What Dispensationalism Provides?

I agree that Israel will be restored in Israel at the coming of the Lord. Then WE, the church shall rule with Him for 1000 years, here, on earth. Notice in Ezekiel 37 that God cleanses Israel of all their sin; it is the same as the church. They are one in the same. If you believe that Israelites are somehow going to be more blessed than others, what of the apostles? Are they of the church or of Israel? That fact is, you must narrowly believe that only pure blood Israelites, (after a hard to prove pretrib rapture), are the only Israelites that make it into this exclusive group you have termed Israel.

 

If you are cleansed of all your sin and I am cleansed of all my sin, does that mean we are one and the same? Of course not, and that exposes the fallacy of your logic. The church will rule with Christ for 1000 years. That doesn't make them national israel.

They are transitional, they are part of the church, and they are dead. The MK refers to living Jews, not dead ones.

I don't have to prove that someone is a pureblood Israelite. I assume God will know the difference.

 

You need to reread this verse,

Romans 4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.


Now once again we are ALL made heirs through faith, NOT the law. Not one person was cleansed by the law, not one man will be an heir through the law. Stop seeing Christ as the jews do, Christ was God’s plan from the start, He is the only way to salvation, and through Him we are partakers of His inheritance. What blood you have does not matter to God.



Matthew 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

 

I agree with that for the most part. However, it is off topic for this thread.

This thread is specifically about dispensationalism, not about soteriology. We are talking about promises made to the nation of Israel.

 

I have come to my own conclusion that the major difference appears to be hermeneutics. Reformed hermeneutics versus dispensationalist hermeneutics.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That is certainly correct, IMO. I have long said that as long as we have different ideas about what is legitimate to do to the text, we will come to different conclusions.

IMO, we should treat the language of Scripture just like we treat everyday normal communication. I don't see any grounds for a special hermeneutic. The same hermeneutic that makes me a Calvinist makes me a dispensationalist.

 

I agree.

The promise to Abraham was "BOTH" throught faith and through Abraham's natural seed, Jews.

A Gentile can become a Jews through "FAITH",

but Abraham's "Natural seed" being "enemies of the Gospel" are still considered "Elect" and must be put in "Great Tribulations" to convince them to have "FAITH" in Jesus.

So, when you say "JEW", which one are you referring too???

Ro 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

 

If one traces back the history of J.N. Darby he will soon find some strange things. Things that stem from German rationalism. What I also find interesting about dispensationalism is that it has changed quite a lot since Darby, Larkin, and Scofield. Many dispensationalists will say they do not agree with Darby but will still call themselves dispensationalists. It seems that a lot of theology today is like a merry-go-round. Where you get on the merry-go-round is what you tend to believe but if you stay on long enough you will find that it has "progressed" or changed from where you first saw it start. Personally I do not find it much different in attitude than what Mormons profess about their view of progressive revelation.

A theology that is always changing is not a theology I would find easy to trust unless I was deceived.

 

The dispensationalists I know who have graduated from Biola and DTS often interpret scripture through their dispensationalist systematic theology filter rather than develop heir theolgy from scripture. When difficult passages are troubling they revert back to their systematic theology. I find it interesting that not one I know fully understands how to interpret scripture using dispensationalist theology. Some I have met over the years have heard men like Larkin teach and yet walked away still confised. Yet quite a number of Baptists who have not graduated from dispensationalist schools claim to be able to fully understand dispensationalism. I ifnd that quite interesting.

 

That's not only untrue, it's insulting.

 

Dispensationalism is an understanding of God's progressive revelation to man as seen in Scripture.

It's interpretive framework allows the Scripture to speak from its own context, in the cultural, political, linguistic and religious settings in which it was written.

The different eras (economies, dispensations) identified within Dispensationalism are the result of clear "progress" or changes in the way God implements His plan for mankind, and how man must respond to them.
It is important to note that Salvation has ALWAYS been by faith on the part of man, regardless of how mankind is instructed to manifest his faith in obedience. This is a distinction between Biblical Dispensationalism and hyper-Dispensationalism, which insists on different means of salvation at different times.

Dispensationalism is an eschatological system that understands history in terms of it's ultimate goals and objectives. GOd is not silent concerning His ultimate plans for man -- for the Church, for Israel, for the Kingdom, for eternity future. Understanding these goals and objectives which God has revealed in His Word helps us to make sense of God's revelation as it progresses toward its ultimate fulfillment.

 

My sincere apologies if you find it insulting and untrue, but it has been my experience over a lifetime. Churches have divided and split fellowship over eschatology. We saw it on here over the question of ordination where the question of eschatology became a prime question.

Mythical teaching such as the parenthetical church dispensation and secret rapture of the church are prime examples. The claim to a literal iterpretation does not hold true with such fantasies.

I truly don't hold ill feelings with dispensationalists on the Board. Pastorlarry is an avowed dispensationalist and I don't think I have ever insulted him and sometimes we share some views and I have expressed that in public.

It is never my intention to cause ill feeling, but surely I am allowed viewpoints as well.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That has certainly happened from your side as well. You are telling me I am making stuff up and inventing fantasies. So I don't think your side has any moral high ground here.

To be fair, remember what the issue was. The issue was whether a particular church would ordain a man who held a doctrine they believed to biblically inaccurate. It was not about fellowship or separation. It was about ordination. Those are very different issues.

 

The CBAA is a good example of that. I have often wondered what would happen over time as dispensational theology changes what they would do.

It is my opinion that those I know would not think so much as their theology as mythical but rather without knowing it they actually purport German rationalism in the way they interpret through the filter and lens of dispensational systematic theology. What I find quite interesting is that the friends of mine who have recently graduated and those who are attending DTS have told me that dispensational theology has changed so much that most of the younger professors do not agree with the theology of the older hard line dispenationalists of years ago. It is truly a changing type of systematic theology.

 

Afraid all I am familiar with is the old school and what the PB's follow een to-day..Clarence Larkin is like a second Bible and a Scofield Reference Bible is a must. I still have my Scofield Bible a Gospel Hall (PB) gave to me in 1945.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The more I read and hear about dispensationalism the more convinced I become that it belongs in the area of fantasy and not theology. Imagination and very selective interpretation is needed to justify a whole host of dispensationalist positions. This thread does nothing to change my view on that.

Regards
Bob

 

I agree.

Jesus was "foreordained" before the foundation of the world,

So the "plan of salvation" will never change, but how that plan will be implemented throughout the scriptures does change, the differences between the OT and NT being a good example.

 

This is insulting:

So are we are to believe that every theologian before Darby was a heretic?

 

Is there more than one way to God?

 

Is this speaking of the New Jerusalem that will come after the New Heavens and New Earth are formed and after the old heavens and old earth pass away? It must be, since the passage says it will not be destroyed anymore forever.

Aren't you making a distinction where there is no difference. James saw the Gentiles coming to Christ as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos, that is clear. What is also clear is that James believed both the Jews and the Gentiles had a common future in Christ, not a separate future.

But Jeremiah says the rebuilt Jerusalem will never be destroyed again, forever. The word for "overthrown" is "harac" which means to "pull down, to tear, to break, to destroy; to break through, to break in; to be pulled down, to be destroyed, to tear down, to overthrow, to pluck down, to be utterly ruined."

How can God keep His promise to Israel to keep their rebuilt city from being destroyed anymore "forever" if God is going to destroy that city when the old heavens and the old earth pass away to be replaced by the new heavens and the new earth.

Isn't God breaking His promise to Israel when He does that?

That has yet to be shown.

peace to youraying: