Am I a Dispy??

Amen!

I get tired of the lame attacks on Dispensationalists.

There are more Disp. on the BB than any other end time position according to at least 2 recent polls (one which I conducted myself), but you wouldn't know it from the attacks.

 

OK. Let’s see...

8:6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Nothing I said in any way disputes this... Jesus has made the sacrifice that ratified the New Covenant and I would grant that it is being partially fulfilled in the church as there are many Jewish believers.

8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

I just do not see how it could be any clearer than this. The covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, as per Jer 31:31. The same ones that He took by the hand to bring out of Egypt and the same ones who broke His covenant (Jer 31:32 as also Heb 8:9). ISRAEL, NOT THE CHURCH.

SORRY, the Holy Spirit is not the Law.

Talk about reading into the text!!! Now if you want to find the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in Scripture, I suggest you try LUKE 21:20-24, with special emphasis upon verse 24 – "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

After the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, then Israel will "see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Luke 21:27). In accord with the words of the angels in Acts 1 after the Lord ascended into heaven – "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11)

That will also be the great day of REDEMPTION for Israel, after the Times of the Gentiles are finished (also as per Paul in Rom 11:25-27). The destruction of Jerusalem was not redemption for Israel it was judgement. Redemption will come later, for Israel as a nation/people.

If I have contradicted any clear statement in Scripture, please show me where.

 

thanks for the amen. Been off the board for a couple of years after Matthew went home to the Lord. Good to be back.

 

Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism devotes Chapter 5 of that book to what he calls The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism. He summarizes his method of interpretation as described in that chapter in a section [page 90] entitled The Results of Literal Interpretation as follows [emphasis mine]:

If literal interpretation is the correct principle of interpretation, it follows that it would be proper to expect it to apply to all the Scriptures. This, as we have tried to show is the reason the matter of consistency in the application of plain interpretation is so important. The nonliteralist is the nonpremillennialist, the less specific and less consistent literalists are the covenant premillennialist and the progressive dispensationalist, and the consistent literalist is a dispensationalist.

Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. Based on the philosophy that God originated language for the purpose of communicating His message to man and that He intended man to understand that message, literal interpretation seeks to interpret that message plainly. In the prophecies of the Old Testament, plain interpretation finds many promises that, if interpreted literally have not yet been fulfilled. The amillennialist says that they will not be fulfilled literally but are being fulfilled spiritually in the church. The covenant premillennialist who does not use consistently the literal principle that he believes in sees some of them fulfilled literally and some not. Daniel Fuller [The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, page 374] makes a startling confession when he says that "the whole problem of how far a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophets is to becarried is still very perplexing to the present writer.” The admission is even more surprising when one realizes that it is made in the last paragraph of his chapter on conclusions. The consistent application of literal interpretation would solve his problem, for the Scriptures would speak to him as they did to the prophets - plainly and at face value.

Since literal interpretation results in taking the Scriptures at face value, it also results in recognizing distinctions in the Bible. No interpreter of Scripture denies this fact, but the extent to which he recognizes distinctions is the evidence of his consistent use of the literal principle of interpretation. It is not a matter of superimposing a dual purpose of God on the Scriptures, but it is a matter of recognizing that in the New Testament the word Israel does not mean the church and vice versa. The dispensationalist, then, recognizes the different peoples of God simply because of the distinction maintained by the text as literally interpreted.

Taking the text at face value and recognizing distinctions in the process of revelation leads to the recognition of different economies in the outworking of Gods program. In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism, and since consistent literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation, dispensationalism is more than justified. It is only by adjusting or adding to the principle of literal interpretation that dispensationalism is avoided. Face-value incorporates distinctions; distinctions lead to dispensations. Normal interpretation leads to clear distinctions between words, concepts, peoples and economies. This consistent hermeneutical principle is the basis for dispensationalism.

I am neither ignorant or unethical. Now you tell me what Ryrie means by taking Scripture at face value if you are so smart or ethical!

By the way, you answered neither of the questions I posed you just danced around the one from Hebrews and fell back on "ignorant and unethical" on the passage from John. I am not surprised since that is the typical response from a dispensationalist! I won't accuse you of being either ignorant or unethical, just disgusting!

As far as interpretation of Scripture you may be interested in the view of Covenant Theologian R. C. Sproul who writes [Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25], as follows [emphasis mine]:

In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book.

