Sarah's 12th Commandment: Two Kingdoms Theology and American Politics

Facebook is a good place to throw bombs or post rants (and cute baby pictures!!), but is a poor format for serious discussion.  What started out as a mini political rant turned into a saying, then a meme, then full-blown misunderstood comments.  Therefore, I felt it necessary to take it outside... or to this blog.  You know what I mean.

Frankly, I don't know whether this belongs on my theology blog or my political blog.  I try to keep the two as distinct as the Two Kingdoms, but then folks have to go make it all messy.  Since the root issue is theology, I think this is perhaps the most appropriate place.  There is a brief, much more political, post with a link to this on my political blog, though.

Here's the comment I made that started it all (after days of annoyance at the incredible amount of dispensational premillennialist heresy thrown about on my newsfeed regarding the current political situation in Israel/Gaza--read my two posts on eschatological heresies for a definition of dispensational premillennialism, and/or read this excellent article on it by my Pastor).  I'll probably comment more on the political aspect of this on my other blog, but suffice it to say, the past week has just caused rampant heresy to appear on my feed.  To be fair, I think many don't know differently because this is what and how they were taught.  But I digress.  Back to the initial offending comment:

Please stop using religion to make arguments for or against a government policy. That isn't at all to say religion doesn't or shouldn't shape your views, but rather, to say that you can find a better way to make political arguments than simply referring to whatever your religion is. There are ways to make that exact same argument without invoking your religion... and if you can't do that without making a religious plea... maybe you should rethink your position.

This got condensed by a friend to:

Sarah's 12th Commandment: "There should be ways to make an argument for your [political] position without invoking religion. If you can't, then rethink your position."

My friend is much pithier than I (probably why he's the candidate-type and I'm the advisor-type...).  Briefly on background for those not familiar with why this would be number 12: in Republican circles, there is an oft-cited quote from Reagan (his "11th Commandment") about not going after fellow Republicans with vicious public attacks.

Then a Pastor friend of mine turned it into this masterpiece:

The initial post was meant as a political comment, but the discussion on both the initial thread and one where I posted the picture became much more theological in nature.

To avoid repeating myself, now might be a good time to go read up on Two Kingdoms Theology (or Two Kingdoms Doctrine), because that is the focal point of the theological discussion.

Immediate comments ranged from (I'm paraphrasing) "Your faith has to be part of all of your life or it isn't very strong," to "BUT... JESUS!" (although, to be fair, that last one was a sarcastic comment--however, it summarized some of the other discussion pretty well).

Let me try to break down what I am and am not saying for clarification.

I am saying that...

• Theocracies are bad, and anything that moves towards that, in full or part, is equally bad (and, frankly, unbiblical).
• An improper understanding of the Two Kingdoms (which is rampant in modern Christendom) far too often leads down the road to theocracy.
• Frankly, the idea of a Christian theocracy is no better than, for example, an Islamic state.  In point of fact, both are heresies (Islam being a very devolved Arian heresy meshed with some other stuff of non-Christian origin, and theocracies being, at best, a poor reading of Scripture, and at worst, one of the biggest blights on Christendom that I can think of), so while the ends differ, it's a similar root problem.
• God gave us wisdom, reason, and knowledge.  We should use it.  It is not persuasive to say to a non-Christian, "But Jesus says so!"  It is, however, persuasive to use common sense and natural law to make the same point.
• My comment was directed towards more than just Christianity, but all religions, including secular religions like humanism, socialism, progressivism, etc.  Even Atheists (whose belief in no God is a religion in itself) are included.
• Government involvement in any religion in any way is B.A.D!  Once it's codified in law, it can be altered to suit the state--and government rarely makes things better when it changes them.  Separation of church and state isn't to protect the state from Christians or religious influence, but to rather protect Christians from interference by the state.
• You can and should have a religious argument for policy if it makes sense.  What I am asking is for that to not be your only argument, nor your default argument.
• Force makes for very poor faith.  Using government as a bludgeon to make people "believe" anything just creates liars, which is far more dangerous to someone's eternal salvation than a corrupt government in my opinion.
• Government is meant as a curb on sin (Law).  It is about enforcing the law and judgment.  It cannot have the Gospel (grace).  Bluntly put, there is "no room for Jesus in government" because government isn't about the Gospel.  That doesn't mean Christians don't belong in politics, that faith doesn't inform someone's opinion, etc., but rather that (again) a theocracy is BAD.
• Faith does (and should) inform all aspects of a Christian's life.  However, apparently, if every word coming out of your mouth isn't from Scripture or isn't evangelizing, I guess your faith is weak, right?
• (Warning--you are about to read what is likely a very unpopular statement, but it's true):
  The Jewish people should not be considered by the Church as any different than any other non-believers.  This is not to say they should be abused, mistreated, etc.  And, before you say it, yes--Luther was wrong in his statements about the Jews, for the record.  They should be shown the same type of compassion and love we would show any of our neighbors of any religion, but to base political policy on the false notion that they're more special to Christians than anyone else is crazy.  The New Covenant in Jesus nullifies the old.  Period.  For more on this, explained much better than I could, I highly recommend this article by my Pastor (also linked about regarding dispensational premillennialism).  Further, dispensational premillennialism doesn't value the Jews at all (despite the rhetoric)!  Read here to learn more (please note that the timeline of the rapture and end times according to dispensational premillennialism isn't accurately represented here, but the end result is).  Don't believe me?  Dispensational premillennialists openly say so themselves
  (also here).

