Is Dispensationalism no longer valid?

At least we agree that Larkin was a kook!

 

I have read all of Larkin's books, many of Scofield's, Chafer's systematic theology, some material by J.N. Darby, some books by Charles Ryrie, one of my best friends is a Ph.D. student at DTS, read books by A.B. Simpson, and even read some of CHM's work. I noticed that so often the dispensationalists only see two camps neither of which I believe is correct. I do not believe covenant theology or dispensationalism is correct. Both have their own filter. How about interpreting scripture in light of its historical context?

If one takes a look at the origin of dispensationalism and the time period they will see how Scottish realism and then later German rationalism pervades through the system in a practical manner. So often they are so blind they cannot see until they begin to ask some serious questions. Nowadays even the modern dispensationalists take shots at the foundation of historical dispensationalism. If it was not correct in the first place then that makes it wrong. By the admission of many today they say they don't believe the old time dispensationalist theology. The progressive dispensationalists claim they are right by discounting the theology of the men like Darby, Larkin, Scofield and Chafer.

”1) I would be interested to see a passage where the dispensationalist ignores the historical meaning of Scripture.”

Years ago I never met a dispensationalists who would claim that the sermon on the mount had a present tense application when Jesus gave it. They believed it was for the future only. Now the dispensationalists believe differently. Did dispensationalism change or did the people change their theology. However scripture did not change so how could the accurate interpretation have ever changed.

Anytime one claims dispensationalism is correct they must also accept the past dispensational theologians too. If dispensational theology is correct then it must never change because truth never changes. But the fact remains dispensational theology has made some serious changes within the past 30 years. Both cannot be right at the same time. So which dispensational theology is correct. So it appears that it is a changing theology while the contextual, historical, biblical theology of scripture has not.

Simply put I am not at all interested in what some theologian comes up with or thinks. I am want to know what scripture teaches in context.

Anytime someone sets up a filter they run all of scripture through they are headed for trouble. You must always interpret scripture in light of its historical context.

"For the dispensationalist, the Scripture is the authority, not the system."

If you do some early research into the early dispensationalists you will find that not to be the case. Take a look at men like CHM and Larkin. Then follow up into Chafer and then into later times and then you will see the system tending to take second place among them.

 

You should read CHM then. I have known many who went to schools like BIOLA and even today at about the age of 80 to 85 tell me they still don't understand it. Larkin was quite popular at one time. I remember being taught the stuff as a young person. I even read all of his books. I though knowing the system would solve my problems in interpreting scripture. I finally reached a point where I realized that it simply did not work because the rationalism behind it voided the spirit's work. So many taught that if one studied hard enough and long enough God would give them the correct interpretation. That was taught from many pulpits 30 years ago.

 

According to Romans 11, there is one people of God, not two. Paul illustrates this principle under the figure of an olive tree. The natural branches are ethnic Israel. However, some of the natural branches were broken off because of unbelief. Some wild branches were grafted in. "Replacement Theology" is actually a misnomer because no one teaches that. The church as we know it today IS God's covenant people, both Jews and Gentiles. The church did not replace anybody. Dispensationalism reverses Romans 11. In Dispensationalism, the believing Jews are broken off and grafted in some "new program" with the Gentiles called "the church." Therefore, the only ones who keep their original position are those Jews who cried, "crucify Him!" God supposedly set them on the back burner for the time being. No...those Jews were broken off, and wild branches were grafted in with the believing Jews who retained their original position as God's covenant people. God has ONE people.

What is it that the Jews were seeking for? Was it an earthly kingdom with Israel at the height of the nations? What the Jews were seeking for, Romans 11 expressly declares that the election obtained it and the rest were blinded. The promises to Israel were given to the elect of God among the Jews who received Christ as the long-awaited Messiah. Romans 11 says so. "The election HATH obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Dispensationalists are waiting for promises to be fulfilled to Israel that the Scripture says have already been given to them. Remember, in the first century the great majority of believers at first were ETHNIC JEWS. Therefore, there is no reason why the promises of God to Israel could not have been fulfilled to them. Besides, Paul teaches us in the beginning verses of Romans 9 that all who descended from Israel were not of Israel...In other words, election is what puts people into covenant with God, not national descent. Any Calvinist who does not believe that, ought not use Romans 9 to defend election because Paul ties the two together in Romans 9.

