Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Not to mention every single Baptist theologian, pastor, and layman until some Baptists got their ears tickled by J. N. Darby, Mary Campbell, Margaret MacDonald, Edward Irving, and the most publicized Pentecostal movement in the early 19th century. For further study look up Mary Campbell, Margaret MacDonald, Edward Irving, and J. N. Darby in the history of the Plymouth Brethren and the Catholic Apostolic Church.

 

Oldreg, they didn't state that they were pretrib or posttrib. One reason might be because they didn't have to. It wasn't an issue. Everyone was pretrib. Besides, they believed in imminence, a doctrine not well suited for historic premill.

My comments about your unbelief are in regards to the end times. I wasn't questioning your salvation.

Besides, your measure of theology are some of the early baptists. Funny how you want to rake others for doing the same with Darby.

Of course, you are amill, so understanding isn't a strong point.

 

Old Regularsaid, "The tribe of Dan is missing. The name Ephraim is missing. The tribe of Joseph is included as is the half tribe of Manasseh. Since the tribe of Joseph, the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, is included why is the half tribe of Manasseh included? Expositors who want to interpret this passage literally have attempted to explain the absence of Dan, the inclusion of both Manasseh and Joseph, and the absence of Ephraim in various ways. However any attempt to interpret this passage literally creates problems."
________________________________________________

Fairly simple really brother, that is if you read your old testament. Both Dan and Ephraim were disqualified for specific stubborn sins. I won't do your home work for you. God is right. Again. You are wrong. Again.

I take that back. Here is your home work assignment. Figure this out and you will get your answer.

Ho 4:17
Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

Am 8:14
They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again.

Apparently Old Regular, God hates idolatry. So much so that He will not even reckonize them as a tribe of Israel in the end times. Imagine that!
Hmmm, lessee, now where oh where did I read that God hates idolatry? Oh Yes!
Here;
Ex 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Seems like God takes His worship serious. Apparently you just forgot that part. That's ok, we all make mistakes, brother!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

If your claim is that you interpret through the filter of dispensationalism then you must claim to have a perfect system for it to be accurate and true. Otherwise you have a flawed system–dispensationalism and its revisions.

You must always interpret scripture in light of its historical context not some Baptistic modified dispensational theology. That has never changed. The majority of Baptists I meet do not subscribe to what many purist dispensationalists believe. They have modified their approach.

You accuse Dispensationalists of coming to abolish the law, which is nothing but a figment of your own imagination.

I did not accuse anyone. It is a fact. By their own admittance they are guilty. Apparently you have not sat under the teaching of pastors from DTS, Biola, Talbot, Simpson College and Dallas Bible College. Everyone I know coming from those colleges, universities and seminaries have taught exactly the same thing–the OT is no longer valid. It is done away with. Do you really think those pastors who were about 30 years apart in age got together to come up with a theology to spread? Now I do know the more modern pastors coming from those schools have modified their theology from their predecessors. So someone is wrong. I do not subscribe to Mormon theology of progressive revelations. So dispensationalism by the fact of its revisions make at least two wrong.
You kept making the point of the two revisions as if this was such a weighty point you were making, which it is not even close to being.

Perhaps you need to read Darby, Chafer, Larkin, Scofield, Macintosh, Ryrie, Walvoord, Bock and Blasing. Then compare their theologies. You might try reading Spurgeon and see what he writes. See how they stack up against Keil & Delitzsch too.

Even opponents of Dispensationalism, have applauded Darby and his Plymoth Brethren for the strong stance they took on the Bible, and Christianity, when other Christian Church’s and groups were hiding their heads in the sand from the new scientific onslaught.

I am not sure I have read that anywhere. I think Spurgeon did quite an excellent job of speaking out against dispensationalism and liberalism. But if you think about what you wrote is exactly the problem with dispensationalism. It came right out of German rationalism. Dispensationalism detoured from liberalism but took with it the same German rationalism. If you take some time and study German rationalism and then listen to some DTS grads (especially older grads) talk you will find many of the same characteristics. Their approach is very rationalistic.