I am not saying that...

• Christians shouldn't be involved in the public arena.  Quite the contrary.
• Your faith shouldn't inform your positions or votes.  That's a willful misreading of what I've said.  I am merely saying that, when discussing opinions, policy, candidates, etc. in the public square, it's not good enough to say, "The Bible tells me so."  Sunday School songs make for poor policy discussion.
• You shouldn't ever mention your faith at all in politics.  This is more about knowing your audience than anything else.  Specific statements to religious groups are ripe for a religious argument.  But, again, that shouldn't be your only argument!
• American had no Judeo-Christian influences in its founding.  That would be historically ignorant at absolute best.  I am saying that the Founders put in protections so that a theocracy wouldn't be possible.  Of course, they didn't seem to imagine the possibility of a secular, state religion that now seems to be the "theocracy" in which we live, but that's due to their lack of evil imagination (clearly).  We do, however, have a Constitution that guides our government.  I guess the last time I checked, the Bible wasn't an appendix, article, or amendment to that document.

To briefly summarize:

God gave all humans the ability to think critically, use logic, knowledge, and natural law, to explain everything within theology that actually has an effect on Government.  In order to actually implement both politically and morally sound policy, it is vital that we discuss policy from a moral, rather than theological, standpoint.  The only difference is not invoking the name of Jesus or "the Bible says so!" trope in political discourse.  And if it is impossible to make your argument without bringing up religion, you may wish to consider whether or not it is the proper role of government.

Finally, since without a single word in there, this meme makes less sense without context.  Here's a slightly edited version that if you like, you should share!

Heresy of the Week: Millenarianism

The last of the eschatological heresies on my list is Millenarianism.

Millenarianism (also known as Millenarism) is a belief that everything revolves around a one thousand-year cycle after which a major transformation will come. Millennialism is a specific example of Millenarianism. These views were condemned by both the Catholic Church, and Lutherans (in the Augsburg Confession of 1530). Many modern movements, such as Millerism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Branch Davidians and (by some) even Judaism are considered to be Millenarianists.

Heresies of the Week: Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism

Continuing on the theme of the last two weeks, here are four more eschatological views regarding the interpretation of when events in Revelation take place.  When I have time, I'll try and write a post about the Lutheran (and Amillennial) view of when these events occur.

Futurism is a heretical eschatological view that interprets end-time portions of the Bible (specifically, the parable of the Sheep and Goats, Daniel and Revelation) as future literal events. By comparison, Historicism and Preterism say these have already come to pass in a literal, physical sense and Idealism says they are currently occurring in a non-literal, spiritual sense. It, along with Preterism, was conceptualized as a counter to the protestant Historicism heresy by a Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest. 

Historicism is an eschatological protestant heresy which tries to link events that have already happened and people who have already lived with end-times prophesies and beings. The eighteenth century brought about the thought that the Pope (man, not the office) could be the Anti-Christ (a distinction from the Lutheran teaching that the office of the pope is an, not the, Anti-Christ). Catholicism developed Preterism and Futurism as a response to this. Historicists attempt to use timelines and events to predict the end of the world. Millerism is a subset of Historicism that spawned the Seventh-day Adventist church. This is also largely the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

Idealism is a Renaissance-era eschatological heresy that says the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth is subjective for each individual. The establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven is metaphorical, and has not, cannot and will not literally happen. The only literal fulfillment of prophesies they expect is the Second Coming and Final Judgment, although it is not universally accepted in Idealist circles that even those will physically occur, which makes it starkly different from Futurism, Historicism, and Preterism. 

Preterism is an eschatological heresy that interprets most of the end times prophesies of the Bible has having been fulfilled before or at destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and that ancient Israel finds its continuation and fulfillment in the Christian church. The other thoughts on doctrine this are Futurism (most common with Premillennialism, this teaches that all the end times prophesies will be literally fulfilled at a future time and place), Historicism (closest to Preterism in that it says end times prophesies have already occurred literally on earth, but they identify these events with other people and places long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and have used these ‘timelines’ to attempt to divine the date of Jesus’ return, as in Millerism), and Idealism (the teaching that the prophesies have been, are, and will be fulfilled in a non-literal, spiritual sense and may be fulfilled differently for each person).

Heresies of the Week: Dispensational Premillenialism, Millenialism, Premillenialism, and Postmillenialism

For more on these eschetological heresies, check out this post from last fall.  Next week will cover four more related heresies.

Dispensational Premillennialism: see Premillennialism and Millennialism. The main distinction is that Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that the second coming occurs before the tribulation (following the rapture); whereas Classical Premillennialism teaches it occurs after the tribulation (with the rapture following the tribulation). They also believe that the Church and Israel are distinct entities, with Israel having a special place of prominence.  Like both Millennialism and Premillenialism, this teaching denies that Death and the Devil have already been vanquished in Christ's death and resurrection.

Millennialism is also known as Chiliasm. This is a specific form of Millenarianism, with close ties to Premillennialism (like Classical Premillennialism, Millennialism is a post-tribulation belief where the second coming occurs after the tribulation, whereas Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that the second coming occurs before the tribulation). This belief claims that there will be a Golden Age in which Christ reigns for one thousand years on earth prior to the Final Judgment and the New Heavens and New Earth appear. This is not the end of the world, but rather a penultimate age prior to the end of the world. Some believe that before the Final Judgment there will be a final great battle with Satan and his army of demons. This teaching clearly denies that Christ has already conquered Death and the Devil; that His work is as of yet unfinished with Satan (the orthodox teaching would be that while Satan can still tempt us because of Original Sin, he no longer holds power over us through death because of Christ’s fully atoning work).

Premillennialism is an eschatological heresy predominant in protestantism. It is the belief that Jesus will return and physically reign over a literal one thousand year kingdom just before or just after His Second Coming. Premillennialists also believe in a rapture of believers and seven-year tribulation period (Dispensational Premillennialism believes the rapture and tribulation will happen before the thousand years kingdom in that order, Classical or Historic Premillennialism believes the rapture will happen after the tribulation, which occurs after the thousand year’s kingdom but before the second coming). They hold that the Church and Israel are the same entity (Dual Covenant Theology).

Postmillennialism is an eschatological heresy which teaches that Christ’s second coming will occur after the Millennium (some hold this to be a literal one thousand years, others that it is symbolic of a long period of time), a Golden Age of prosperous Christian ethics. It is in contrast to Premillennialism and the orthodox doctrine of Amillennialism—both of which are well established in various Christian denominations. Postmillennialism is considered rare compared to the other two. They also teach that Satan will gradually be defeated by expansion of the Kingdom of God before the second coming (like Millennialism, this denies that Christ has already completed His work on the Cross and already vanquished Death and the Devil). Many Postmillennialists are also followers of Preterism. Calvin defended both Premillennialism and Postmillennialism in different works.

Heresies of the Week: Covenantalism and Dispensationalism

Heresies are generally (willful or unintentional) misunderstanding points of doctrine.  In that sense, Covenantalism isn't a heresy, but because it is a significant building block of other heresies (largely eschatological), I've included it here.

Covenantalism is a protestant (largely Calvinist) heresy also called Covenant Theology, Federal theology or Federalism. Covenant Theology teaches that everything God has done in dealing with mankind is done under three overarching theological (meaning not explicitly expressed in the Bible, but thought to be theologically implicit) covenants: redemption, works and grace. This is considered less a point of doctrine or dogma, and more a structure by which the Bible is organized.

