Dispensational belief?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Ed Edwards, Mar 14, 2006.

?

1. Do you believe this 'dispensational' teaching?

  1. Yes

    88.9%
  2. No

    11.1%
  3. Maybe, can't tell, or other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dispensational belief?

    At this location:
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3506/2.html
    it is said that:

    -----------------------------
    I notice over 90% of dispensationalists believe in eternal security salvation.

    ...

    That why many IFB & SB pastors are teaching on dispensationalism & security salvation to their congregation today.

    I would like to explaining you what dispensationalism teaching on salvation. They teaching there are salvation plans of different ages.

    1. Old Testament Period - Conditional security salvation: Faith on God, Obeying the laws, doing daily animal offerings to forgive their sins often and often.

    2. New Testament Period - Unconditional security salvation: Saved by the grace through faith, not of works. Only believe on Christ, plus nothing.

    3. Tribulation Period - Conditional security salvation: Grace gones, Holy Spirit departs. keep faith on Christ, take Golden Rules, do not worship the beast, do not take the mark of the beast

    4. Millennial Period - Unconditional security salvation/conditional security salvation: Unconditional salvation apply to people who already saved during New Testament Period prior rapture, have glorified body, nothing to be worry about salvation. Conditional salvation apply to people, who missed rapture, survived through seven year of tribulation period, will enter into millennial period with their own flesh. These people who still have flesh after they survived tribulation period to enter millennial, will have to obey their King(Jesus). Have to offering animal sacrifices before their King for to forgive their sins often and often. Survived tribulation saints will have to be dsicplined by their King with the rod. If they refuse to obey their King, will die during millennial, will go to hell.


    Does the Bible actual teaching according what dispensationalism teaches?

    Their teaching is unbiblical.
    -----------------------------

    1. Do you believe this 'dispensational' teaching?
    2. Have you heard of this 'dispensational' teaching?
    3. Do you think this 'dispensational' teaching is correct (biblical)?
    4. Do you consider yourself a believer in some
    form of dispensationalism?
    5. are you IFB (Independent Fundamental Bapist) or SB (southern baptist)?

    Feel free to read the votes before you answer
     
  2. humilis

    humilis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro Edwards,

    Good poll, thanks for posting it.

    In Christ Service,

    humilis
     
  3. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am ex-student at Midwestern Baptist College of Pontiac, Mich. That college is IFB. It is very heavily dispensationalism. Because I notice a yellow building in the middle of the campus, It says, "Larkin Chapel". Obivously, that college honors Clarence Larkin, because of his deep theology doctrine. He wrote a big chart book - "Dispensationalism Truth".

    Also, there is fact, I have been seen so many baptist colleges and churches teaching dispensationalism, because most are premillennial. Almost every premill baptist churches are teaching on dispensationalism. No way you can deny the fact.

    So, my point is, dispensationalism actual teaching there is different plans for Israel and Church of different ages with salvation.

    Throughout in the Bible teaches us, there is the only one plan of salvation - faith. Abraham was saved by faith. Just the same we are saved by the faith, even, future great tribulation saints shall be saved by faith.

    Faith doesn't separate from conditional. I will explain you why faith doesn't separate from it with scriptures.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

    Later this week, I will discuss more on faith, what the scripture saith.
     
  4. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe the classic works of Dispensationalism teach different ways of salvation. I have heard this critique from John Gerstner in Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.

    But I am a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, started by Lewis Sperry Chafer, and home to Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, etc. While they do believe that there is a separate future for Israel and the Church, they in no way suggest that salvation was ever by anything but faith. They teach that salvation has always been one plan - by grace through faith.

    BTW, I am no dispensational apologist. I am moving quickly from dispensationalism, but it seems to me that the views you are critiquing are not mainstream.
     
  5. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    For what it's worth, I read J. Dwight Pentacost's book Things To Come back when I believed in a pre-trib rapture. Even though his book basically concludes that pre-trib is correct, his work was so thorough that I actually credit his book for raising doubts in my mind about pre-trib.

    The more I studied the Bible, the more I came to the conclusion that he (and pre-trib) was wrong. Part of the reason I believe he was wrong was because he was wearing dispensational blinders.
     
  6. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley,

    Excellent reference to "dispensational blinders"!

    If you care to make an abbreviated list of
    these "blinders", I will join with you.

    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     
  7. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I need further clarification on this. I believe salvation is not predicated on animal offerings or following the Law. The Law was used, and is still used, to show mankind where they fall short of God's perfect standards. Salvation in the OT was the same as it is today: Saved by Grace through faith. The entire Bible, OT and NT point to Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

    I'm not sure where I stand on number 4 either, at least how it's presented in the OP.
     
