Southern Baptists and Dispensationalism

Dialog between Pastor Larry and OldRegular about the errors of dispensationalism.

The carnal mind will interpret Scripture accordingly.

You seem to like that phrase: unless God is a liar. Was Jesus Christ lying when he stated the kingdom will be taken from Israel.

The Kingdom Israel mistakenly thought was exclusively for them was taken away and given to another people:

Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for certainty we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 12:32, KJV
32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church:

1 Peter 2:9, KJV
9. But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked. Therefore, it still stands. The Kingdom belongs to the little flock, the Church. The mission of the nation Israel in God’s purpose of redemption had been accomplished.

Which ones?

Quote just one.

I don't know where! Anyhow the first resurrection was that of Jesus Christ as I noted. It certainly did not take place in stages.

You are perfectly entitled to be to be wrong consistent with dispensational theology.

That is sheer nonsense. Charles C. Ryrie in Chapter 4 of Dispensationalism argues that the beginning of dispensational thought is much earlier [than Darby]. He asserts that Pierre Poiret, a French philosopher and mystic, published a rudimentary system of dispensations in 1687 and that Isaac Watts [1674-1748] developed an outline of dispensations that essentially paralleled that in the Scofield Bible, with the exception of the millennium. There is no indication, however, that either of these men believed that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church which according to Ryrie [page 39] is the basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist. The question is not whether there is a distinction between the nation Israel and the Church, there obviously is. The concern is the relationship between true or spiritual Israel, the believing remnant [Isaiah 10:20-23], and the Church.

So you see, even were Ryrie correct dispensational error [dispensational premises is more correct than dispensational doctrine] does not occur throughout Church history.

There you go again. Don't you know God cannot lie.

Hebrews 6:18. That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Silly or not on this forum you are supposed to address the OP.

 

Actually the above statement is misleading.

The word Israel appears three times in the Book of Revelation, Chapters 2, 7, and 21; the word Jews appears only twice, Chapters 2 and 3, and there the reference is to false Jews. So we see that a reference to Israel appears only once during that part of the Book that is presumed to represent ‘the seven year tribulation’ and ‘Jacob’s time of trouble’. The first time the word Israel is used [2:14] the reference is to the false prophet Balaam and his role in the seduction of Israel enroute to the promise land. In Chapter 7 the name Israel is used in the discussion of the servants of God who are sealed. The next occasion [21:12] the name is used in the description of the New Jerusalem, the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ. Again, Israel is referred to only one time, and no reference is made to the Jews, during that period in which it is claimed that the Church is absent. Strange indeed is the absence of the words Jew or Israel in the 16 chapters of Revelation written specifically for them, according to dispensational theology, while, in the remainder of the New Testament the words Jew or Jews occur 188 times and the words Israel or Israelite occur 73 times.

To show that the absence or presence of a word is not decisive consider the Book of Esther in the Old Testament. The editor of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible notes:The name of God does not appear in the book, while a heathen king is referred to over 150 times. There is no allusion to prayer or spiritual service of any kind with the possible exception of fasting. Does this absence of reference to God mean that He was absent or that the book of Esther should not be in the Canon? Obviously not. The book of Esther was written to show God’s providential watch care over His Covenant people through whom He would bring the Saviour into the world.

It is interesting to note that there are other books in the New Testament where the words church or churches are not used. The words do not appear in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John. If one believes that the Church was not established until Pentecost, that is not necessarily unusual. It is interesting, however, that the book that many dispensationalists claim is the Gospel of the Kingdom [written by a Jewish believer who collected taxes for Rome] is the Gospel in which the Church is first proclaimed. The words church or churches are not mentioned in 1st & 2nd Peter, 1st & 2nd John, and Jude. Can we then argue the absence of the Church? The words are also absent from the first 15 chapters of Romans and occur only twice in Hebrews.

In conclusion, there are books in the New Testament in which the words church or churches are not mentioned. Therefore, the absence of the word church in Chapters 4-19 of the book of Revelation is scant justification to claim that the Church is absent during the period covered by these chapters. However, I believe the best argument against a pretribulation “Rapture” is contained in the proper interpretation of John 5:28,29 [Section 6.1].

Alan Johnson writing in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 12, page 461 explains the absence of the word ‘church’ as follows: “the word church or churches always stands in Revelation for the historic seven churches in Asia and not for the universal body of Christ. Since 4:2-22:15 concerns the believing community as a whole, it would be inappropriate at least for John’s usage to find the narrower term ‘church’ in this section.

 

That part of the Baptist Faith and Message is a good description of a general resurrection and judgment.

 

They may not make it a test of fellowship [though I believe some secretly do] but they are quick to tag you with the name "liberal".

 

Allan

Dispensationalists like to confuse people about the premillennialism of the first centuries and dispensationalism. There is a vast difference. Historic premillennialism believes that the Church is dominant in the Millennium. Dispensationalism teaches that the Jews will be dominant. Even so both are incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Now back to the OP and the Southern Baptist definition of the Church which is directly opposed to the dispensational concept of the Church.

 

You are accusing me of lying which is contrary to the rules of this forum. However, I have noticed on this forum and in life that dispensationalists are quick to question the integrity of those who insist that dispensationalism is contrary to Scripture and Church History. Furthermore, since this forum is run by dispensationalists it appears that they are not subject to its rules. You can believe it or not but it is a historical fact that dispensationalism is the brainchild of Darby and it was foisted on a gullible Church membership by the Scofield Bible. The historical or covenant premillennialism of the first centuries bears absolutely no relationship to diapensationalism. That is a fact and if you will make the effort you can discover this truth for yourself.

Allegorical interpretation has nothing to do with the amillennial interpretation of Scripture: truth does!

You obviously cannot read. The Baptist Faith and Message states clearly: The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

There you go again, impugning my integrity again. Where are the administrators when you need one. Strange but dispensationalists want to interpret John 5:28, 29 any way but literally. The reason: It destroys their doctrine when interpreted literally. The hour still means The hour regardless of what Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, MacArthur, and all other dispensationalists say..

Well Southern Baptists are getting lax when it comes to doctrinal integrity. In fact they have since the Scofield bible.

 

Actually it is in its third revision. I noticed in the first revision that the introductory remarks to the Song of Solomon had been changed. The Scofield Bible of 1917 includes the introduction to the Song of Solomon by Scofield, as follows :


Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, while the saintliest men and women of the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. That the love of the divine Bridegroom should follow all the analogies of the marriage relation seems evil only to minds so ascetic that martial desire itself seems to them unholy.

The interpretation is twofold: Primarily, the book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained of God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust--the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. The secondary and larger interpretation is of Christ, the Son and His heavenly bride, the Church (2 Corinthians 11:1-4 refs).

Given that dispensationalists insist that the Church is a mystery in the Old Testament it was necessary that they eliminate these remarks from subsequent editions.

 

Illustrations please and i will match you 2 for 1.

 

Amy

It is hard for dispensationalists to face reality.