 

Dispensationals don't claim to have some perfect theology that can be proven false if it changes over time. Dispensationalism is itself a broad term to cover a similar way to understand the relationship of Ethnic Israel of the OT and the church today. Of course today's dispensationals recognize their was errors in the beliefs of earlier theologians. No system of belief would hold up under that rule. Take me for example. My theology has changed quite a bit over time. That doesn't mean I'm wrong now simply because I was wrong then.

You are correct to posit that Dispensationals asume all non-dispensationals are covenant theologians, as Pastor Larry asumed above. But Covenant theologicans do the same. Furthermore, both sides (and everyone in between as this thread demonstates) accuse the other of seeing the scripture through a man-made grid. Such language is unhelpful for dialogue. Let's all admit that we are both trying to approach the striptures for what they say, and we are intrepreting things differently. Since we often use some passages as a baseline and mold others to fit, the problem is we pick different passages as what we see as clear.

 

BTW, I agree with just about everything primitive Baptist says, except for I add that I don't believe all the prophecy in the OT is nessisarily symbolic or already fulfilled.

 

I will also add that I only recognize one people of God and I am a dispy, like Paul.

 

Well said DD.

BRo Tony

 

I believe the grid needs to come from the Scriptures themselves.

Is the grid dispensations? covenants? promise? or something else?

In other words, if there is a framework for Scripture, the Scriptures will reveal it.

I also agree with Primitive Baptist and Pete Richert's ammendment.

 

Paul, I think this is exactly right. The Scriptures reveal to us dispensations. IT shows us that God worked in different ways at different times and with different people. The grid, so to speak, is the Scriptures, and dispensationalism is based on that.

Pete says that if we accept dispensationalism than we must accept past dispenstional teachers. But that is no more true than saying that covenantalists have to accept all past covenantalist teachers. And yet, when you look ath covenantalism, there is far greater variety among them than there is among dispensationalists.

BTW, I did not assume or say that all non-dispensationalists are covenantalists. They aren't.

Yes, this was the point of the OT promises, and the basis of the disciples question in Acts 1. Notice how Christ did nothing to stop them from thinking of taht earthly kingdom. In fact, he encouraged it. And Peter's message in ACts 3 is about an earthly kingdom, the "time of the restoration of all things." That can only be legitimately applied in a dispensational, or at least historic premillennial understanding.

But this is exactly the problem. Scripture most avowedly does not say that, apart from teh presuppositions brought to it. Scripture makes those promises to Isreal. And they must be fulfilled with Isreal.

This is where non-dispensationalism impugns the integrity of God and SCripture. The OT promises were clearly made to an ethnic people. For God to take them away from those people and give them to somebody else would be a violation of God's honesty and trustworthiness. Scripture will accept no such position on God. For God to be true, the promises made to Israel must be fulfilled to Israel. Anything else comes very close to making God a liar.

To be honest, it is absolutely stunning to me how many people blindly accept something without thinking through the ramifications of it. I can't imagine that people who have read the Scriptures actually believe this. But I know it is true. It just stuns me.

 

The promises of the kingdom to Israel were not conditional. It was the Law that was conditional.

 

Paul33, do you believe that the church is treated the same now as Israel was under the Law?

If not, then you have just created two dispensations.

I personally don't care for 7 dispensations. I think there is an argument for them, but I don't have to have them.

I am pretty comfortable with just categorizing them as:

1. Prelaw
2. Old Covenant
3. New Covenant / Kingdom

The already / not yet tension is so true for number 3.

 

Actually I said the exact opposite. gb93433 said that and I was defending you. That seems rather silly to me, and like I said, no theological system would stand up under such a test.

I'm sorry. I overspoke. I was refering to the fact that you assumed that all non-dispensationals would think "Israel" in Romans 11 was refering to the church. Or at least that is what I took from it.

No one here is saying this. Indeed, I have never heard anyone ever say this. This is the biggest most obvious and repeated strawman that comes from dispensationals.

I have to ask a few questions to hopefully better understand your position.

1) Was Paul part of Israel or the Church? Both? How about Peter?

2) If they were part of the Church, where they ever part of Israel?

3) What is Paul's point in Romans 9:6-13?

4) What is Paul's point in Romans 11:1-10?