  8. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked at the site you have linked and it's such a jumble that I can hardly get through any of it. There are TONS of assumptions in there that aren't explicitly stated in scripture, and they aren't separated out from scripture, identified as assumptions or backed with scripture references to explain how the author(s) came to those conclusions.
     
  9. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley,

    We can put together some Dispy "Blinders".

    1. That "Christ may come at any moment".
    2. No signs must be fulfilled prior to Rapture.
    3. Trib-Saints will populate the Kingdom.
    4. Trib-Saints are not in the Body of Christ.
    5. Elect of Matthew 24:31 are Jews only.
    6. The Rapture occurs at Rev.4:1.
    7. Day of the Lord is the great tribulation.
    8. We are to look for the Son; not for Signs.
    9. OT Saints are not part of the Lamb's Bride.
    10. Believers rewarded in heaven before S.C.
    11. Salvation was by works under Dispy of Law.
    12. Church must be removed to allow Antichrist.

    I consider these among the many theories that
    have "blinded" Dispies to Biblical truth about
    the Body of Christ and His Second Coming.

    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked at the site you have linked and it's such a jumble that I can hardly get through any of it. There are TONS of assumptions in there that aren't explicitly stated in scripture, and they aren't separated out from scripture, identified as assumptions or backed with scripture references to explain how the author(s) came to those conclusions. </font>[/QUOTE]Mel can explain it to you. He's the author. :eek: :D [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  11. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    Your poll is faulty. It asks, "Do you believe THIS dispensational teaching," and "Did you hear of THIS dispensational teaching," etc. Since the one you posted in your OP is not a correct evaluation of dispensationalism, I would have to answer NO to the first three questions in the poll (YES to the 4th, and SBC to the 5th), although I am a classic dispensationalist. Maybe do it again, but leave out the word THIS, which points toward what you copied (horrible grammar included).
     
  12. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Mel Miller:
    npetreley,

    We can put together some Dispy "Blinders".

    1. That "Christ may come at any moment".

    Wrong. This one is easy to disprove but not in a few words.

    2. No signs must be fulfilled prior to Rapture.

    Wrong. Same as above.

    3. Trib-Saints will populate the Kingdom.

    Huh? There is no such thing as the "tribulation".

    4. Trib-Saints are not in the Body of Christ.

    Huh? There is no such thing as the "tribulation".

    5. Elect of Matthew 24:31 are Jews only.

    Wrong.

    6. The Rapture occurs at Rev.4:1.

    Wrong.

    7. Day of the Lord is the great tribulation.

    Wrong. The Day of the Lord begins immediately after the great tribulation. It says that very clearly in Matthew.

    8. We are to look for the Son; not for Signs.

    Mostly wrong. The signs point to the return of the Son. To paraphrase: When you see these things (the signs), look up, because your redemption is near.

    9. OT Saints are not part of the Lamb's Bride.

    Wrong.

    10. Believers rewarded in heaven before S.C.

    I don't know what the S.C. is.

    11. Salvation was by works under Dispy of Law.

    Yet according to the OT, the just shall live by faith?

    12. Church must be removed to allow Antichrist.

    Not only wrong, but a bizarre rationalization in order to place the rapture earlier. The reasoning is that the "he" that is taken out of the way is the Holy Spirit, and since the Church has the Holy Spirit, the Church is removed. But this is a stretch that no platic surgery can fix.

    I consider these among the many theories that
    have "blinded" Dispies to Biblical truth about
    the Body of Christ and His Second Coming.

    Mel Miller

    Okay, I agree with you on the points above that I understand.
     
  13. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then who do you believe "He" is? It's definately someone, not something.
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    First Day Poll Results:
    Dispensational belief? (16 votes.)

    1. Do you believe this 'dispensational' teaching?
    Choose 1
    Yes 6% (1)
    No 75% (12)
    Maybe, can't tell, or other 19% (3)

    2. Have you heard of this 'dispensational' teaching before today?
    Choose 1
    Yes 69% (11)
    No 19% (3)
    Maybe, can't tell, or other 12% (2)

    3. Do you think this 'dispensational' teaching is biblical?
    Choose 1
    Yes 6% (1)
    No 75% (12)

    Maybe, can't tell, or other 19% (3)

    4. Do you consider yourself a believer in some form of dispensationalism?
    Choose 1
    Yes 62% (10)
    No 38% (6)
    Maybe, can't tell, or other 0% (0)

    5. are you IFB (Independent Fundamental Bapist) or SB (southern baptist)?
    Choose 1
    Yes 62% (10)
    No 25% (4)
    Maybe, can't tell, or other 12% (2)
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis12: //Your poll is faulty. It asks, "Do you believe THIS dispensational teaching," and "Did you hear of THIS dispensational teaching," etc. Since the one you posted in your OP is not a correct evaluation of dispensationalism, I would have to answer NO to the first three questions in the poll (YES to the 4th, and SBC to the 5th), although I am a classic dispensationalist. Maybe do it again, but leave out the word THIS, which points toward what you copied (horrible grammar included).//

    Don't think it is faulty.
    The poll is doing exactly what I want it to do.
    The O.P. is a junk, flawed, strawman.
    The poll exposes it for what it is.

    I am surprised that as many have heard of this particular
    'dispensational theory' as are saying they have heard of it.
     
  16. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You could say the same thing about dispensationalism, period.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You pretty much missed the conversation
    (or have I not posted it yet? I'll get
    around to it)
    You have a dispenation of your own.
    You paint all dispenational theories with
    the same broad stroke. So you are damning
    your OWN DISPENSATIONAL THEORY.

    You puttin' it to da' man - but you is the man :eek:
     
  18. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally? I think "he" is Michael, the archangel, protector of Israel. He stands down (translated "stands up" in Daniel, but the Hebrew could just as easily be translated as "stands down" or "stands still"), after which all heck breaks loose (the great tribulation).

    It's Michael's job to protect Israel. When he "stands down", he's effectively taken out of the way and that allows the time of trouble to occur.

    Notice the similarity of the description of the time of trouble and the description of the great tribulation in the NT. Also notice that it doesn't occur until Michael "stands up". Most people think of it as a time when Michael "arises" (it's even translated that way in NIV) to protect his people. But if that's the case, he does a pretty terrible job, because that's the moment when everything goes sour. Some protector! So "stands still" or "stands down" makes more sense, since it is only after Michael "stands down" that all the trouble breaks loose.

    That's the way I see it. Your mileage may vary.
     
  19. Mel Miller

    Mel Miller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley,

    The following reference which you alluded to, and which seems like a reference to what I wrote, is incorrectly attributed by Phillip to me. Unknowingly he is attacking me over what someone else wrote above.

    In the future, please identify whom you are
    quoting so such misinformation can be avoided:
    ______________________________________________
    "I looked at the site you have linked and it's such a jumble that I can hardly get through any of it. There are TONS of assumptions in there that aren't explicitly stated in scripture, and they aren't separated out from scripture, identified as assumptions or backed with scripture references to explain how the author(s) came to those conclusions".
    _______________________________________________
    I too looked at the site and saw the "jumble"!
    I always back up what I write with Scripture!!

    It seems you and I are mostly in agreement. The
    initials S.C. refer to the second coming of
    Christ.

    On the matter of the restrainer, I think he/it
    will be removed just before Satan is cast from
    heaven. Michael's purpose is to instigate all that happens on earth as a RESULT of casting Satan to earth; whereas the restrainer must be removed because of God's judgment on apostasy! The War in Heaven follows Babylon's fall, IMO.

    Casting out Satan enhances the Judgment on those who "commit fornication" under Mystery Babylon and who then continue the System under the Beast. At the same time, Israel must be prepared to meet their Messiah and "many in the TRUE Church will be purged or purified and refined" so "all the Saints will be *counted* worthy".
    Dan.12:10-11; Rev.12:10-11; I Thess.3:13: 5:23; 2 Thess.1:5,11; Mark 8:38.

    The ECF (early church fathers) and reformed theologians considered the restrainer to be lawful government which is administrated by those whom God appoints as rulers. Rom.13.

    We know Babylon the Great will be destroyed
    at Midweek of Daniel's 70th Seven and that
    the remnants of lawful government will go
    down with her fall at the hands of 10 kings.

    That is when Michael will cast Satan from
    heaven to make war against the Saints by
    empowering the Beast as the 8th King. The
    restrainer of the Beast that "was, is not,
    yet is about to become the 8th King" will
    be removed when God judges the FALSE church
    and replaces it with the rule of the Beast.

    There is no evidence that the Beast rules
    the entire world prior to the fall of Babylon
    the Great at Midweek of Daniel's 70th Seven.

    So, instead of the Holy Spirit in the TRUE church being the restrainer, it must be
    the apostasy and its "headship" in the FALSE church that will be "taken out of the midst" of lawful govern ment and replaced by the Lawless One". 2 Thess.2.

    Michael continues to "stand up" for God's
    people; but it is God's will that the 10
    kings who destroy Babylon be the instrument
    for "removing the restraint" and Michael's
    act the means of impelling Satan to exert "great anger" (Rev.12:12; Greek) against the Woman and then "wrath" (vs.17) against the "rest of her seed who keep the commands of God and have the testimony of Jesus". Israel and the Church are targets of the "personified" Beast until Christ appears. Rev.12:12-17.

    Mel Miller www.lastday.net
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    DeafPosttrib: //So, my point is, dispensationalism actual teaching there
    is different plans for Israel and Church of different ages with salvation//

    Yep, I'm sure that is your point.
    My point is that Your definition here of 'dispensationalism'' is wrong.
    My quote of you in the Opening Post posits a minority view
    of 'dispensationalism'. Such a minor usage that, quite frankly, your
    post is a straw man. Sorry, nobody is getting any stars in thier
    crown for demolishing straw men :(

    STRAW MAN - 3. a weak or unimportant person, argument, theory, etc.

