Classical dispensationalism refers to the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology and the notes in the Scofield bible.
Another featurewould be of the dualistic idea of redemption by some.
Many in this camp teach a heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church which underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption. In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.
As taught by John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain taught a revised view which didn't teach a dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis is own two groups of God's people and that is Israel and the church. These two groups are They are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities for each group of people, but the salvation they each receive is the same.
This group also see the church and Israel as existing together during the millennium and eternal state.
And we have Progressive despensationalists they see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two camps within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant, but there are differences in the two groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.
Poll For The Dispensationalists_Which Are You?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by kyredneck, Jul 20, 2011.
?
-
Classic_Darby, Chafer, Miles Stanford, early Scofield Bible
5 vote(s)31.3% -
Revised_Church is a 'parenthesis, God's plans "put on hold", Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost
6 vote(s)37.5% -
Progressive_Church is key, not a parenthesis. Blaising, Bock, Saucy
5 vote(s)31.3% -
Popular_Emphasis on prophecy fulfilled in the state of Israel's formation. Lindsey , Lehaye
0 vote(s)0.0% -
Grace Movement_Church began with the Apostle Paul, then lost 4 basic truths_Bullinger
0 vote(s)0.0%
Page 2 of 4
-
-
-
-
-
Seems I remember now something about copyright violation concerning using the notes in the 1909 Scofield Bible. Maybe someone who knows could elaborate. Here's excerpts from an article that alludes to it but doesn't directly quote it:
Although dispensationalists deny the charge, it has been said that these alleged seven distinct manners of testing create seven different plans of salvation. Certainly Cyrus Ingerson Scofield carried water on both shoulders at this point, saying in some places that all people are saved in the same manner, but indicating in others that salvation was gained in a different manner during each of the seven periods. An example of his dual plans of salvation is found in the Scofield Bible (page 11 15, note 2) where he is contrasting the dispensation of law with that of grace. ‘The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ… ‘ It is difficult to interpret this statement in any other way than that he was saying folk under the law were saved by one ‘condition’ while we under grace are saved by another ‘condition.’ His words, ‘no longer,’ indicate that there was a time when legal obedience was the means of salvation!
Lewis Sperry Chafer, another prominent leader among the dispensationalists, also – in his insistence on a complete isolation of the New Testament dispensation from that of the Old Testament actually teaches two different plans of salvation. Writing in Dispensationalism (p.416), he makes the following statement:
"The essential elements of a grace administration – faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God, unmerited acceptance through a perfect standing in Christ, the present possession of eternal life, an absolute security from all condemnation, and the enabling power of the indwelling Spirit are not found in the kingdom administration. On the other hand, it is declared to be the fulfilling of ‘the law and the prophets’ (Matt 5:17,18; 7:12), and is seen to be an extension of the Mosaic Law into realms of meritorious obligation."
When this paragraph by Chafer is broken down into its component parts, the following points can be distinguished clearly:
1.he gives the characteristics, including ‘faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God,’ of the present ‘dispensation’;
2.he says the alleged coming ‘dispensation’ (millennium) will operate under a different plan, since none of the above mentioned characteristics (note that this would include the mode of salvation) ‘are to be found in the kingdom administration’;
3.he says that the alleged coming millennial kingdom will be a continuation of the Old Testament plan, i.e., ‘it is declared to be the fulfilling of the law and the prophets.’
From these three points a syllogism can be formed easily. The syllogism would be as follows:
1.In the present dispensation, we have ‘faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God…’
2.In the coming kingdom administration, this plan will not be in effect. They ‘are not found in the kingdom administration.’ Since, according to the dispensationalists, people will be saved during the millennium, they must of necessity be saved in some other manner than ‘faith as the sole basis of acceptance with God.’ 3.Therefore, inasmuch as the coming dispensation will be an extension of the Mosaic Law into realms of meritorious obligation,’ the people under the Mosaic Law also were saved in a manner different from the present dispensation.
Chafer’s argument could also be illustrated in a diagram as follows:
1.Old Testament – Salvation by legal obedience – In effect until the Cross
2.‘Church Age’ – Salvation by grace alone – Legal obedience postponed
3.‘Kingdom Age’ – Legal obedience resumed – On a more perfect basis
In another book (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 70) Chafer again distinguishes between two different modes of salvation:
In the light of these seven ‘present truth’ realities we are enabled to recognize how great is the effect of the change from ‘the law which came by Moses’ and ‘grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.’ And when these changed, age-long conditions have run their course we are assured that there will be a return to the legal kingdom grounds and the exaltation of that nation to whom pertain the covenants and promises.
