1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Attn: All Dispensationals

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by NateT, Sep 28, 2005.

  1. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow is that passage overused and much abused. Do you eat pork? Do you travel more than a Sabbath Day's journey on Saturday? Do you wear garments of mixed fabric? Do you carry a shovel every time you leave camp?

    Do you really expect me to believe... that you believe... that we are still under the Law? The law will not pass away. It will be fulfilled, but IT WAS NEVER GIVEN TO THE GENTILES!!! (Exod 20:1-2; 31:13-17, cited in earlier post)

    The Sermon on the Mount was at a time when Jesus was still confining His Ministry to JEWS ALONE, NOT GENTILES or Samaritans (Matt 10). Does it have application for us today? Certainly, all of Scripture is for us, but not all of Scripture is TO us.

    After the cross, Paul wrote:

    Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
    15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
     
  2. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bapmom,

    Meant to note this earlier, but if you believe in a literal tribulation that is yet future, you are most likely some form of a Dispy, like me! CTs generally hold that the great bulk of Revelation has already been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Talk about vaticinium ex eventu.

    And yes, I had to do a search for that one, too. From another thread...
     
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Rjprince,

    Thank you for taking the time to share with us what you believe regarding dispensationalism. I do not have the time to debate all of the various aspects of dispensationalism that I believe are in explicit conflict with the Bible, but I will elaborate on what I have already posted and comment briefly on what you have posted in this thread regarding the same issue.

    I wrote,

    rjprince wrote,

    I believe that it is quite clear here that you have demonstrated that my claim is true:

    “Dispensational theology . . . greatly detracts from the clear and express two-covenant teaching throughout the New Testament, dividing the Bible into seven imaginary parts rather than the two parts that are a genuine reality—the Old Covenant and New Covenant, otherwise known as the Old Testament and the New Testament.”

    Yes, “it is clear that God has dealt differently with mankind at various points in the history of the earth.” But that does not change the incontrovertible fact that God has given us a Bible composed of two testaments or covenants (The KJV translates the same Greek word, diatheke, both ways). I do not believe that God gave us the Bible like that by accident. I believe that He did this purposely—to draw our attention to the fact that “what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Rom. 8:3-4. Dispensationalism, however, detracts from this most important Biblical truth.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The fact, however, that all of God’s dealings with man are to be summed up in two covenants is not found only in the fact that the Bible itself is divided into two covenants. This fact is also very clearly taught in Galatians,

    Gal. 4:21. Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
    22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
    23. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
    24. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
    25. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
    26. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
    27. For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."
    28. And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
    29. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
    30. But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN."
    31. So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

    Indeed, this fact is taught as early as Genesis chapter 2,

    Gen. 2:7. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
    8. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
    9. Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    10. Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.
    11. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.
    12. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.
    13. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.
    14. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
    15. Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
    16. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
    17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

    In Galatians 4 we found two women, Hagar and Sarah, who are typologically symbolical of the two covenants of Law and grace. In Genesis 2 we find two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which are also typologically symbolical of the two covenants of Law and grace. As long as Adam and Eve ate only of the the tree of life, they enjoyed living under the covenant of grace. The very moment, however, that they chose to partake of the the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they fell from grace. Everything between the sin of Adam and the atonement of Christ reveals to man who God is, what man is like, and the provision that God made for man’s redemption from the law that he might once again partake of God’s grace. Two trees, two women, two covenants—law and grace.

    (All Scripture is from the NASB, 1995)

    [​IMG]
     
  5. ituttut

    ituttut New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    In his haste to make his point the author overlooked hundreds of years. He is fair and adequate to those that believe, as does the author. For those that have not yet been allowed to see The Dispensation we live in, it is impossible for them to understand Christianity, by which we all claim to be saved by.

