Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by DMorgan, Jul 19, 2016.
What are your takes on Dispensationalism? Thank you.
I notice some people do not like it.....
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. )
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.
Thank you for this. I have been studying this area and was looking for more input than just dissenting viewpoints.
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.
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.
Was Jesus(John 8:44) declaring that all of Israel was of Satan? or just the Pharisees? (John 8:13)
I don't see the relevancy of your questions. Nor, do I think John is vague about the answers to your questions.
Sorry i asked. It was an honest question, not a slight to your post. Peace brother.
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.
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.]
I follow dispensational theology, Smythy, it's blasphemous to call it blasphemous!
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,
an imminent return of Christ.
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.)
Not really, I do make the distinction.
Could you elaborate?
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).
In other words, Scofield says that “the Israel of God" is not "the true spiritual Israel". :/
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.