Oh, good grief. Those all-caps DISPENSATIONALISMs at the top were supposed to be notes to myself to add links to the books in question. I missed it when I posted the piece, so now it looks like I'm yelling about dispensationalism.
Will fix . . .

Later
Okay, fixed.
Sorry if I offended or confused anybody!

After we are raptured and enjoy the Marraige Feast with our wonderful Savior, and He judges our works and rewards us, and then return at the end of the seven year tribulation to rule with Christ from Jerusalem, maybe we can find some time to talk about "dispies". We should be able to schedule a lunch or some other time during those thousand years.

Again, Jared, you have found a lot of jewels. Thank you. You add a lot to the bare reading with your comments. I especially like your comments about the dispies holding their core beliefs so loosely. I was always troubled when I was a dispy (no insult to myself or anyone else intended) because I seemed to "guess wrong" so often on when to interpret literally and when figuratively.

My favorite part of the chapter was probably his point about the church and Israel being one in the same on the basis of the foundation of the New Jerusalem. Founded on the apostles, its gates are the twelve tribes. How can they share two different fates. Powerful.

I found his argument on page 202 about the man who lives more than 100 years a little strange. Evidently he has had some intense talks on this, because I would never have thought it an issue worthy of so much time.

It was at the end of page 205 that he began to disappoint me. I really and truly treasure the teaching that all the verses Hoekema puts in the new heaven and the new earth are being lived out here and now by the church. I equally treasure the teaching that those on the thrones are living saints, not dead saints living spiritually in heaven. (I thought the reading was chaps 15 & 16, and now they are running together in my mind, so forgive me if I bring a little of 16 back here into 15).

Hoekema may be right, but I am not yet convinced. His reading is what I would call the more natural, because that is exactly what I first wanted to believe when I started studying amilly'ism. Spurgeon and others, if I recall correctly, convinced me that this was a selling short of the gospel. It is "in Christ" that these blessing come to pass, not just in the new earth.

It is no stretch in my mind to say that this a good "near/far" issue, but Hoekema doesn't even go this route. He sells me up the river, "Dispensationalists commonly say that we amillennialists spiritualize prophecies of this kind by understanding them as being fulfilled without in the church of this present age or in heaven in the age to come. I believe, however, ... to the new earth."

I think Hoekema sells the church into a defeatist approach to this age with that declaration. Anyone who thinks that eschatology doesn't matter can look at how this doctrine expands. It may be that Hoekema is right, but his right-ness would result in a very different view of the mission of the church from that of Spurgeon. Will the lion only lay down with the lamb after the Lamb returns in flaming glory? Are the keys to the kingdom to only given to the church in the new earth?

Hoekema himself seems to contradict this. He argues so hard to prove that the kingdom is "come upon you" while talking about Christ's sayings on earth, but now says the kingdom is only possessed by those who have died and are awaiting the resurrection.

For me, this discussion was started in chapter 15, and really came to a head in 16. I will look forward to others' opinions of 16 on this topic.

As to your questions:
1) Answered in the first part of the comment. This was my favorite part of the reading.

2) Second part of the comment.

3) I thought that Hoekema would show a little more sympathy toward the post-mill view. It seems that most amillies do. He didn't really even give it a good hard rejecting. He just laid out a couple things that make it unrealistic and moved on. Reading his summary of post-mill views, I didn't even see the attraction, where I did with at least the traditional premill view. I guess I am going to have to read a serious post-mill book some day.

For a bit of fun, take my Thinklings-inspired eschatology quiz here, let me know how you scored!

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=44107

How convincing do you find Hoekema’s take on the Israel/Church distinction/continuity/unity?

I didn't need any convincing. I don't believe that there was a diffrence between Israel, as it is mentioned in the text, and the Church, to begin with.

That said, I will also say that Hoekema would have been able to convince me had I originally thought otherwise. I like the tone that he takes here. He gives very eloquent and reasoned critiques of the dispy eschatology, and manages to do so without sounding like he's just picking it apart for sport.