5) In Romans 11:11, what are the gentiles grafted into? Is it the church? Isreal? If Israel was broken away so the gentiles could be grafted in, was Israel broken away from the Church? Was "the non-elect" Israel as identified in versus 1-10 broken away from whever Paul and the elect where, as it that the same location the gentiles who believe are grafted into?

 

Actually I said the exact opposite. gb93433 said that and I was defending you. That seems rather silly to me, and like I said, no theological system would stand up under such a test.


You are exactly right. That is the problem with man made theological systems. The only one that works is the correct interpretation in light of its historical context. All scripture has a historical context. It is understanding the historical context that give the mesage meaning. For example if you interpret the worsds of Jesus about the washing of hands from a purely dispensational view of grace then you miss the message entirely. That particular message goes back into Judaism.

As any theological system makes changes it must recognize that either the old or the new is wrong. Both cannot be right. But the truth of scripture is never wrong. You must come to the conclusion that somebody at one point in time has interpreted scripture incorrectly by applying the theological system. But if the aim is to correctly interpret scripture in light of its historical context you cannot go wrong unless you deviate from that context. Certainly wrong information leads to wrong interpretation. If the historical data is wrong then it leads to a wrong interpretation. That is the reason who it is so necessary to try and search for the right historical data. All man made theological system assume they have all the right data thereby declaring their system right. My premise is that no man made theological system is right because it assumes the originator of the system to be right. That is a fundamentalist fallacy of dispensationalsim and all man made systems. You must never bring a theological syetem into the mix of scripture and come to conclusions. That kind of volatile mix is eisegesis. Our theology must come from scriopture itself and then formulate the theology. Dispensationalism does not take into account for example that Paul uses salvation in three tenses and Peter uses one in 1 Peter. There are times when thing appear contradictory. In fact the words themselves may be contradictory. But when the message is interpreted in light of its historical context and purpose of the book it is not in conflict. Dispensationalism will not solve those kinds of problems alone.

If one reads dispensationalists like CHM it is clear that he does not consider the historical context at all. I don't believe Larkin does either. Among many dispensationalists interpreting scripture in light of its historical context is rather new. A.T. Robertson in the early 20th cventury wrote a lot about interpreting scripture in light of its historical context. One of the books he wrote is Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

 

So what should we take into account by this? Maybe the fact that Paul uses the verb "to save" at least 30 times and Peter uses it but twice has something to do with the results of your "example"? So what?

I read that entire 200 lb. book in seminary only to find out that historical-critical analysis is a thing of the past. Many times finding out what a word used to mean in all its cognate languages and forms totally skews the actual meaning of the word in the NT context. A.T. Robertson's magnus opus still has its usefulness (especially the grammatical sections), but "historico-critical" Grammars are a fad that ended long ago.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Blue falcon makes a good point. Language is a dynamic thing - we cannot claim to define the semantic range of a word at a given time simply by looking at its use in previous times.

A.T. Robertson's work is nice to have on the shelf - but it doesn't leave my shelf very often!

 

The reason for different "systems" of theology is because it won't do for most of us to have contradictions running throughout Scripture. So one studies all of Scripture and tries to make a system out of it that all works together and is complementary. How all the Bible verses work together for an Arminian is quite different than how they all work together for a Calvinist, for example. The same is true, in my opinion, for dispensational vs. covenantal theologians. Different interpretations of Scripture are a dime a dozen these days. But I still hold that there is only one accurate interpretation of any given passage of Scripture. If there are two or more, they all can't be right.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I am new to this forum but my question is: was Dispensationalism ever valid? My understanding is that dispensationalism theology teaches that Jesus Christ came to establish an ‘earthly’ Messianic Kingdom for the Jews, that the Jews rejected their Messiah, and that Jesus Christ established the Church instead [Hermon Hoyt in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints by Clouse, pages 84-90].

It seems to me that the claim of the Jewish rejection of the ‘earthly’ Messianic Kingdom and the establishment of a ‘parenthesis church’ if pursued logically has grave implications for the doctrines of the sovereignty and trustworthiness of God. This doctrine is in direct conflict with the explicit teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in John 17:4: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

If Jesus Christ finished the work that God the Father gave Him to to He obviously did not come to establish the Messianic Kingdom but the Church in its New Testament form.