    Now, are you ready for what 'dispensationalism' means?

    DISPENSATION - 6 Theol.
    a. the divine ordering of the affairs of thew world
    b. a divinely appointed order or age

    I believe that the dispensation in 'dispensationalism'
    means meaning 6b. Note that dispensatinalism is an
    eschatology not a soteriology: dispensationalism deals with
    last things, not with salvation.
    However, both eschatology and soteriology have much to do with:

    Theology (Doctrine of the nature of God the Father)
    Christology (Doctrine of Messiah Jesus, God the Son)
    Pnematology (Doctrine of God the Holy Spirit)

    I do not believe it is the nature of God to send his adopted
    in Christ, born into the family of God, into the Tribulation Period.
    (Caveat: I'm talking a TIME PERIOD. '"tribulation' is just part
    of the human condition - in this Church Age, we will have tribulation,
    the condition.

    I do not believe it is the nature of God to damn His adopted
    in Christ, born into the family of God, to hell cause they slip
    up, have a momentary lack of faith, denly Jesus to save their
    wife and children from being used as sex slaves. Sorry, once Jesus
    saves somebody, SALVATION IS ETERNAL from that moment forward.

    Both my Eschatology and Soteriology are based on my Doctrines of:

    Theology (Doctrine of the nature of God the Father)
    Christology (Doctrine of Messiah Jesus, God the Son)
    Pnematology (Doctrine of God the Holy Spirit)

    and all my doctrines are based on what God has shown me in His
    Holy Written Word, the Bible.
    Obviously I have to work so can't write long essays about this
    proving from the Bible every comma I place is correct, etc.

    DeafPosttrib: //Almost every premill baptist churches are teaching
    on dispensationalism. No way you can deny the fact.//

    Nobody i know of tryed to deny that fact. But please note:
    it is NOT a scriptureal fact. SOme facts are NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
    All the Bible contains is truth, but not all truth is in the Bible.
    But here the fact also is, they are not all teaching the same
    dispenstionalism.

    DeafPposttrib: //Throughout in the Bible teaches us, there is the only one plan
    of salvation - faith. Abraham was saved by faith. Just the
    same we are saved by the faith, even, future great tribulation
    saints shall be saved by faith.//

    Amen, Brother DeafPosttrib -- Preach it!
    But you better mention that that faith MUST BE IN MESSIAH JESUS
    in all dispensational periods.


    Npetreley speaking of J. Dwight Pentacost's book Things To
    Come: //The more I studied the Bible, the more I came to the conclusion that
    he (and pre-trib) was wrong. Part of the reason I believe
    he was wrong was because he was wearing dispensational blinders.//

    Strange, i havent' read much J. Dwight Pentacost. I did read the
    Bible. I'm the guy who just started this poll cause quite frankly, I
    never head of such a dispensational theory as Bro. DeafPosttrib had
    heard of (caveat: DeafPosttrib did NOT beleive in the dispensatinal
    theory he wrote which I quoted in the opening post {O.P.} here,
    but he was suggesting it only so he could argue against it.
    Good argument, it is totally a wrong dispensatinal doctrine.)
    Anyway, i developed (from the Bible) my pre-tribuation rapture/resurrection
    Theory BEFORE developing my dispensational theory. In fact, I don't have
    time to study to see what my dispensational theory is cause I spend all
    my time witnessing or discussing my pre-trib hope. BTW, I am commanded
    to testify (witness to) the hope that is within me. I doHOPE the
    pretribualtion rapture/resurrection is what God has in mind for us.
    Anyway, I can't speak for Bro. J. Dwight Pentacost cause I don't know him.
    I was not wearing 'dispensational blinders' when God lead me to my
    pretribulation position writings.

    Calvibaptist speaking of the Dallas Theological Seminary,
    //While they do believe that there
    is a separate future for Israel and the Church, they in no
    way suggest that salvation was ever by anything but faith.
    They teach that salvation has always been one plan - by grace through faith.//

    Amen, Brother Calvibaptist -- Preach it. I've never heard about
    there being a differnt plan of salvatin for each different dispensational
    time period. Well, i've not heard it from dispensatinalists, only from
    mixed up anti-dispensationalists. I guess it is really hard to explain
    something you don't belive in at all???

    Calvibaptist: // ... but it seems to me that the views
    you are critiquing are not mainstream.//

    To say the least. We seem to be critiquing a mockery of the
    real Doctrine/teachings. At least I find out somebody beside
    DeapPosttrib had heard some of it; I know it was new to me.
     

Share This Page

Loading...