Please share any general or specific reactions you had to the chapter and/or certain passages.

Overall, I really enjoyed this chapter. Apologetics (in general) and reasoned thought (like we find in this book) have always interested me. I especially liked the discussion about Ryrie (pp. 213-214) concerning the kingdom Christ offered being accepted by the Jews of His day. I never thought a great deal about this, but Hoekema makes a good case for why Ryrie was mistaken. I guess this ties in with Jared's point #9 above.

3. We’ve picked on dispensationalist for three weeks now. Feel free to share some concerns or arguments with other views. Maybe you have a few troubles with specific points in your own eschatology.

Was not being sarcastic, but responding to the above invitation. In addition, upon further review of additional posts to this site, there really is just a lot of agreement not intellectual debate and very few opposing views. Phrases such as "your own eschatology" and a quiz to see where one falls in a man made scale are very troubling. A book titled "The Bible and the Future" commences with a condescending attitude towards those who don't believe what the author tries to prove.

Eschatology is not all that troubling in that the unexplained parts are just that, unexplained and merely require faith that God has the right to disclose or keep ambiguous whatever He chooses. If you are truly saved, and don’t believe in the rapture, yet you find yourself responding to God’s call to “come up here (Rev 4),” what in the world are you going to do – not go up? If I don’t ever change my position, then am I still saved? If so then what other parts of the Bible are “negotiable” and who decides these?

"Death is but a partial and ambiguous 'relief';" stated in Poythress article.

Scripture: "Absent from the body,present with the Lord" 2Cor5:8.

That certainly doesn't sound partial or ambiguous. The parable of Lazarus and Dives (rich man in hell), is more than a parable, rather an actual glimpse of pre-rapture, pre-tribulation, pre-millenial folks who have died in one of the 2 categories: saved our unsaved.

While you may intellectually appreciate these human authors, why not find simple and sufficient the "Author and Finisher of our Faith, the Lord Jesus Christ"?

While you may intellectually appreciate these human authors, why not find simple and sufficient the "Author and Finisher of our Faith, the Lord Jesus Christ"?

Are you saying that we shouldn't read or learn from human authors? In that case, why should we listen to or read a word you say? And why are you reading us?

Oh, and "Dives" is not the name of the rich man, that's just human tradition. If we going to find "simple and sufficient" the words of "the Author and Finisher of our Faith", then the rich man has no name, because Jesus doesn't give him one in the parable. :)

Ben, I hope you don't take anything I say above personally, it's just that I find inherent contradictions in someone writing that we shouldn't read any writings outside the Bible. I doubt you are actually saying that, right? But that seems to be what you are saying. So would you mind clarifying your position on that?

What authors did Jesus read while He was here?

Jared - what makes you think I need to be admonished to relax? You certainly had a lot stored up to "let me have it" - guess you have a hard time with things getting shook up.

The third individual to post stated "I haven't read the book." You didn't attack him. Your reply merely reinforces all points I made (some that required thinking behind the lines - gee I thought that's what "thinklings" wanted to do).

You have twisted my words, questioned my motives and have been extremely mean-spirited and your facts are a bit skewed (Hal Lindsey's book - was published in April 1970 - not late in the decade). Is this the result of having spent 3 years duking it out?

You did a good job of defending your turf from players you don't like, so enjoy yourselves - I won't disturb your book club anymore. Just don't make an offer that welcomes comments when you don't mean it.

Ben, I asked you to explain yourself, and you declined. You opted to be snarky instead. I asked you specific questions related to your remarks, and you didn't answer them but decided to make it all about me. I'm used to it.

If you had read my remarks more closely, you'd see I said you didn't have to have read the book to discuss. You just have to respond to the specific points in the post and remain respectful. You didn't do either, but instead mae all sorts of disconnected, random, and peculiar arguments and accused me/us of all sorts of things, not the least of which was spiritual blindness. You can turn it around on me if you'd like, but it has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me and everything to do with the way you did the disagreeing. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say.