Dispensationalism is a 19th century protestant eschatological heresy that uses Biblical interpretation to foresee a series of “dispensations” (periods in history) which God relates to humans in different ways under different Biblical covenants. All Dispensationalists subscribe to Premillennialism, and most (but not all) hold to a pretribulation rapture. Dispensationalists also believe that the nation of Israel (not the same as the state of Israel) is separate from the Christian Church and God has yet to fulfill His promises to the nation of Israel (Dual Covenant Theology). Dispensationalism has caused some protestants to interpret Revelation as predicting future events (Futurism), some past events (Historicism) and other to associate it with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 (Preterism).

Theological Pet Peeves

Note: I originally wrote this two weeks ago (18 November, to be specific), and just haven't gotten back around to editing and post it between Thanksgiving, illness and travelling.  Finally getting there! -S

A few weeks ago was especially unnerving for me, hitting on many of the "theological pet peeves" I have, so I thought I might put together a brief commentary on each of them.  They're not in any particular order (other than how I thought of them).

1) "Accepting" vs. "Receiving" faith
While I generally understand what Christians mean when they ask, "When did you accept Jesus?", my mind immediately reacts with "SEMI-PELAGIANIST!!!"  I know it may seem like semantics, but in all the research I have been doing of late on Original Sin, I know that no one would ever "choose" faith.  We cannot choose spiritual good.  I've spent years trying to figure out how to explain this in a concise manner, and it finally dawned on me this week.  I've always said that our role in the creation of faith is passive, not active.  But finally, the right word to use instead of accept dawned on me.  It is receive.  We receive faith.  We may reject it (which is what everyone would do, were it not for the working of the Holy Ghost), but our receipt of  faith is entirely passive.  Putting the emphasis on our acceptance (or supposedly active) role in salvation is nothing short of Semi-Pelegianism, even if it isn't meant that way.  We have to be very precise in what we say, not be lazy or sloppy in theology.

2) Saying "just" in prayers
I don't know if there is necessarily anything theologically wrong with this, but I can't stand when people use the world "just" in prayers.  It's a filler, it's annoying and it just makes me want to scream.  Another thing that drives me nuts is when people mutter things under their breath in prayer.  Again, not sure there is really anything wrong with it, but I can't concentrate when I am listening to others when I'm supposed to be praying.  Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard a Lutheran do either of those things.  I wonder why that is?

3) Dual Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology
With all that has gone on in Israel the past weeks, I keep seeing posts on Facebook about how America has to save Israel and (yes, some people have actually said this) how America was created to save Israel, even though Israel wasn't a nation until 150+ years after we were founded as a country.  This comes from a largely Dispensational idea that Israel must be restored before the return of Christ (something I've never found in the Bible).  What the Bible does make clear is the New Covenant, which is not just for Israel but for all in Jesus.  America may have strategic or other reasons to help or "save" Israel, but using Dispensational Theology with no Biblical basis to make political decisions terrifies me.

4) End Times Signs-seekers
Jesus told us that even He does know know when He is to return.  One of the frustrations that also comes from Dispensationalism is that there are those who continue to look for signs, even though we cannot know the hour or day when Jesus is to return.  From solar flares to the UN (which is, by the by, a misunderstanding of the Antichrist, who is a religious, NOT political, figure) to waiting for an invented Rapture, I seem to see something new at least weekly.  There are even those who claim that 21 December 2012, the day the Mayan Calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world, is also the day the Rapture will happen.  These attempts to read signs that aren't there just makes the rest of us Christians look silly and loony.  It's hard for anyone to take Christianity seriously when what is known about it is just plain goofy, and not actual Christian, Biblical doctrine.

5) "Baptism is just a symbol, but you must be fully immersed and not an infant for it to be valid."

If something is only "symbolic", why do you care how it is done?  What does it matter?  Sigh.

6) "You cross yourself?  Oh, you must be a Catholic."
Um... no.  I know many non-Catholics who cross themselves: Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc.  I wish this was something more Christians did, but no, that doesn't make me Catholic.