    Why do those that have not come to the realization that Christ appointed only one Apostle from heaven, and gave to him a gospel, continue to err? Why will they not let go of the earthly gospel of Jesus? Once one see’s the Dispensational Gospel for today they will understand why they didn’t wish to see it. It is scary. It is disheartening. It is hurt as they realize they have been following the ”tradition of man”. It doesn’t mean they are not saved; only that they don’t understand as well as they should. Acts 18:26, ”And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”

    The Bible plainly tells us the beginning of the name that we claim (Acts 11:26). By study you will find the Gospel preached in Antioch, was not the same gospel preached in Jerusalem. If one does not believe scripture here, they will never be able to see a Dispensational Gospel, and see inclusion for the first time of those not before included.

    The Bible plainly tells us the beginning of the Dispensation of God for we today (I Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 3:1-2, ”For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”; Colossians 1:25. If one does not believe scripture here, they will never be able to see a Dispensational Gospel, by which we all claim to be saved by.
     
  6. ituttut

    ituttut New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liked that.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rjprince: //Generally, I have found few CTs who really
    understand dispensationalism.
    Nor have I found any CTs who admit the recency
    of their own system. //

    Amen, Brothr Rjprince -- Preach it!

    OldRegular: //I am not a dispensationalist in case anyone has any doubts.//

    I had doubts.
    You speak more of dispensationalists and dispensationalism
    and dispensations than all others on this BB put together.
    I"m not sure why you like to do that, you say you are not
    a dispensationalist???
    Why do you stalk me because i read the Bible instead of Ryrie?
    Why do you hassle me because i read the N.T. more
    than the Dispensationalist writers?
    Why to you misunderstand everything i say claiming it is dispensationsalism?
    I have barely scratched the surface of that subject
    IN SECULAR LITERATURE. Why can't you talk about what the Bible says
    about eschatology instead of getting into these anti-dispensational
    harangues?

    NateT:
    //I don't want to hold a view of DTs if that view is based
    on a completely misconstrued representation of what they believe.//

    Sorry to derail your topic. I think you have yet to hear from
    a dispensationalist in this topic, in fact you never may on the BB.
    I'm just a layman who read the Bible
    a time or two and found some things in it that seem to be true
    about eschatology. Then i had to fight uphill all the way to say it :(

    Rjprince: //Don't go for a view of either DTS or RTS. Read both
    straight from their own pens and then compare
    with the Word of God.//

    Amen, Brother Rjprice -- PReach i
     
  8. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Rjprince,

    I must be a very conservative dispie, then. I appreciate your explanations.
     
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,383
    Likes Received:
    23
    But the early Church was almost exclusively Jewish. Secondly, where is it stated anywhere that the establishment of the New Covenant was conditional? If it conditional the first time, why not the second? Or third, or ………………

    2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    Ministers of a Covenant that doesn’t exist?

    Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

    The book of Hebrews is a contrast of the Old Covenant verses the New, yet you say the New has not yet been established?

    Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

    In the reading of just Hebrews 8, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe the New Covenant was not established, nor active. Unless if in accepting that it leads one to go into areas they wish not to go.

    According to scripture it has:

    Gen 15:18 In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
    Gen 15:19 the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite,
    Gen 15:20 and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim,
    Gen 15:21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.

    Jos 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Jehovah spake unto Moses ; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war.

    Jos 21:43 So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it , and dwelt therein.
    Jos 21:44 And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand.
    Jos 21:45 There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

    Show me where Jesus said there was a gap in Dan 9? [​IMG]

    Are you saying the New Covenant was not to include Gentiles?

    Am 9:11 "On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old;
    Am 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the Lord who does this thing.

    Of course James “allegorizes” this passage:

    Ac 15:14"Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
    Ac 15:15"And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
    Ac 15:16'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
    Ac 15:17So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.'

    Act 26:22 Then having obtained help from God, I stand until this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said was going to happen; Act 26:23 whether the Christ was liable to suffer, whether first by a resurrection of the dead He was going to proclaim light to the people and to the nations.

    I guess it is your position that the OT didn’t declare the salvation of the Gentiles under the New Covenant?


