Dispensationalism

[Van]

The biggest problem I have with dispensationalism is its ahistorical approach to Biblical exegesis.

Before the 1830s, did anyone teach a pre-tribulation rapture? There were many in the early church who held to premillenialism, but not a pre-trib rapture.

What did Jesus himself teach about the tribulation?

The traditional timetable is that the tribulation happens first and then the rapture. How can we be spiritually prepared for the coming tribulation if we needlessly expect that we're just going to be raptured anyway before anything bad happens?

Secondly, do dispensationalists honestly believe that unbelieving Jews don't need to receive Christ to be saved, because they belong to a previous dispensation? What Biblical evidence is there for that?

First, this post does not demonstrate incredible ignorance of the various flavors of Dispensationalism, but rather an attempt to mis-characterize Dispensationalism to promote false doctrine.

Second, was there a citation to support the idea that some Dispensationalist believe Jews can get to heaven without belief in Christ? Many dispensationalists believe the Old Covenant "saints" held in "Abraham's bosom" heard Jesus present the gospel and believed before Jesus took them to heaven. Thus "All Israel" is comprised of Jews that believed into Christ, and that born anew Gentiles have been grafted in, and therefore also comprise "All Israel."

The key distinctive of dispensationalism is we believe Jesus will reign on David's throne on earth for 1000 years. Non-dispensationalists deny this biblical truth.

Lastly Dispensationalists hope to be raptured before or early into the Tribulation, but prepare for experiencing Tribulation.

Thus this thread is a transparent attack on biblical truth to promote false doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

Please proceed with the evidence that a pre-trib rapture was taught anywhere in church history before the 1830s. I'm still waiting. I'd be happy to see it and learn.

There are many dispensationalists today who do believe that Jews can be saved without the Gospel. Also, where does it say anywhere in the New Testament that animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom?

Like a good Berean, I'm waiting for the evidence for dispensationalism.

Whether or not anyone believed in a pre-trib rapture before the 1830's is irrelevant as to the truth of the doctrine. No one took a stand on the deity of Christ until Arius came along and they had to. No one took a stand on inspiration until the Reformation and the necessity of opposing the Catholic claim on the inspiration of the Vulgate, and then very few did. Then no one took a stand on verbal plenary inspiration until Louis Gaussen in the 19th century when liberalism began to show its ugly head.

 

[John of Japan]

Another problem with dispensationalism is its sharp distinction between Israel and the church.

The Greek word for church in the New Testament, ekklesia, is the same word that the Septuagint uses for the nation of Israel:

Um, are you aware that the word has several meanings? It was originally used for the legislative body of the Greek-city state. It continued to be used this way in the time of the NT writers. (Cf the usage in Acts 19.) Does that make the church of Jesus Christ a city-state?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that's actually not true. It's because I know a great deal about dispensationalism that I question it. Your refusal or inability to answer my questions demonstrates the ahistorical nature of dispensationalism.

Would say that there was historical premil held by many ECF, but not the pre trib rapture view until later on!
And I try to get a mediating point between full blowb CT and Dispy, as while do see the Church as now Spiritual Israel, do not see God no longer dealing with nation Israel as CT tends to assume as being right, as see them coming to lord Jesus at Hi second coming!

 

[Van]

Talk about the blind leading the blind. Here is an actual source for Early Church Fathers holding views compatible with escaping the tribulation. And well before the fictional claim of 1830.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=pretrib_arch

 

[Yeshua1]

Um, are you aware that the word has several meanings? It was originally used for the legislative body of the Greek-city state. It continued to be used this way in the time of the NT writers. (Cf the usage in Acts 19.) Does that make the church of Jesus Christ a city-state?

Would say that the saved of the OT were actually in the Church to come, but israel was not the Church back then!

 

[Van]

Would say that the saved of the OT were actually in the Church to come, but israel was not the Church back then!

Name an OT Saint that was made perfect and enrolled in the general assembly under the Old Covenant! No answer will be forthcoming because once again Y1 has posted fiction. Note how those ignorant of God's teachings post as if they had studied scripture, but can provide no citation for their false claims.

 

[Yeshua1]

Name an OT Saint that was made perfect and enrolled in the general assembly under the Old Covenant! No answer will be forthcoming because once again Y1 has posted fiction. Note how those ignorant of God's teachings post as if they had studied scripture, but can provide no citation for their false claims.

ALL who have even been saved have been part of the Body of Christ!

 

[Van]

ALL who have even been saved have been part of the Body of Christ!

LOL, Y1 denies he claimed the OT Saints were enrolled in the Church of the Firstborn before Christ died. Endless disinformation is all you get from this poster...