Yes God’s word never changes, but neither you or I, or anyone else we know, read, or heard, knows everything there is to know about God, theology, or anything else for that matter.

Exactly. But God knows. Depending how you date the Torah you would have at least 1400 years of interpretation in the Bible. I tend to think Jesus did quite a good job without dispensationalism.

I prefer to take a look at the historical context first. When I understand the historical context the rest is easy. All of the Bible in each book and each part has a historical context specific to each inspired writing and not some kind of general information.

Protestantism is not a revision of Christianity. Catholicism is a revision of genuine Christianity.

 

I wonder how many dispensationalists would be willing to give up their paid positions as pastor and staff and do as the Plymouth Bretheren do? The Brethren do not have pastors. They have elders who lead and are not paid.

 

I wonder how many dispensationalists would be willing to give up their paid positions as pastor and staff and do as the Plymouth Bretheren do? The Brethren do not have pastors. They have elders who lead and are not paid.
__________________________________________________

And I wonder how many Non-dispy's would be willing to give up their jobs and just live off the land.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I wonder how many non premill pastors would be willing to hang it up and get a real job.

 

I wonder what the statement about receiving pay as a minister has to do with the supposed elitism of dispensationalism?

Bro Tony

 

There never was a divided body of Christ. As long as there has been a body of Christ, it has been unified into one. Dispensationalism has never disputed that. That is an all too frequent straw man.

 

This post is about as contrary to fact as it possibly could be. Literal interpretations and translations of a text are the exact opposite of idiomatic translations where figures of speech in the donor language are translated into comparable figures of speech in the receptor language rather than translating them literally, i.e., word for word.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives us the following:

Literal interpretation = word for word interpretation

Figurative interpretation = idiomatic interpretation</font>[/QUOTE]Craig, You are wrong, simply put. Dead wrong. You are attacking something you obviously know nothing about. I don't have Ryrie here with me since I am on vacation, but he very clearly rebuts your argument. You are typical of many opponents of dispensationalism. You have no idea what you are actually talking about. You have heard a few pet ideas but haven't studied them. LIteral interpretation is normal interpretation. It is taking the language as intended by the author. There are many hermeneutics books that will help your understanding.

You are confusing interpretation and translation. LIteral translation is word for word and is opposite of dynamic translation, or thought for thought, idiom for idiom. Interpretation is an entirely different matter. In literal interpretation, the idea and intention of hte author determines the meaning of the text. That is an easy point to confuse. You certainly did it with gusto

 

That is just plain wrong. You should know that. The covenantalist cannot interpret Scripture plainly because of their bias. Take for instance their view of the NC, a classic example. They cannot accept it for what it says because it says that Israel as a nation has a future. That is what the plain meaning of the words convey. But you have to twist it because of your bias.

If I didn't, I would have to lie. The text is clear as I explained it. There is no legitimate alternative without changing the meaning of the words.

My point was that you made a major error that Ryrie clearly discusses and refutes. If you have read him, then you should know that. Perhaps you forgot that section. It is easy to do if you read a lot. I know I certainly do it. There was no ill will intended. I was simply pointing out that your argument had already been soundly refuted by a source that you read.

If I had my copy, I would certainly look this up, because as I remember, there are some very salient points that you omitted.

Better titled Misunderstanding Dispensationalists. Poythress did not do a good job on that effort.

Ryrie in his book told exactly what he meant. This is another example of something you didn't like me saying above. If you have read his book, I don't know how you miss it. To accept the text at face value means, for example, that if God made a promise to the nation of Israel, he will fulfill it to the nation of Israel. Covenantalism takes those promises and moves them over to the church without any textual basis. They cannot accept the text at face value because of their precommitments.

