Dispensationalism

You stated a very good reason why not to trust systematic theologies. I find that very few if any address the deeper problems in scripture. I have never found one that addressed Is. 45:7 about God creating evil. There is a very good alternative to systematic theologies--that have not stood the test of time. It is called biblical theology.

So what are the dispensations as you see them and could you cite passages for each dispensation that indicate your viewpoint?

I told a friend of mine who was a student at DTS that it seems those at SWBTS were moving toward premillenial dispensationalism and DTS was moving away from it toward historical premillenialism. He agreed. That was in 1996. In itself I find that quite interesting.

 

No theologian is perfect no matter what approach he takes with the Bible.
All men are fallible and prone to error.
Pile up the books on Biblical Theology and you will also find differences.

 

Absolutely. It should be that way because if man could duplicate God's word then it would be easy to mock God and He will not be mocked. Scripture is inspired by God.

 

I've seen this mainly in my own experience, but I think this bears out across the board. Here are some denominations and their corresponding beliefs (as I understand them).

Free Will Baptists - Arminian - Disp/PreMil
Independent Baptists - Mostly Arminian - Mostly Disp/PreMil
Southern Baptists - Moderating Arm/Cal - Mostly Disp/Premil
Churches of Christ - Arminian - Disp/PreMil (I think)
Assemblies of God/Pentacostal - Arminian - Disp/PreMil

However, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.

 

Okay, thanks. I agree with you on the AOG and Pentecostals being Arminian, as well as Free Will Baptists (the name says it all!), but I know a lot of Calvinist-leaning Baptists who are Disp/PreMil.

I don't know about the view of endtimes held by the Churches of Christ.

 

That's my understanding about the CoC, but that's why I qualified this. It was really hard to find data on this. They are definitely Arminian, that's for sure.

I've never known too many (any?) Calvinist-leaning/reformed Baptists, though I've heard they do exist out there.

 

Marcia --- After I did some additional research, I would remove the CoC from the list. FOS

 

John Macarthur is one off the top of my head.

 

Allan -- Yes, you're right and so is Piper. [My comment was a little tongue in cheek.] I'm sure there are a lot of others.

 

In my experience, most of the dispensationalists of old were calvinistic, but differed on the order of the decrees as did many baptists..In the decree order they allowed foreknowledge as the basis for predestination and election rather than the absolute sovereignty of God choose the elect and passing by the remainder. So, God chose the elect because He previously knew they would accept Christ. A far cry from arminianism...Once-saved-always-saved was also a keymark.

Cheers,

Jim

 

HP: You set up a distinction here between allowing the foreknowledge as the basis for predestination and election rather than the absolute sovereignty of God” choosing to elect and passing by the remainder. I don’t get it. Help me out. What is the difference between those two ideas other than meaningless semantics? Do some honestly believe that the God that chooses the elect according to His absolute sovereignty does not foreknow those He will choose? If all His knowledge and knowledge of future actions is infinite and eternal, and God is Omniscient, are not such distinctions about as meaningful as whether or not the chicken or the egg comes first? How would even be so bold as to suggest that one was correct and the other in error? Would not be acting as if though they know precisely how the mind of God infinitely reasons and why in fact He makes His choices? Would this not be paramount to saying, ; OK God, act according to this box I make for you. You cannot choose someone based upon your foreknowledge, you can only choose according to your Sovereign will. What if God’s sovereign will was to choose according to His foreknowledge? If God could not choose according to His foreknowledge, how could He be sovereign in any matter?

 

The Dake study Bible is a travesty. It has notes top, bottom, and both sides. You need sharp vision to see where Scripture ends and Dake starts!:tear:

 

This is incorrect. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 164, lists seven ways in which progressive dispensationalists differ from classical dispensationalism. Progressive diepensationalism is closer to historic premillennialism than dispensationalism.

 

I would go far beyond that! The Dake Study Bible is a work of heresy and is racist.

 

Not the view on whole I said the 'core or foundational' views. They are the same.

A literal 1000 year reign of Christ Jesus
At least 2 main resurrections
A literal anti-Christ
Seperation of the CHurch and Israel
A literal Earthly Kingdom to be established.

 

Dreaded double post

 

You need to check again. Ryrie's point #5 states : "The concept of the Church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid."

The core belief of classic Dispensaionalism according to Ryrie and Chafer is: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

 

Apparently you didn't read your own quotes. They are not saying Classic nor Progressive does not distinquish between Israel and the Church but that one takes it farther than the other. But the both still distinguish between the Church and Israel.

IOW - It proves my point. :thumbs:

 

It is quite simple Allan. Simply read what is posted but take your blinders off first.

 

No. The reference, if you would read it in context to the what the book is saying, is that they keep them seperate always. Never the two becoming one. Thus the purposes of each have nothing to do with the other and will not come together, ever. Please keep the context of what the writer is saying.