Dispensationalism?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by DMorgan, Jul 19, 2016.

  1. DMorgan

    DMorgan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    9
    What are your takes on Dispensationalism? Thank you.
     
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,374
    Likes Received:
    728
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    1,297
    I am a non-dispensationalist Pre-millennialist (Historic Pre-Mill/Chilliast). (Having said that, those of us who see the Tribulation as limited to a 7 years period as outlined in classic dispensationalsim tend to lean toward a post-trib rapture. See Spurgeon.)

    Most mainstream evangelicals today are not, strictly speaking, dispensationalists. They have modified the ideas of Darby and Scofield, who both saw many different ways for OT saints to be saved. (With the understanding there are, of course, both hyper (Larkin) and ultra dispensationalists running around (such as Bullinger). However, in Larkin's defense he did not succumb to the Acts 28 heresy but remained an Acts 2 heretic. :D )

    There is one "plan of salvation" - Christ, and there is one command from God - "Be ye holy for I am holy."

    But the founders of dispensationalism made the error of thinking each dispensation was marked by a cycle. 1. God reveals Himself and His truth to humanity in a new, and different, way. 2. Humanity is held responsible to conform to that revelation for salvation. 3. Humanity rebels and fails the test. 4. God judges humanity and introduces a new period of probation under a new dispensation.

    The way most present day (modified) dispensationalists adhere to Darby/Scofield is in the "preplacement theology" of classic dispensationalism. Most dispensationalists fail to see the relationship between (spiritual) Israel and the NT church. The church is a direct outgrowth of spiritual Israel, and the church is even said to be engrafted into the olive tree of Israel. The bible is pretty clear in applying many of the promises made to Israel to the NT church.

    However, on the other hand, many classic Covenantal Christians fail to see that some of the promises made to Israel are yet to be fulfilled and will, when fulfilled, apply to national Israel.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. DMorgan

    DMorgan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    9
    Thank you for this. I have been studying this area and was looking for more input than just dissenting viewpoints.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776
    I do not have any particular labels but I do fall into the dispensational theology. There is a distinct difference between Israel and the church. Any theology that ignores that will be wrong. There are only seven years of tribulation and that time period is a period of the wrath of God. Therefore it is not possible that the church be involved in the tribulation because of its nature. The church was not created to suffer the wrath of God.

    Elect Israel rejected the Messiah and now the church (completely distinct from National Israel) is the current conduit by which God reveals Himself to the world. When God is done with the church (age of the Gentiles Romans 11:25) He will continue to fulfill the unconditional covenants (Abrahamic & Davidic) with Elect National Israel which are everlasting covenants.

    This is not exhaustive but a general overview.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    It's blasphemy. It declares that the children of Satan (John 8:44) are God's elect and that followers of Jesus are just a parenthetical diversion in God's redemptive plan.
     
    • Creative Creative x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. DMorgan

    DMorgan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    9
    Was Jesus(John 8:44) declaring that all of Israel was of Satan? or just the Pharisees? (John 8:13)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    I don't see the relevancy of your questions. Nor, do I think John is vague about the answers to your questions.
     
  9. DMorgan

    DMorgan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    9
    Sorry i asked. It was an honest question, not a slight to your post. Peace brother.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    There are two Israels, one carnal and one spiritual. Part of carnal Israel is of Satan. All of spiritual Israel (the Saints) is of God. All Jews (and carnal Israel), not just Pharisees, who reject Jesus are of Satan. Jesus told the Jews "If God were your Father, you would love me."

    Dispensationalists believe that carnal Israel is the Israel of God. But, Paul points out that not all Israel has been saved, but only a remnant. So, has God's word to Israel failed? No, because not all Israel is Israel, Paul, not I, explains. Not all carnal Israel is the Israel of God.
     
    #10 Smyth, Jul 19, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    1,297
    It seems quite relevant to me. You seem to suggest that Jesus was addressing all of Israel when He said they are of their father the devil. DMorgan simply asked for a clarification of who was being addressed. He gave verse 13 to establish the preceding context, that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees.

    Well then you should have no problem answering DMorgan's question.

    Who was Jesus addressing, and did He include all of Israel or only some of Israel?

    [Written before Smyth answered but posted a few seconds after.]

    [Good answer, Smyth.]
     
    #11 TCassidy, Jul 19, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2016
  12. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    127
    I follow dispensational theology, Smythy, it's blasphemous to call it blasphemous! :Ninja
    Dispensational theology is bit hard to define because it can mean different things to different people; Just like other theologies, there are different definitions even among by those who adhere to the system.

    With out a doubt, the chief emphases which define Dispensationalism are the Church and Eschatology.
    Most other doctrines (e.g. Christology, anthropology...) are indistinct from other theologies.

    A flexible definition might include:
    • the authority of Scripture,
    • the presence of dispensations,
    • the uniqueness of the Church,
    • the practical significance of the universal Church as opposed to just the local church,
    • the significance of biblical prophecy,
    • futurist premillennialism,
    • an imminent return of Christ.
    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    Post #5, Revmitchell, does a good job of defining Dispenstationalism. I easily defined it in one sentence, post #6.

    (Revmitchell accuses opponents of ignoring "a distinct difference between Israel and the church". Dispenationalists ignore there is a distinct difference between carnal Israel and the Israel of God.)
     
  14. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,621
    Likes Received:
    310
    Not really, I do make the distinction.
     
  15. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47
    Could you elaborate?
     
  16. DMorgan

    DMorgan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    9
    Thank you.
     
  17. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    127
    I haven't read Scofield's works for a long, long time, they're old and dated but the quote below provides a base source for the what Smyth writes about above.

    From Dr. C.I. Scofield's Question Box (1917)
    What is the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16?
    In this passage the heart of the apostle turns for a moment from the Church, in which believing Jews and believing Gentiles alike become “new creatures,” to God’s ancient people, the Jews, who are always “the Israel of God.” It may be added that elsewhere (Rom. 9:10) Paul distinguishes between the true spiritual Israel and the Israel made up of the mere literal descendants of Jacob. All Jews belong to the latter; believing Jews only to the former (Rom. 2:28, 29; Rom. 9:6–8).
    Rob
     
  18. Smyth

    Smyth
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    47


    In other words, Scofield says that “the Israel of God" is not "the true spiritual Israel". :/
     
  19. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Do not care to enter into discussion, just wanted to suggest an approach. You will find misleading/false statements from opponents of all positions I'd guess. Read from the horses mouth not what is left after someone digests things for you.

    FYI: Scofield made some vague statements/mis-statements that led some to say he held to multiple paths to salvation, but in later writings made it quite clear that there was only one way of salvation.
     
    #19 exscentric, Jul 20, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,268
    Likes Received:
    776

Share This Page

Loading...