    I’m not laughing at you, I am pointing out just what you said about the book of Hezekiah. You understand what you believe and the implications of that belief. I’m saying most preachers and pew sitters I have known who are Dipies would absolutely affirm we are in the New Covenant and are saved in it. Yet if taken to the logical conclusion, as you have done, they couldn’t believe the New Covenant has been established. Thus, they would laugh at you and me.

    So what if Jer.31 was fulfilled, what would that change regarding your beliefs?
     
  10. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    I certainly recognize the importance of the Old and New Covenants. I certainly realize the prominence of this teaching throughout the NT. I would hope that nothing in my position statement serves to detract from this important distinction. However, I also suggest that the Old and New Covenants are not the only covenants with significance for NT saints. Paul is clear that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant regarding the final salvation of the Jews is yet future (Rom 11:25-29). This is a truth that is denied to a large degree by most CTS, yet emphasized by most Ds.

    I am further in agreement than any systematization of Biblical truth must be inherently Biblical as opposed either Dispensational or Covenantal. However, I disagree that all of Dispensationalism is a detractor from the important distinctions between the Old and New Covenant/Testament. On the contrary, I believe that D rightly embraces and emphasizes these important distinctions.

    It is impossible for any of us to fully and completely read, study, and interpret the Word of God totally free from all preconceived notions. We must all do our very best to accomplish this lofty goal, but we will all fall short. Understanding that God has worked in different ways at different times throughout both Old and New Testaments is critical to rightly dividing the Word of God.

    Why did God regulate polygamy in the Mosaic law? Why could Noah eat any kind of animal? Why couldn’t the Jews? Why did Jesus say that the Jews would see Him again when they said, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”? Why did the 120 speak in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit? Why did Paul take upon himself a Nazarite vow and pay the fees for the other men as well? I do not suggest that simply embracing D will solve these and other questions that relate to the progress and development of God’s revelation, but for me, Dispensationalism has helped put some of these things in perspective.

    Any system of theology is the invention of foolish men. As far as that goes, once you get beyond the simple reading of a text, any comments or explanations are subject to the corruption of foolish men. I work very hard to always keep in mind that my heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer 17:9). I believe I am younger and I am certainly less experienced and less well read than you. I am not yet 50 years old, almost, but not yet. I have spent most of my life studying the Word of God. For me, in spite of some weaknesses in the system, a somewhat D approach to the Word solves many more problems than it creates and it resolves many more issues than any other system. You have to approach the Bible from some direction. D is based on a contextual, literal, grammatical hermeneutic, “if the literal sense makes sense...” and all that. The great bulk of Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled and it has been fulfilled in a manner that is highly CLG. Therefore, I chose to believe that the remaining prophecies which are as yet unfulfilled will likewise come to pass in a manner that is CLG. This is the heart of D. While it seems to me that an allegorical approach to the prophecies concerning Israel is the approach of CT.

    Re Rom 8:3-4, I am in total agreement. I fail to see how D detracts from this truth?

    CBTS, post of 093005, 0330

    I will continue to simmer your explanation of Sarah and Hagar and the two trees of Gen 2. (Semenal participation is still simmering as well, worked on it some yesterday.) I am not sure that a dichotomy between law and grace; old and new; OT faith and NT faith can be drawn as sharply as it appears to me that you have done.

    Look at Gen 2-3 again (I do take it literally, if it is simply a true myth, then why are we even there now?). Adam sinned; he hid; God sought him and confronted him; he tried to cover his sin his own way; God gave animal skins to the man and the woman as a covering for their nakedness even as the blood of the animals had been a covering for their sin. What is that, if not GRACE? All the world was wicked, but NOAH FOUND GRACE... Abraham justified by faith and GRACE (Rom 4:16)...

    Re the two covenants – law and grace... No one was ever saved by the covenant of Law. Salvation is not and never has been by the law. The law could not justify any man, the law only bring condemnation. If there had been a law which could have given life, it would have been The Law of Moses, but it couldn’t. Salvation is by grace through faith in all ages and at all times and it is always based on the shedding of blood. The only perfect and complete provision for anyone’s salvation (OT or NT) is the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins. Only the blood of Jesus could do that, He sat down, it was done.

    I am not sure I am following your line of thought on the Covenant of Law... Maybe I just do not get as much as you assumed I would. Could you elaborate a little more on this...

    Anyhow, I hesitate to call myself a D at times, but it is a label to which I am closest. Sorry if this is offensive to so many. While I strongly disagree with the principles of CT, I bear them no animosity. The flaming words of condemnation heaped upon Ds by some CT writers goes way beyond my capacity to grasp. Perhaps they, like me sometimes, get so caught up in the passion of the debate that they lose sight of the fact that we just may be brothers in Christ in spite of our differences. May we debate with a passion and intensity that fully reflects the strength of our convictions but yet does not cross the line of hurting a brother or sister for whom Christ died.


    Will try to respond to Grasshopper later....
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    rjprince wrote,

    It’s clothing—and nothing more. Fred Flintstone also wore animal skins—are we to infer that those skins represented the grace of God?

    Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses were people—not ages or dispensations.

    Adam found himself naked and he felt naked as a consequence of falling from grace. Did he do anything to earn the clothing that God gave to him? The Bible does not answer that question. If he did not, the clothing could be interpreted as being a result of God’s grace, but only if we interpret grace as being “God’s unmerited favor,” and God’s grace is a whole lot more than that—it is the dynamic of God by which God has chosen to save us. I don’t find any of this in a Fred Flintstone costume.

    Noah, unlike Adam, chose to obey God, and his family was delivered by water from the wrath of God in the form of a flood. “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves [us].”

    1 Pet. 3:18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
    19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
    20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
    21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
    22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

    I don’t see even the slightest hint of an age or dispensation here.

    Abraham, unlike Adam, chose to believe God and act upon his belief in God. In doing so, he became a type of the Christian who believes God and acts upon his belief in God.

    Rom. 4:13. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
    14. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
    15. for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
    16. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
    17. (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
    18. In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."
    19. Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
    20. yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,
    21. and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.
    22. Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
    23. Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
    24. but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
    25. He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

    I don’t see even the slightest hint of an age or dispensation here either.

    Moses was the man that God chose to use to bring the formalized covenant of Law to the descendents of Isaac; and yet Moses, like Noah, was a type of Jesus rather than a chieftain of an age or dispensation.

    1 Cor. 10:1. For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;
    2. and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
    3. and all ate the same spiritual food;
    4. and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
    5. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
    6. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.
    7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY."
    8. Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.
    9. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.
    10. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.
    11. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
    12. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

    I am concluding this post with the above quote not only to demonstrate that Moses was a type of Jesus rather than a chieftain of an age or dispensation, but also to illustrate how the significance of this typology can be, and usually is, lost in dispensational theology.

    (All Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    rjprince wrote,

    • The covenant of law is the both the non-formalized and the formalized law of God as opposed to the covenant of the grace of God.

    • The covenant of Law (upper case “L”) is the formalized Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, as distinguished from the non-formalized law of God.


    Two trees, two women, two covenants—law and grace.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm writing this in response to the initial question. I have not yet read all the responses to this thread, and I am quite busy today, so I will make general comments with the hope of having time to do a careful reading later.

    I was saved in a dispensational church and spent the first 18 years of my life in two dispensational bible churches pastored by DTS grads. So I know what was taught at our churches. I also heard people like Dwight Pentecost speak, who was one of the key people in the movement.

    The first half of the article is generally correct. There are arminians and calvinists in dispensationalism. But the churches I was in leaned heavily toward calvinism in daily practice, but were not five point calvinists....they held to unlimited atonement.

    I've found recently that one cannot give one view that all dispensationalists will agree to....some of these people are, frankly, a bit wacko.