7) "Lutherans are intellectual Christians."
For some reason, people seem to think this is an insult.  It isn't.  What's sad is that more Christians aren't "intellectual".  What I mean by that is that they know and understand the Bible, Theology, church history, other Denominations, early Church Fathers, etc.  So few seem to dig into the meat of Christianity, and it is sad.  Our faith is not just one of belief, but also of reason.  It is very logical, but you have to understand and study. That is the greatest disservice done by American Churches today--they seem to be nothing more than fluff and entertainment, and seriously lack substance.  Yes, that is a generalization.  But I hear so often we should ignore our differences for unity.  No.  We cannot have unity without understanding our differences, and why those differences exist.  Then we can have discussions about differences and perhaps come to a place of unity.  Ignoring them only makes the divisions worse.

8) Not capitalizing appropriate references to God
I've been typing up charts from a book written by a protestant theological professor which are largely helpful, but he seems incapable of capitalizing "He" in reference to God, or "The Word" in reference to the Bible, or many other similar examples.  It has reminded me how much that drives me nuts.  You don't have to capitalize everything, but when you're specifically referring to God or His Word, it is the right thing to do.

9) "Why do you have to be so arrogant?"
I get that a lot, and it is a fair criticism to some extent.  I tend to be a very snarky person by nature.  I'm very good at speaking the truth, I'm not so good at always doing it in love.  Rather than arrogance (which I can understand how it looks that way), though, I would submit it is confidence--confidence in my faith to the point that I would die for it.  I made that vow in my confirmation, and I take it very seriously.  I have a hard time even wanting to evangelize, because I see a broken church--and why on earth would I want to bring more people into something broken?  So I spend more (most) of my time attempting to correct the serious errors I see in Christendom today.  One thing I desperately miss about the early church is the condemnation of heresy.  The Roman Catholic Church still does this to some degree, but we need more of it.  There is so much heresy in the church today, and few seem to even realize it.  And so in my frustration and sadness over this, I tend to resort to snark.  For that I apologize.  I hope you will all understand it comes from a place of confidence in my faith and wanting to not see heresy in the church.

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." -- Martin Luther

Heresy of the Week: Millerism

This week's heresy is one of the eschatology vein.  It is what happens you don't take God at His Word ("But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come." Mark 13:32-33) and instead trust on your own cleverness to "know" or "divine" or "prophesy" about God and predict His return.

Millerism is an eschatological heresy of the 19th and 20th centuries. The founder of Millerism, William Miller, a Baptist lay minister, believed he could know through prophetic interpretation the date of the Second Coming (he guessed 1843, then 1844, clearly neither being correct, an event which was called "The Great Disappointment"). He initially kept this analysis to himself, but after sharing with a few skeptical acquaintances, he decided to start preaching and writing about this publicly. His articles were published all over America and even into other countries (such as Great Britain, Australia and Canada) and had a wide readership. After "The Great Disappointment", many left the Millerite movement, returning to their old denominations (most were originally Baptist, Presbyterian or Methodist), while a significant number became Quakers. Still others in the Millerite movement became the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and also significantly influenced the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Bahá’í also credits Millerism for the analysis of Christ’s return and said the timing was right, but the location was incorrect.

William Miller is just one in a long line of those who claimed to prophesy the return of Christ (for a long, but incomplete list, read here).  Since the time of Christ, there have been those who have claimed to know when He would come again, and perhaps more disturbing--many who claimed to be Christ who had returned.

Millerism is important, however, because it caused the founding of one denomination (Seventh-day Adventist), and heavily influenced another (Jehovah's Witness).  More than most false prophets of the end times, William Miller has had a lasting impact on many today, continuing to lead them astray and to put their faith in the false prophecies of men rather than the Word of God.

Even now, we have those saying it will be on 21 December this year (2012)--funny how that's the same day the Mayan calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world (it doesn't, it is just the end of one calendar and the beginning of another but that's a totally different story).  Sounds to me like someone just got lazy with that one.  But they have celebrity endorsements!  So it must be true... *sigh*

Attempting to predict the return of Christ when we are told very clearly in God's Word that the time is unknowable makes an utter mockery of our faith.  It makes other Christians look bad--guilt by association, because it seems the loudest are also the nuttiest.

Bible Study Notes: Revelation 20:1-6

We're working our way through Revelation (we touched on Revelation 19:17-21, but didn't spend much time there today) and are now dissecting the various interpretations of Revelation 20 and eschatology (study of the end times).  There will be more notes to follow over the next few weeks, as we continue reading through Revelation 20, but here's what we covered today.