Many dispensationalists believe the Old Covenant "saints" held in "Abraham's bosom" heard Jesus present the gospel and believed before Jesus took them to heaven. Thus "All Israel" is comprised of Jews that believed into Christ, and that born anew Gentiles have been grafted in, and therefore also comprise "All Israel."

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL, Y1 denies he claimed the OT Saints were enrolled in the Church of the Firstborn before Christ died. Endless disinformation is all you get from this poster...

Many dispensationalists believe the Old Covenant "saints" held in "Abraham's bosom" heard Jesus present the gospel and believed before Jesus took them to heaven. Thus "All Israel" is comprised of Jews that believed into Christ, and that born anew Gentiles have been grafted in, and therefore also comprise "All Israel."

So you are saying here that the Church is spiritual Israel?

 

[Van]

So you are saying here that the Church is spiritual Israel?

So you are saying you cannot comprehend the obvious? Y1 misrepresents truth in every post, spewing his vindictive and vicious falsehoods hither and yon.

 

[Mikey]

I believe in a pretrib rapture. A post trip 1000 year reign. And I also DONT believe non believing Jews are saved. Old Testament Jews who had faith yes, but after the cross you must trust Jesus alone for salvation.
With that being said, what would my position be called? I want to learn the differences in dispensationalism. I’m having a hard time understanding dispensationalism as opposed to covenant theology. Thx

Might be helpful.

 

[Van]

I believe in a pretrib rapture. A post trip 1000 year reign. And I also DONT believe non believing Jews are saved. Old Testament Jews who had faith yes, but after the cross you must trust Jesus alone for salvation.
With that being said, what would my position be called? I want to learn the differences in dispensationalism. I’m having a hard time understanding dispensationalism as opposed to covenant theology. Thx

Because you believe in a 1000 year reign on earth by Jesus on David's throne, you are a Dispensationalist. However, there are more than one flavor of Dispensationalism. I am a Progressive Dispensationalist, believing that the born anew believers of the Body of Christ are children of the promise to Abraham. See Galatians Chapter 3. Thus both Groups (born anew Jews and born anew Gentiles) comprise "all Israel." See Romans Chapter 9.

 

[thomas15]

I keep coming back to this, why...because this is at the root of the problem...

Would say that there was historical premil held by many ECF, but not the pre trib rapture view until later on!
And I try to get a mediating point between full blowb CT and Dispy, as while do see the Church as now Spiritual Israel, do not see God no longer dealing with nation Israel as CT tends to assume as being right, as see them coming to lord Jesus at Hi second coming!

Perhaps the most important differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology is how the Biblical covenants are viewed. To paraphrase Andrew Woods, dispensationalism is actually more deserving the title Covenant Theology because they believe the actual covenants Abrahamic, Davidic, New.

It is my view that all that are saved, from Adam to the last human saved before the eternal state, is saved by grace through faith in the blood of Christ, so it cannot be that those prior to Christ are of the Church because Jesus made clear in Matt ch 16 that the Church is a future assembly.

Covenant theology states that there is 2 or 3 covenants for all time (works, grace & redemption), these are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. This is odd because in the Bible there are many covenants mentioned, why then did God leave out detail on the most important ones? Covenant theology tries but cannot answer that question. Another question covenant theology cannot answer is if all (Adam, Noah and so forth) are saved by the covenant of grace based on the covenant of redemption, what then exactly is new about the new covenant if it is the blood of Christ that saves all?

Some Dispensationalists, mostly progressive dispensationalists, will say that because those of the Church get some of the spiritual blessings promised by the actual New Covenant mentioned in the Bible, that it follows that the Church is a party of the New Covenant. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this idea fails because some outside of the Church receive those blessings also. And before you say it, I am not ignorant of the fact that Jesus spoke of the New Covenant in the upper room and/or that those of the Church have direct access to the Father and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a manor different from times before the church age.

 

[John of Japan]

Might be helpful.

A couple of minutes in, the younger man says that a problem with dispensationalism is "an over-commitment to grammatical-historical interpretation." Really? So simply taking God at His Word and interpreting according to the grammar is "over-commitment"? I say that it is exactly what modern Christians need. When God says "Go ye" He didn't mean "Stay ye." It's not rocket science, believe me--I actually have two friends who are rocket scientists, and they are both literalists--Tom in Japan, who worked on the Space Shuttle, and Dr. K, who is currently with NASA.

 

[John of Japan]

My experience with foes of Dispensationalism is that they tend to get all of their information from other foes of Dispensationalism and shy away from checking out the sources themselves. With that in mind I feel this is a waste of time but in defense of the faith I proceed...