    I would agree with the writer that one of the key differences is israel vs. the church. We were taught the distinction in the two. However, we were also clearly taught that all people of all times, OT & NT, are saved in the same way.....by grace through faith. I never heard a works salvation, nor did I ever hear two methods of salvation. All are saved by grace through faith, Israel and the church. But the land was covenanted to Israel, not the church.

    In my experience, I never heard anyone say from the pulpit that Israel is saved in a different way from the church. While there may be some out there that teach that, I spent 18 years in these churches, and never heard it taught that way. The writer is correct that this is out of accord with protestant theology......it's also likely heresy. Good thing it's not taught where I live.

    All eschatological views spriritualize some things, and hold others literally. I just think that disp. views stretch the scriptures less than the covenant view.

    If you want a good, clear presentation of the dispensationalism that I have seen taught, look at the works of J. Vernon McGee. He studied under Chafer at DTS, and taught greek at DTS. He takes pains to describe dispensationalism in plain terms. Israel and the church are not the same, but all people are saved by grace through faith.

    I'll read more as I have time.....
     
  14. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding the article, I guess if you preface his statements with "some dispensationalists" then you could say he's correct. For what I've seen in the disp. churches that I've been a member, then I'd say most of the points are correct, but some are quite wrong Mostly dealing with the mode of salvation and the destiny of Israel.

    The disp. that I know teaches:
    --We are all saved by grace through faith, OT & NT. By the blood of bulls and goats no man is saved. The law showed those in the OT that they had no choice but to fall at the feet of God and beg for mercy. Just like today. The OT sacrifices looked forward to the cross, while we look backward.

    --Literal Israel has some promises from God that will not be fulfilled in the church....the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, for example.

    --Jesus will return as King. He will rule as the heir of David, king of Israel, only he will rule the entire earth during the millenium, which will be a 1000 year period, be on a renewed earth that has the curse removed. One destiny for all, Jew & Gentile.

    So while there are some teachings out there that call themselves dispensational, this is what I was taught by pastors who attended disp. seminaries.
     
  15. DeeJay

    DeeJay New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure what camp I am in. The above post by Humblesmith sounds the most reasonable to me. But it does not match either position described in the original artical posted. It sounds like a combo of the two.

    Question. Why are Covenent theologens always Calvinests?
     
  16. ituttut

    ituttut New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0


    Hey Humblesmith, I really like this one that has gone to be with Christ. I have his set (5 books) when they first were published, and have supported that ministry for 40 or so years, along with others that partially agree, some more than others. I also support others that see the dispensational gospel of Paul more clearly than did Dr. McGee. What a guy. I don’t know where in the Body of Christ he resides. Perhaps it will be close by where I will be. He is a very interesting and entertaining soul.
     
  17. bapmom

    bapmom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Humblesmith wrote is exactly what Ive always thought dispensationalism was, as well.

    Thanks!
     
  18. JackRUS

    JackRUS New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ituttut.

    I was wondering, are you an Acts 28 Dispensationalist?

    You wrote:
    What about Paul's use of Abraham as an example in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 concerning salvation through faith alone?

    And how could Jesus say that God is the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if they are not all in heaven? And how else could they have gotten there if not through faith alone? Especially Jacob who was quite the scoundrel.

    "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16

    Why then is "it" here in the singular if there was ever more than one Gospel?
     
  19. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ituttut,

    I have never payed special attention to the difference between "by faith" and "through faith" in Rom 3:30 and others. Have translated it from the Greek, years ago, but am not sure what point you are making in drawing a distinction between by and through (ek/dia).

    Please clarify, for both JackRus and myself. Thanks.

    Ray
     
  20. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    JackRus,

    The "it" does not mean there was never another gospel. It means that Paul is refering to the gospel of Christ, specifically.

    Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

    The gospel to Abraham was the covenant and the inclusion of Gentiles in future salvation. Scripture does not say that Abraham heard the gospel of the death burial and resurrection. That was a gospel that did not come till later.

    Ray
     
Loading...