 

What Sproul says is how I've learned to interpret the bible at my seminary, which is dispensationalist, and at my church, which is also dispensationalist (at least among the pastors and most people).

 

Probably over-simplifying a point, but here is a simple way to answer the original question - "Am I a Dispensationalist?"

1. Do you believe that it is neccessary to go to the Temple every year with a spotless lamb to offer a sacrifice?

2. If not, then you are a Dispensationalist. You believe there are at least 2 dispensations.

3. The question now is, how many dispensations do you believe there are? Two, Five, Seven, etc.?

 

Yep. Oversimplified to the point of error. No CT's believe point one, but neither are they dispys.

 

OldReg,

Have not forgotten this thread, nor am I avoiding you. Waiting on a copy to Sproul's book to arrive as well as one by Ryrie. Already scanned in some stuff from Ryrie's Dispensationalism, but want to give a thorough response to your posts.

Do have something from Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus that will throw some real light on his method of interpretation. Hint: It is NOT Literal. Want to look at ALL that he has to say about literal interp in the other one before responding. Should be able to post by early next week...

RJP

 

First,

Ryrie defines his hermeneutic on pages 80-81 of Dispensationalism:

He then cites J. P. Lange to further amplify:

Second,

When you cite Ryrie as you did in your post #44 you make it appear that he allows no room for NORMAL figures of speech, types, allegories, etc. What else could you mean? I reference the words that you emphasized:

Third,

Regarding John 6, I repeat what I have already said in post #40...

“ignorant or unethical” does NOT mean that you are stupid, brutish, “disgusting” (what’s up with that!?), foolish, etc. etc. It DOES MEAN THAT YOU HAVE NOT FAIRLY REPRESENTED Ryrie’s position.


One of the most FOUNDATIONAL PREMISES to reasonable intellectual disagreement and debate is a willingness to state the opposing position in a manner that fairly and accurately represents their position. When this is NOT DONE there are only one of two possibilities: 1) either you do not properly understand their position, or 2) you have intentionally misstated or misrepresented their position to make your point. The first is a result of ignorance (not stupidity) in that you do not properly understand their position. The second springs from a lack of ethical principle in that you are willing to misstate the position in order to “win” the point.


Since there are others here who may be in a better position to render judgment on which of the two is most likely the case, I will refrain from trying to reach a determination and give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you simply misread Ryrie.


Fourth,

Let me share what C.C. Ryrie says himself in regard to John 6, with which I whole-heartedly agree: (Ryrie Study Bible, NT, arrived today, 1$ plus 4$ shipping from a used book store)

What problem could you possibly have with that interpretation? Again, I will assume that you had not read what Ryrie had to say about that passage and were therefore ignorant of his position.

Let me just add this for the record. I have on occasion been guilty of citing a portion from one book that was cited by another writer, only to later learn that the first writer was quoted out of context. That was ignorance on my part. While in High School, I participated in interscholastic debate extensively and on occasion INTENTIONALLY quoted someone in a way that supported MY position, regardless of their actual position. It was up to my opponents to catch this. If they did not, I won the point, and winning was what it was all about. I do not follow that practice any longer, truth is more important than winning a point. In fact, I am quite willing to lose a point, or even the whole argument, so long at His truth is uncovered, exalted, and better understood.

I am still waiting to receive Sproul’s Essential Truths. To suggest that Sproul follows the hermeneutic principle you cited is again either a result of ignorance of how Sproul actually handles Scripture or a deliberate attempt to present only one facet of his hermeneutic. I cannot be the judge of your heart and would prefer to say that you have simply not read him sufficiently. In support of this, after I receive Essential Truths I will check the rest of the context and regardless of what is there, I have some very interesting citations from “The Last Days According to Jesus”. Those who have not spent much time on it will be shocked at what Sproul does with 1Cor 3:11-15! Literal interpretation of the Bible as it is written? I will let everyone draw their own conclusions... later.

RJP

 

Not all premillennialists see a distinction between Israel and the Church. Historic Premillennialism recognizes a future literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth while rejecting any notion of an offer of a literal kingdom at Christ’s first advent. Nor do historic premillennialists agree that Israel will have any future as a nation. Dispensational premillennialists hold to a future literal kingdom for Israel based on Rom 11:25-27 and Zech 12-14. That is probably oversimplified, but I believe it to be a fair representation of a key distinction between the two schools of thought.

RJP