It should be noted, in view of the above statement, that if there is to be a return to a certain means of salvation, then another means of salvation must of necessity be in operation at the present time.
In the writings of another dispensationalist we also note a reference to more than one plan of salvation based upon a distinct separation of the so-called dispensations. William Evans (Outline Studys of the Bible, p. 34) says:
"This is sometimes called the Age of the Church, or the Church period. The characteristic of this age is that salvation is no longer by legal obedience, but by the personal acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ, who by his meritorious ministry has procured for us a righteousness of God’."
Evans clearly states that during this present age salvation is through personal acceptance of the meritorious ministry (the cross) of Christ, while in the age preceding this one, people were saved by legal obedience. If words have any meaning at all, then this dispensationalist – who is merely being consistent with dispensationalist teachings – has presented two clear and distinct means of salvation, one by legal obedience and the other by the cross of Christ.
That thinking people have taken dispensationalism to present various means of salvation is evident in the report adopted by the Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States. That report, adopted by this assembly in May, 1944, was in part as follows:
It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism is out of accord with the system of the doctrines set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily or simply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the very heart of the theology of our Church. Dispensationalism rejects the doctrine that God has, since the Fall, but one plan of salvation for all mankind. and affirms that God has been through the ages administering various and diverse plans of salvation for various groups…" -
I chose my words poorly, was trying to convey that Classic Dyspy does though tend to see that isreal/Jewish peoples have a seperate relationship to God....
That some of the classic Dispy did teach that Law given unto isreal grace to Church and that jews still had a valid relationship to God based upon law keeping and their Covenant
And some even today hold that their is NO need to witness to jews as God as them still under OT covenant relationship! -
I am a partial "Progressive Dispensationalist" and a partial "New Covenant" (which I believe overlap and cover the same thinking.
I could never be covenant as they squirrel up/allegorize too much. Left the Dallas Seminary/Scofield strict dispensational as they tend to be biased against anything smelling of covenant/paedobaptist thinking.
So there. -
-
that Sermon on Mount was to show us HOW those under the law were suppossed to live for God... -
-
-
-
-
Anyway, sorry that you live in a Scofield depressed area but the latest "thing" in retail literature accusition is something referred to as "mail order". Personally I couldn't imagine the UPS guy delivering a Scofield to my door but I've heard some rumors to the effect that it can be done.***
While dispensationalists can and do differ on details the thing that sets them apart from reformed covenant believers is the dispensationalists tries to base their theology on the normal, plain in their historical setting of the Scriptures and they use the actual covenants mentioned in the Bible as a rough guide. Covenant believers on the other hand, base their theology on the covenants of redemption, works and grace, covenants not found in the Bible and they rely on the teachings of the 16th century reformers and their creeds, who by the way got their theology from Augustine and the Catholic church fathers.
An interesting question for a prolific question asker such as yourself to ponder and study is "how many times must a person read the Bible before the light bulb goes off and they see plainly the covenants of works, redemption and grace"? Would make a good poll question with options 100 times, 1000 times 10,000 times, Never.
Another question, why is it ok to bash dispies and yet pretend that guy's like N.T. Wright are wonderfully enlightened brethern when in fact they (NT Wright and those of his intellectual club) are basically theological liberals?
And one last question, how many reformed covenant miossionaries are in the field, preaching the gospel, like Paul, to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles?
***on edit... JesusFan, why would you or anyone else, including the famed kyredneck and the teen prodigy Logos1 et el; quote from a book or opine on the writings of a theologian that you do not own or have ready access to? -
Ok reformed folks complain their view gets misrepresented and then you go and do this. It is not "classic dispy" and anyone who says such a thing does not know anything about the dispensational view. -
My wife has the New Scoffield -
You didn't list him, but I like Clarance Larkin along with Scofield. I also enjoy Ryrie. I've read some of his books, and in the past I used a Ryrie Study Bible. I liked that bible, I wish I still had it. -
I'm not big on Dispensationalism. I think hyper-dispensationalism complete error, there is only one gospel, and always has been.
I read Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin years ago. I believe there is some truth to Dispensationalism.
I do believe the Lord will return and save the Jews as shown in Zechariah. -
-
Page 2 of 4