There are four main eschatological views:

• Historic Premillennialism (not common anymore, actually existed somewhat before Christianity in Judaism)
• Dispensational Premillennialism (first taught by the Gnostic heretic Cerinthus in the mid-2nd century, largely developed in the 1830s-1870s and most common protestant, specifically Arminian, eschatological belief)
• Postmillennialism (popularity has waxed and waned, most popular at the turn of the 20th century but died out around WWI, slight resurgence today especially in Reformed, or Calvinist, churches)
• Amillennialism (the proper eschatological view subscribed to by Lutherans and Catholics) -- perhaps more properly called "Realized Millennialism" as "Amillennialism" is a derogatory misnomer (meaning literally "no millennium")

Another lovely white board drawing from Pr. Wolfmueller

All four eschatological beliefs have some similarities in their timelines:

• Death of Christ
• Resurrection and Ascension of Christ
• Gifting of the Holy Ghost to Christians
• <...something happens...>
• Resurrection of the Dead
• The Final Judgment
• Eternity

It's what happens in-between (the <...something happens...>) that is different, and in different orders, for each eschatological view.  Here are the "in-betweens" for each type:

Historic Premillennialism

• The church age
• Tribulation
• 2nd coming of Christ
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd 2nd coming of Christ

Dispensational Premillennialism

• The church age
• Christ sort of comes back for the "rapture" (invented in the 1830s)
• 7 year tribulation: 3 years of "peace", then the Antichrist comes and persecutes the converted Jews
• (2nd) 2nd coming of Christ
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• (3rd) 2nd coming of Christ

Postmillennialism

• The church age
• "Golden age"
• 1,000-years kingdom on earth (during which Satan is bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd coming of Christ

Amillennialism

• The church age = 1,000-years kingdom (the death of Jesus caused Satan to be bound)
• "Satan's Little Season" (where he is loosed for the final battle)
• 2nd coming of Christ

------------------------------------------------------

What does Revelation 20:1-4 say about the end times?

• The Millennium begins with the binding of the devil (which is accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus)
• After the Millennium, Satan must be released for a time for the final battle
• The resurrection of the dead and final judgment follows

------------------------------------------------------

Now for a few notes on Dispensational Premillennialism:

• Teaches that God works in different "dispensations" or "economies" of salvation, usually 7:
• The Garden
• The Fall
• Noah
• The Patriarchs
• The Law
• The Church (or Grace)
• The End Times
• They base much of their teaching on the 70 weeks in Daniel (which are really week-years, or 490 years)
• Jesus was rejected by the Jews at 69 weeks
• There is a pause (called the "great prophetic comma") between Jesus and the 70th week
• The Rapture removes the church so God can "deal" with Israel in the 7 years Tribulation
• Question they can never answer: Is the 2nd coming at the rapture, after the Tribulation, or at the end before the final resurrection?
• They say that about 2/3rds of the Jews will become "believers" during the Tribulation, and 1/3rd will be killed in the Great Persecution by the Anti-Christ
• One of the three pillars of Dispensational Premillennialism is the Distinction between Israel and the Church (Dual-Covenant Theology)
• During the 1,000-years Kingdom, Jesus reigns on an earthly throne in Jerusalem and continues to offer sacrifices in the rebuilt temple (which is utterly ridiculous and unsettling, since He already made the final sacrifice on the cross)
• At the beginning of the 1,000-years kingdom, those raptured and who died in the Great Persecution during the Tribulation will be resurrected with heavenly bodies, but the believing Jews who are still alive will remain with their earthly bodies and can still marry, have children, and die of very old age (500+ years)
• The 5th or 6th generation of the Jewish converts will rebel and join with Satan in the final battle at the end of the 1,000-years kingdom
• Dispensational Premillennialism comes from the incorrect reading of the Bible as if it is about Israel, not Jesus
• Dispensational Premillennialists use Matthew 24:36-44, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to "prove" the rapture, but that is through a misinterpretation of the texts (trying to get the text to say what they want it to instead of proper exegesis of Scripture interpreting Scripture)
• Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that Jesus was only crucified, died, buried, resurrected and ascended as "Plan B"; "Plan A" was to get the Jews to believe and He wasn't supposed to die (which is also utter nonsense)

In other words, Dispensational Premillennialism ends up looking like a ransom note, with snippets from various verses from various parts of the Bible all hobbled together to fit preconceived ideas rather than letting the clear Word of God interpret itself... and some of it, they honestly just made up.  The majority of Dispensational Premillennialism was invented in the mid-1800s.