1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Am I a Dispy??

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I a dispensationalist? I believe in the pre-mil rapture and a literal interpretation of the Millennial Reign of Christ. I believe that all believers make up the Church. I also believe that throughout all ages men have become righteous before God through belief. (James 2:23). I don’t fully understand what it means to be a dispensationalist or not.

    So, what do you have to believe to be considered a dispensationalist?

    Are there ‘points’ to dispensationalism such the five points of Calvinism?

    Give me your thoughts.
     
    #1 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  2. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you believe in a future restoration of a literal Israel?

    Do you believe the church is distinct from Israel?

    Do you believe that Scripture should be consistently interpreted in a literal-grammatical-historical manner?

    If yes, then, Yes. You are. Get a copy of Dispensationalism Today by Ryrie to get a good presentation of what it means to be a Dispensationalist. Should be able to find one on Abebooks.com delivered for less than 7$
     
    #2 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
  3. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    gospelgeek, you don't seem dipsy to me. You seem pretty solid.

    Oooohhhhhhhh, diSpy. Not sure.
     
    #3 Amy.G, Mar 12, 2009
  4. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    No
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes i am not sure. It depends on the reference. For example some of God's promises were to the physical family of Isreal, such as the possesion of the promised land. The Church does not have claim to this land. However, the promised land is a physical representation of what God promises the church. So in just this one case the answer is yes and no.

    When it makes sense and doesn't state otherwise, yes. There are places where things are representative such as dreams parables, etc But these are stated to be as such. For example I beleive the story of the rich man and lazarus is real and not a parable because there is no reason to assume otherwise.

    So you see where I am. I do not think God has a seperate age for Jews and another for Gentiles. From my understanding this is a major element in dispensatioalism. Is it not?
     
    #4 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  5. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shhhhhh. Don't let anyone hear you call a FWB solid.
     
    #5 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    I said "pretty" solid. You do have your faults. :laugh:
     
    #6 Amy.G, Mar 12, 2009
  7. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if you wind up to be anti-dispy, you should get and read Ryrie's book. Too many reject dispensationalism based on an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of its foundational premises. Even Gerstner demonstrates his failure to understand some basic concepts of dispensationalism in his work against it.

    Foundational to honest debate is a willingness to state the other position in terms that your opponent would agree to be an accurate and fair representation of his position. I am still waiting for John Gerstner or was it RC to get out the ketchup. RC Sproul said in his review that if JG has misrepresented D then one of them would eat the book!

    Again, no matter where you come down on the issue in the end, if you do not read Ryrie, you are failing to exercise due diligence in coming to a conclusion.


    I do not suggest this for everyone, but when I study an issue I try to read the best writers I can find on BOTH sides of the issue. Only then can I be fairly well certain that I have been exposed to all the various Scriptures on the matter.
     
    #7 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
  8. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh and BTW, a consistent literal grammatical historical interpretive hermeneutic certainly recognizes obvious figures of speech and other literary devices in Scripture. What it does not tolerate is interpreting a passage in a manner that is consistent with your theological presuppositions, but inconsistent with the clear wording of the text...
     
    #8 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
  9. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may have to read the book you suggest. But, either you misunderstand my question or I misunderstand your response. I am pretty set on what I believe. I must admit I am still learning daily and there are many issues I have yet to consider. I have notice that things tend to get 'catagorized' on the BB, probably due to the method of communication, and was wondering do I fall into the category of Dis because I am pre-trib. I am looking more for a definition of disp. that I can understand. I do not understand what is meant by the different "ages".

    And I must correct my OPthat stated I was pre-mil. I am pre-trib but was interupted and forgot what I was typing. Never caught it until now. Sorry.
     
    #9 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  10. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are not pre-mil, I would not consider you a dispensationalist. The distinction between Israel and the Church (at least after the Tribulation) is a foundational sine-qua-non of dispensationalism.

    This fully allows for the fact that Jews and Gentiles are united in the Body of Christ, AKA the Church, but it recognizes that at a future time the New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel to the degree that all of the Jews living at that time will recognize Jesus as their Messiah and believe in Him (Rom 11:25 ff; Jer 31:31; Zech 12:10). This is what I meant by a distinction between Israel and the Church.

    Covenant Theologians equate the Church and Israel.
     
    #10 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
  11. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry. I misread. You are pre-trib AND pre-mil as I reread the OP.
     
    #11 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
  12. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meant to type pre-trib in the OP.
     
    #12 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  13. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    If not being pre-trib makes one a disp. Does being pre-trib make him one, even though they do not consider Isreal and the Church to be totally seperate?
     
    #13 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  14. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The pre-trib/post-trib issue is not primary to the disp position, though I tend to think that the majority of dispys are pre-trib. And the distinction between Israel and the church is not as significant now as it will be after the rapture/tribulation in either order.

    Being pre-mil does not make you as disp.

    Being a disp generally means that you are pre-mil.

    Being post or a-mil generally means that you are not as disp.

    There are a few who have taken positions that do not fit well within those parameters though.
     
    #14 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
  15. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    As i have said, I am pre-trib, however I do not to the position that only Jews can be converted after the rapture. I have heard several people preach and teach this position but do not know where they get support for it. Is there anyone out there who holds to this or knows where the position comes from?
     
    #15 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suggest this may be a long wait. Dr. John H. Gerstner passed from this earthly life in 1996.

    Ed
     
    #16 EdSutton, Mar 12, 2009
  17. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed

    I was hoping you would jump in here somewhere.

    How much of the traditional disp. theology must one believe to be considered disp.?
     
    #17 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't know. Never thought about it, in that fashion.

    However, I suggest one cannot be Biblical without believing in dispensations, considering the Bible expressly speaks of two, implies at least two others. Dispensationalism, in the modern expression, is another question, however.

    One would not necessarily have to follow any particular popular seven (or any other number) dispensation scheme, but does have to recognize that the "dispensation of the Grace of God" and "the dispensation of the fullness of times" (in the KJV vernacular), plus recognize that at least two "ages" preceded the dispensation of grace, to be remotely Biblically dispensational, IMO. (Eph. 3:1-6)

    To be considered as a "dipsy" is not particularly difficult, and can take many forms, by contrast. Likely, some might consider even me as such, I'd guess.

    ("All right! Hold it down up there in 'the Peanut gallery!") ;) :D

    Ed
     
    #18 EdSutton, Mar 12, 2009
  19. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it difficult to understand not at least recognizing difference between being under law and under grace, as well as pre-law (patriarchs). I see a 4th in the end but understand that many do not. However, I do not believe in the () that many do.

    Does covent theology allow for no dispensations?
     
    #19 thegospelgeek, Mar 12, 2009
  20. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Classic Covenant Theology sees two covenants. The Covenant of Works in the garden of Eden and the Covenant of Grace since then. That is probably a bit of an oversimplification, but when you try to simplify, that happens sometimes.

    And no, in general CT does not allow for any dispensations. If you want to really get at CT fired up, just say: The Church is NOT Israel! Then wait for the fireworks!

    Only Jews getting saved in the Trib? Never heard that one. It is certainly not a part of the theology of the DTS dispensationalism (Chafer, Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryre, etc - Pre Bock and Blasing, of course).
     
    #20 rjprince, Mar 12, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...