_periods","replies":[]}}-->
I really hate to sound this critical, but as someone who had no idea of what "dispensationalism" is, the first paragraph of this article did nothing to give me even the slightest clarification of what it really is. It makes references to a lot of other things that "dispensationalism" is not, and what dispensationalists disagree with. But even for someone like me who was raised Christian, it's all pretty much technobabble to me. Sorry! --Daniel (Unsigned comment by 202.20.0.152, 25 May)
اضغط هنا للاطلاع على كيفية قراءة التصنيف المرعيةالعصر: Early Eocene–Recent قك ك أ س د ف بر ث ج ط ب ن دجاجة الماء الداكنة المرتبة التصنيفية فصيلة[1][2] التصنيف العلمي النطاق: حقيقيات النوى المملكة: حيوانات الفرقة العليا: البعديات الحقيقية القسم: ثانويات الفم الشعبة: الحبليات …
Monasterio ortodoxo de San Giovanni Theristis LocalizaciónPaís ItaliaDivisión BivongiCoordenadas 38°29′41″N 16°28′16″E / 38.49472222, 16.47111111Información religiosaDiócesis Romanian Orthodox diocese of ItalyFundación siglo XIjulianoDatos arquitectónicosEstilo arquitectura bizantina[editar datos en Wikidata] El monasterio ortodoxo de San Giovanni Theristis (San Juan el segador) es un monasterio italiano situado en la provincia de Reggio Calabria y ahor…
ソニック・ユース 2011年時点のメンバー。左からサーストン・ムーア 、キム・ゴードン、リー・ラナルド、マーク・イボルド、スティーヴ・シェリー。基本情報出身地 アメリカ合衆国 ニューヨークジャンル ノイズロック[1][2][3]アート・ロック[4]インディー・ロック[5]ノー・ウェイヴ[6][7]ポストパンク[4]活動期間 1981年 - 2011
Квока Охоронний статус Уразливий (МСОП 3.1) Біологічна класифікація Царство: Тварини (Animalia) Тип: Хордові (Chordata) Клада: Синапсиди (Synapsida) Клас: Ссавці (Mammalia) Інфраклас: Сумчасті (Marsupialia) Ряд: Diprotodontia Родина: Кенгурові (Macropodidae) Підродина: Macropodinae Рід: Квока (Setonix)Lesson, 1842 Вид: Квока (S.…
Die Basílica del Pilar hinter der Steinbrücke Puente de Piedra über den Ebro Basilika El Pilar am Ebro Nachtaufnahme von Wolfgang Pehlemann Die Basílica del Pilar (vollständiger Name Catedral-basílica de Nuestra Señora del Pilar de Zaragoza / „Kathedralbasilika Unserer Lieben Frau auf dem Pfeiler zu Saragossa“, deutsch meist kurz Basilika El Pilar[1]) ist eine römisch-katholische Kirche in Saragossa, Aragonien, Spanien. Sie ist die größte und eine der wichtigsten Barockkirc…
У Вікіпедії є статті про інших людей із прізвищем Авл Плавцій. Авл Плавційлат. A.PlautiusНародився 1 століття до н. е.невідомоПомер 1 століттяневідомоКраїна Стародавній РимДіяльність політикПосада давньоримський сенатор[d][1] і консул-суффект[1]Батько Aulus PlautiusdМат…
كالندر الإحداثيات 42°21′45″N 94°17′36″W / 42.3625°N 94.293333333333°W / 42.3625; -94.293333333333 تاريخ التأسيس 1867 تقسيم إداري البلد الولايات المتحدة[1] التقسيم الأعلى مقاطعة ويبستر خصائص جغرافية المساحة 1.356287 كيلومتر مربع1.356286 كيلومتر مربع (1 أبريل 2010) ارتفاع 3…
For the unincorporated town in northeast Georgia, see Shiloh, Madison County, Georgia. City in Georgia, United StatesShiloh, GeorgiaCityShiloh, Lagrange , GeorgiaLocation in Harris County and the state of GeorgiaCoordinates: 32°48′36″N 84°41′45″W / 32.81000°N 84.69583°W / 32.81000; -84.69583CountryUnited StatesStateGeorgiaCountiesHarrisArea[1] • Total2.22 sq mi (5.74 km2) • Land2.19 sq mi (5.67 km2)…
This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Tauragnas – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Lake TauragnasTauragnas lake near TauragnaiLake TauragnasCoordinates55°26′17″N 25°52′47″E / 55.43806°N 25.87972°E / 55.43…
Олег АдамовськийАдамовський Олег Олегович Майор Загальна інформаціяНародження 21 січня 1992(1992-01-21)с. Урожайне, Донецька областьСмерть 12 березня 2022(2022-03-12) (30 років)біля Харкова(загинув під час російського вторгнення в Україну)Національність українецьAlma Mater Харківський н…
Manga series by Tooru Fujisawa Kamen TeacherManga volume 1 cover仮面ティーチャー(Kamen Tīchā) MangaWritten byTooru FujisawaPublished byShueishaImprintYoung Jump ComicsMagazineWeekly Young JumpDemographicSeinenOriginal runAugust 24, 2006 – October 25, 2007Volumes4 MangaKamen Teacher BlackWritten byTooru FujisawaPublished byShueishaImprintYoung Jump ComicsMagazineWeekly Young JumpDemographicSeinenOriginal runApril 25, 2013 – October 16, 2014Volumes5 Television dra…