AGain, an error in understanding Ryrie and dispensationalism. DT does not teach that the prophets always understood completely everything they wrote. It contends that what they wrote is what they meant and it should be accepted that way. For instance when they wrote "Israel" that is what they meant. They didn't mean "church" or "Jews and Gentiles."

Which is the same point that I believe Ryrie makes in different words. Again, I must question how closely you read it if you didn't get this. I am pretty sure it was pretty clear, but I haven't read that book in several years. When I get back, perhaps I will look it up. What Mac said is exactly what dispensationalism says, and with good reason. Mac is a dispensationalist. Interestingly enough, that is also what I said on the previous page and Craig said I was wrong about.

Much of this discussion will never be fruitful because you don't understand what "literal interpretation" means. I hope you will take some time to study more on this. You don't have to become a dispensationalist yet (that will come soon enough when Christ returns ). But you can at least rightly represent our position.

 

As for the historicity of premillennialism, Premill was clearly the doctrine of the early church. It was not until about 300ad when expectations of Christ's soon return did not match up with current events that there was any other alternative. ISBE will document this as well as Showers in There Really Is A Difference. Other sources could be marshalled as well.

 

Well, not true either. This thread is so filled with plain old untruths that it is remarkable. Though there may be some dispensationalists who believe this, the vast majority do not. But it takes all of the fun out of the discussion if you talk about what they actually believe.

 

OldRegular

Sorry it took so long to reply back. I’m not doubting that some people took Scoffield’s notes as scripture. The point that I was making was that I’m not sure that the rise of Dispensationalism can primarily or solely be attributed to Scoffield’s Bible. It’s something that requires further study on my part, so I won’t belabor this point.

As far as how would I exegete the scriptures you mentioned? Let me put it this way. I literally interpret them figuratively. Go figure!!

 

Please document this.

HankD

 

DeafPostTrib

You know DPT, the reason why so many people have a problem with the form of eschatology that you espouse, is because it blatantly ignores the literal meaning of the text, and insists upon generalized abstractions that you carpet over the whole text. How do you go from the four winds mentioned in Revelation 7 meaning the harvest of all the saints from the four corners of the world, when the scripture clearly and precisely said not only were the winds being used to hurt the earth and the sea, and not gather or harvest anyone, but it also very specifically gave the number of those that would be sealed and thus protected from this judgement as 144,000 of the twelve tribes of Israel. The tribes of Israel have never been associated as the Church, and have always been used to describe ethnic or National Israel. Why do you even the make the statement that we (the Church) are Israel, as if this chapter and verse was referring to this, when you know that we who are a part of the Church are already sealed, and have no need of a future ‘sealing’. The most obvious and best interpretation of this verse is that it refers to those whom it says it refers to, namely the redeemed among the ethnic tribes of Israel. We who are a part of the Church are saved now, not at the return of Jesus Christ. Paul was clearly referring to his ethnicity and his ethnic brethren in Romans Chapter 11.icity has described in Matthew 24:31

The fact that you see the twelve tribes of Israel and the names of the twelve apostles in New Jerusalem does nothing to prove your case against Dispensationalism. New Jerusalem coming down from heaven is at the end of all things. It’s after the rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Second Advent, and the Millennial Reign. Everything’s pretty much done by that point. We understand that Christianity is built upon the foundation of the Law and the Prophets. It seems you keep implying that the distinctions that Dispensationalism teaches are absent of unity. This is not the case at all. We recognize the unity in the diversity. All shall indeed be one in Christ Jesus, but Jesus does not tear away the distinctions as is evident by the fact that you see both the tribes of Israel and the names of the apostles. What I find rather striking is how the ethnic tribes are listed along with the names of the apostles, indicating that the Church does not replace ethnic Israel. This flies right in the face of the point that you and others continue to make that ethnic Israel is shut out of the plan and purposes of God.

You’re right there is no dividing the body of Christ. There are simply distinctions, or as we like to put it Dispensations. I throw your question back at you: Can you not understand the purpose of Calvary?