Two books I have and really like. The first is titled Ancient Dispensational Truth 2018 James C. Morris This is an informative 139 pager where he gives in context quotes for several ECFs prior to 400 AD that indicate a "Dispensational" understanding. Among them are Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Agustin and Crysostem.

Dispensationalism Before Darby - Seventeenth-Century and Eighteenth-Century English Apocalypticism 2015 William C. Watson. The fact that this well researched book has been around for 6 years and has been ignored by reformed A-MILS/Post Mils is all the proof that one needs to state that those who repeat that Dispensationalism is a 19th century invention are simply uninformed and happy to be so.

I just bought Ancient Dispensational Truth. Looking forward to reading it and putting together a lecture from it. Looks really good!

 

[John of Japan]

I believe in a pretrib rapture. A post trip 1000 year reign. And I also DONT believe non believing Jews are saved. Old Testament Jews who had faith yes, but after the cross you must trust Jesus alone for salvation.
With that being said, what would my position be called? I want to learn the differences in dispensationalism. I’m having a hard time understanding dispensationalism as opposed to covenant theology. Thx

At this point I would call you a historical premillennialist. My grandfather was one. He believed that the OT saints were part of the church, and was not a dispensationalist, though he thought Scofield and others taught some good things. He did not believe the church started at Pentecost, and felt that Dispensationalists emphasized the beginning of the church at Pentecost over the revival that happened with 3,000 saved, and he did have a point on that. To his disgust, I started hanging out with dispensationalists.

 

[Van]

Dispensationalism is a theological term used to describe a method of interpreting the Bible. Progressive Dispensation is one version of many that differs from Traditional Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists believe Christ will govern upon David’s throne here on earth for one thousand years, or in other words they take those passages literally. Therefore Dispensationalists like to excoriate the “Reformed, Replacement Theology, Amillennialists” as not interpreting the Bible literally and therefore we stand on higher ground. And so it goes in theological debate.

Sadly the first thing to grasp is that the main difference between Covenant Theology (errant Amillennialists) and we, the virtuous Dispensationalists, has little to do with the idea that God governs man in differing ways. Both schools of thought agree God deals with man in different ways. No the chief difference is in our views of an End Times dispensation. Basically both schools agree on: 1) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with man before the fall; 2) Dispensation of Conscious or how God deals with man without the Law; 3) Dispensation of the Law or how God deals with man with the Law; 4) Dispensation of Grace or how God deals with man in Christ Jesus before the Second Coming; 5) the Millennial Kingdom or how God deals with all Israel on earth after the Second Coming; and 6) the Eternal Kingdom or how God deals with his children in eternity. Now the chief difference is that the Amillennialists believe the fifth age is going on right now in heaven so the Second Coming will inaugurate the sixth dispensation. Hence, Amillennialists are against the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, they hold to the idea that the Church replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) and the promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled in heaven during the dispensation of grace.

Let me say here that the above represents my understanding of the issue and I am quite sure I have missed the mark in the details, but I believe the above properly represents the general idea. But now to the heart of the post, what is the difference between a traditional dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist?

“Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.” (Tim Warner)

Progressive dispensationalists see the Church Age as a progression where God deals with the faithful in a new covenant enabled by the blood of Christ, and this Dispensation of Grace is available to those with the Law (Jews) and those without the Law (Gentiles who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament). Some but not all Old Testament promises apply to the church now, and are not being held in abeyance pending the Second Coming. Thus I can read Galatians 3 and it matches my theology perfectly. Same for Romans 9-11.

Another area where I fundamentally disagree with many is that I believe God is using multiple dispensations at the same time. Therefore today, three dispensations are in effect, God is dealing with those without the Law, who have not heard the gospel presented in light of an understanding of the Old Testament (Dispensation of Conscience); God is dealing with those who have the Law which includes Jews and non Jews who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament but have not accepted the gospel and have not been born again (Dispensation of the Law); and three, God is dealing with born again believers, the Dispensation of Grace.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you are saying you cannot comprehend the obvious? Y1 misrepresents truth in every post, spewing his vindictive and vicious falsehoods hither and yon.

You never will give a direct answer. except for 'Taint so"

 

[Yeshua1]

Because you believe in a 1000 year reign on earth by Jesus on David's throne, you are a Dispensationalist. However, there are more than one flavor of Dispensationalism. I am a Progressive Dispensationalist, believing that the born anew believers of the Body of Christ are children of the promise to Abraham. See Galatians Chapter 3. Thus both Groups (born anew Jews and born anew Gentiles) comprise "all Israel." See Romans Chapter 9.

I am a Covenant theology pre mil. so more then just a dispy view!