American college basketball season 1999–2000 Auburn Tigers men's basketballSan Juan Shootout championsNCAA tournament, second roundConferenceSoutheastern ConferenceDivisionWestRankingAPNo. 24Record24–10 (9–7 SEC)Head coachCliff Ellis (6th season)Captains Doc Robinson (3rd year) Chris Porter (2nd year) Home arenaBeard–Eaves–Memorial ColiseumSeasons← 1998–992000–01 → 1999–2000 Southeastern Conference men's basketball standings vte Conf Overall T…
Stasiun Palbapang Palbapang Eks-stasiun Palbapang. Tampak papan nama bertuliskan Terminal Palbapang.LokasiJalan Panembahan SenopatiPalbapang, Bantul, Bantul, Daerah Istimewa YogyakartaIndonesiaOperatorKereta Api IndonesiaDaerah Operasi VI YogyakartaLetak dari pangkalkm 14+599 lintas Yogyakarta-Palbapang-Sewugalur[1]Informasi lainKode stasiunPLP3406[2]SejarahDibuka21 Mei 1895Ditutup1973 (layanan umum) Pertengahan dekade 1980-an (layanan tetes tebu)Operasi layanan - Lokasi pada pet…
U.S. Senate election in Indiana 1992 United States Senate election in Indiana ← 1990 (special) November 3, 1992 1998 → Nominee Dan Coats Joe Hogsett Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 1,267,972 900,148 Percentage 57.34% 40.70% County resultsCoats: 40–50% 50–60% 60–70% 70–80%Hogsett: 40–50% …
1994 studio album by Sir Douglas QuintetDay Dreaming at MidnightStudio album by Sir Douglas QuintetReleased1994LabelElektra[1]ProducerDoug Sahm, Doug CliffordSir Douglas Quintet chronology The Best of Doug Sahm & the Sir Douglas Quintet 1968–1975(1990) Day Dreaming at Midnight(1994) S.D.Q. '98(1998) Day Dreaming at Midnight is an album by the American band the Sir Douglas Quintet, released in 1994.[2][3] Doug Sahm was motivated to reform the band due to his …
Unit of the American Central Intelligence Agency Special Activities CenterDirectorate of Operations SealActive2016–present (as Special Activities Center)Unknown/1957–2016 (as Special Activities Division)Country United StatesBranch CIATypeParamilitary clandestine forceRole Black operations Close quarters combat Counter-terrorism Covert operations Direct action Espionage High-value target Hostage rescue Raiding Targeted killing Special operations Unconventional warfare SizeClassifiedPart&…
Basilika Santo PetrusBasilika Kepausan Santo Petrus di VatikanBasilica Papale di San Pietro in Vaticanocode: it is deprecated (Italia)Basilica Sancti Petricode: la is deprecated (Latin)Fasad dan kubah utama Basilika Santo Petrus, dilihat dari Lapangan Santo Petrus41°54′08″N 12°27′12″E / 41.90222°N 12.45333°E / 41.90222; 12.45333Koordinat: 41°54′08″N 12°27′12″E / 41.90222°N 12.45333°E / 41.90222; 12.45…
Free Ad-funded streaming service based in UK STV PlayerScreenshot STV Player - TV you'll love for freeDeveloper(s)STV Group plcInitial releaseJuly 2009Operating systemWindows, Mac, LinuxPlatformWindows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, AirPlay, Amazon Fire TV, Android TV, Apple TV, Chromecast, Freesat, Freeview Play, Now TV, Roku, Sky Glass, Sky Go, Sky TV, Samsung Smart TV, Virgin Media, YouView[1]Available inEnglishTypeTelevision catch-up, archive, exclusive content, live broadcastWebsiteww…
Jessy Moulin Informasi pribadiNama lengkap Jessy MoulinTanggal lahir 13 Januari 1986 (umur 37)Tempat lahir Valence, PrancisTinggi 1,83 m (6 ft 0 in)Posisi bermain Penjaga gawangInformasi klubKlub saat ini Saint-ÉtienneNomor 30Karier senior*Tahun Tim Tampil (Gol)2005— Saint-Étienne 3 (0)2008—2009 → AC Arles (pinjaman) 2009—2010 → Saint-Raphaël (pinjaman) 2011—2012 → Clermont Foot (pinjaman) 2 (0) * Penampilan dan gol di klub senior hanya dihitung dari liga dom…
Outdoor amphitheatre in Wantagh, New York, U.S. Northwell Health at Jones Beach TheaterThe BeachThe exterior of Jones Beach Theater, c. 2007Former namesNew Jones Beach Marine Stadium (1952–1953)Jones Beach Marine Theater (1954–1994)Jones Beach Amphitheater (1994–2000)Jones Beach Theater (2000–2002)Address1000 Ocean ParkwayWantagh, NY 11793-4800LocationJones Beach State ParkCoordinates40°36′04″N 73°30′08″W / 40.60101°N 73.50232°W / 40.60101; -73.5…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.142.55.48