Dispensationalism

Why am I limited to one sentence? You anti-disp. always want some kind of simple answer. Well, I haven't seen simple explanations for amil or preterist views. And I don't ask for it.

I've already had bad experiences on disp. threads. So this is what I'm doing now - when I see a valid view of dispensationalism brought up for discussion, then I might consider replying.

What you said is not the way I've learned it. Why don't you post the valid view of dispensationalism the way most disp. churches hold it? Then ask questions.

 

Why? How come they will be saved then and not now?

 

Because they were hardened.

From Rom 11 (it's good to read Rom 9, 10, and 11)
What (K)Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were (L)hardened;
8just as it is written,
"(M)GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR,
EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT,
DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."

....20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you (AF)stand by your faith (AG)Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's (AH)kindness, (AI)if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also (AJ)will be cut off. 23And they also, (AK)if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

billwald's question is a good one, and now has aroused my curiosity. Whether you're a dispy or a historical pre-mil, how did you come to embrace your view?

More specifically, did you read the scriptures and arrive at that view? Or did you hear (or read) it first from a teacher or preacher?

My first exposure to dispensationalism was from a series of teachings by my pastor.. Up to that point, all I had ever heard preached was that Jesus would return some day.

Would I ever have come to dispensationalism from just reading the scriptures? I doubt it. Did any of you adopt the view before you ever read Schofield, Pentecost, Ryrie or heard a teaching or preaching on the subject?

 

I'm on the other side of the fence, if you will. I grew up dispensational pre-mil, studied the charts in SS, dad preached every Sunday from his Scofield reference, etc. I moved to a non-dispy view as an adult -- primarily due to preaching/teaching from others.

 

For me, I learned it since I can remember. My father was a pastor and a dispensationalist. I attended a Bible college and a seminary that was dispensationalist. Does the fact that I was born into dispensationalism invalidate the position? How about the fact that I was born into a Christian home? Does that invalidate my faith?

The fact is none of us come to our conclusions based upon total objectivity because none of us are capable of total objectivity. That is why we should all hold our position, whatever it is, with humility and with an openness to new information.

I agree that Bill Wald's question is legitimate. We should examine why we believe what we believe. But, having examined it, if we arrive at the same conclusion with a clear conscience, the way in which we arrived at it does not necessarily invalidate the conclusion.

 

I kinda understand what you mean, Sister Marcia. The Calvin-folk seem to have abandoned the (said humorously) Calvin Versus Hobbes argument threads and are attacking the dispensation threads both in Baptist only Forums, Baptist Theology & Bible Study Forum and here in this all Christians Forums, Other Christian Denominations Forum. They are pretty much using a typical Calvin Illogical Debate Style - attacking the opposition (now Dispensation Theology, or 'the rapture' ) but never explaining what they are talking about. well I have news for them: the word 'Calvin' does NOT appear in the New Testament anywhere :sleep:

In this thread I define terms to explain a Scriptural, Dispensational pre-tribulation rapture2, pre-tribulation Second Coming of Jesus ,Futuristic Eschatology Doctrine (Theory).

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=532513

 

This is an entirely untrue statement. Re-read your church history. Baptists were 'General' to start with and the Reformed view entered it later on.

 

Seriously, do you know what dispensationalism teaches. If so, then please so not state such ridiculous things as though it is what is taught.

John Macarthur stated this when asked about what Dispensationalism is:

Dispensationalism is based or founded upon the essentials of the Pre-mil view which was the vast majority view of the early church for approx the first 400 years and about that time some improper teaching began to come make it's way into the Church and gained more predominance through Augustine's influence. Therefore dispensationalism is more correct toward the teachings of the early church than amil. However postmil is pretty close to the premill view as well.

Both Pre-mill and Dispinsationalism hold to a distinction between the Church and Israel and both also look toward an established physical Kingdom of Christ on Earth.

Amil - do not hold to either view.

 

Very true and is something to be remembered.

One can be pre-mil and not specifically dispensational (holding to everything dispys hold in the mainstream view). However one can not be dispensational without holding to a pre-mil view point.

 

Just for the sake of a non-dispy view here is an portion from Richard J. Mouw, a non-dispensational Reformed theologian who is currently President at Fuller Theological Seminary.

 

Great post Allan. Me too. Most Godly men I knew as a kid (including my dad) were fervent dispensationalists. In my reformed circles though, I've never heard anything about "dispensational heresies." While I don't agree with this pov, it is really a non-issue in day to day faith/life issues.

 

Amen, Brother Allan -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Are either the dispy/pre-mill group or the amill group Related to Calvinist or not? It seems to me that the local tribe of Calvin nuts are lined up on the amill. Personally I'm pre-OSAS (once saved, always saved) and never did figure out how Calvin added anything to Christian Doctrine. I'm a pre-trib pre-mill futurist.

 

Ed -- thanks for your fair & balanced, and loving comment. Actually, I don't know any "Calvin nut jobs" despite being Presbyterian for the past 25+ years (ok, I know one or two). In any event, there are really three separate issues:

Soteriology --- Arminian/Calvinism
Scriptural View --- Dispensational/Covenant
Eschatology --- Premil/Amil/Postmil/Preterist/Other

While the POV for many people on the above three issues may seem to fall in the same line - eg, Arminian/Dispensational/Premil or Calvinistic/Covenant/Amil - that is not always the case.

 

This is a pretty good rundown, although I don't know any Arminian Dispensationalists (I am not saying there are not any, just that there are a lot of Dispensationalists who are not Arminian, and on the BB there are Calvinist Dispensationalists).

 

Marcia -- Actually, I think most dispensational, premils are Arminian in their soteriology - perhaps with the exception of the OSAS issue. Again though, people are all over the board on all three (even in the same denomination) so it really hard to pigeon hole one group or another.

 

I am curious - what do you base this on (that most dispensational premils are Arminian)?

 

My first introduction to dispensationalism was when discussing with someone about what he called the gap theory. Then I read Chafer's systematic theology. Then I bought a Scofield Bible and realized it had changed since the one which preceded it.

Aside from the theological aspect of dispensationalism. If one takes a look at just the last century, he will realize that dispensationalism has changed a few times and that there are differences among dispensationalists. I simply cannot base my faith on a systematic theology that has changed so many times. Some may say that it is being perfected. Isn't that kind of like what Mormons say about revelation. Yet in that same time scripture has not changed and the historical context has not changed.

 

There are variations but it of itself has not changed. There are various views about it but of itself the very nature of Dispensationism has not changed. The core aspect regarding dispensationalism is that God saves by grace through faith in and at all times but He has chosen to work differently in or at various times. It can be broken down as simply as the Law period and the Grace Period, and some have broken it down into various times (innocent, conscience, law, grace, ect..) yet all still maintain a by grace through faith salvation. If a person claims to be dispensational but varies from this - they are not dispensational just lip-syncing to gain more listeners to their view.

It is no different that ANY form or view regarding eschatology (or future events) regardless of which 'ism' you want to hold to.
The core or foundational view points of Dispensationalism hasn't changed so you comment, though personal, is far from accurate in any real sense.

 

That is quite like saying:
I have come across so many brands of covenantal theologies that I would never be able to trust any one of them. Every few decades one theologian changes his brand of covenantalism to another. It doesn't matter what theologian you read they all have their different views. Some say there are only two covenants: the old and the new. Some say there are up to fourteen. How do we know who to believe. They are a very confusing lot of people.

As for me and my house we will stick to the dispensations that are set forth in the Word of God.