To respond to some of your specific points:
The popularity of Lindsey's book and the Left Behind fad began in the 70s, you are right. Is your whole beef my being off by a few years?
The three years duking it out was not just about eschatology, but about all sorts of things, from God's sovereignty to Catholicism to the color of Gatorade. My point was that if you think we only host agreements with us here, you haven't read the site very long or very deep.

You're right -- I do defend this turf from people just spoiling for an argument. I'm sorry if you think I was meanspirited, but how do you respond when someone tells you you don't rely on Scripture and makes all sorts of assumptions about your perspective? You did that to me, and I replied. Sorry I didn't bow immediately to your superior wisdom.

Thank you for leaving. It will be best for both of us.
One last thing to chew on: If dispensational pretribulationism is the God's honest truth of Scripture, how come it took the human authors Darby and Scofield to make it up and popularize it through their notes only about 100 years ago? Was the majority of the Church wrong and without God's truth for two millennia?

Jared at 4:46pm I wrote (in comment 15) - Are you saying that we shouldn't read or learn from human authors? In that case, why should we listen to or read a word you say? ...I find inherent contradictions in someone writing that we shouldn't read any writings outside the Bible.

And at 4:53pm (in comment 16) you wrote - You are human, right? Why should I appreciate what you, a human author, are saying?
What if I said I disagree with you because I find Jesus simple and sufficient?
Do you not see the irony in telling others not to listen to other human authors but to heed your advice?

Great minds think alike.

Are you still wanting to do this, Ben?
Yes, I know it's you. I also know that you commented as "Jared" in another thread yesterday.

I may be impatient, but I've been doing this long enough to know who has the potential for trollishness usually after their first comment. My insticts were correct after your first sarcastic remark, and you have proven my suspicions about you correct by continuing to be argumentative and by now "lying" twice. That's what posting under different names is -- lying.

So I was right; you're a troll.

If I only tolerated comments from people who agreed with me, there'd be no one on this site at all. I don't agree 100% on everything with anyone who participates regularly on Thinklings.org. But there's a difference between them and you. You want to know what the difference between Sven and you is? He comments respectfully and charitably. He doesn't make this site is crapping ground.

And your most recent comment (as "Phil") is ludicrous. There was basically nobody who was a dispensational pretribulationist before the late 1800s. So I suppose nobody before then is in heaven, right? Get a grip.
And get lost.

Ben, I'm not an idiot. You can keep up the charade if you'd like. But "Ben," "Phil," and "Jared" all comment from the exact same, to the last digit, IP address. So unless you are three roommates sharing a computer, you are the same person masquerading as two or three. (The odds of someone named Jared using your computer are nil, aren't they?)

So do you still want to keep this up? Are you going keep lying and making this about me?
Because here's what I can do -- I can publish your IP address on the site here, so that you, Ben, Jared, and whatever other personality exists in your lying mind will not only not be able to comment here anymore, but will be banned from commenting on any site run by someone who reads the information and is as tired of trolling as I am.

Isn't it terrible that the world has people like us that you really hate but can't so you just ban them!!

Yippee - you were an easy one!!!! Ban #423 completed in 3 days!

I try hard not to feed trolls. So this is not addressed to Ben.

This is addressed to everyone else:
Are there really people out there who try to get banned? Or was that just a joke?

This sort of thing reminds me of the schoolboy who is so desperate for attention, that he tries to get attention anyway he can, even if it's negative. It's just sad.

Are there really people out there who try to get banned?

Not sure. But most of the time when these folks act all happy about getting banned, it's just them thinking it will irk me if I think I'm just giving them what they want.
But they really don't want to get banned. Or else they wouldn't keep trying to comment. If you don't want a voice, you wouldn't even comment in the first place.
It's just a way of trying to save face -- "Yeah, well, that's what I wanted anyway! You fell into my trap!"

Blech.

And for the record, I could probably count on one hand the number of trolls I've banned. That's actually pretty conservative considering the sheer amount of jerks on the Internet. Most of the people on our ban list aren't people at all, but spammer scum.