Poll For The Dispensationalists_Which Are You?

[mandym]

thats fine, as I think that it all depends which teacher of Dispy you were under....

Can you give me an example of anyone who teaches this?

 

[Robert Snow]

thats fine, as I think that it all depends which teacher of Dispy you were under....

Well, according to this thread, some of these prominent Dispensationalists believed things I do not believe. However, I still think Dispensationalism is correct, and is much more easier defended with scripture than Preterism is.

 

[kyredneck]

Those that voted 'Classic', considering post #25, and Chafer's views, don't you think maybe you're actually more attuned to the 'Traditional' view?

 

[JesusFan]

Those that voted 'Classic', considering post #25, and Chafer's views, don't you think maybe you're actually more attuned to the 'Traditional' view?

Actually surprised by number saying "progressive Dispy" was their selection!

 

[revmwc]

Those that voted 'Classic', considering post #25, and Chafer's views, don't you think maybe you're actually more attuned to the 'Traditional' view?

Foundational Features of Classic Dispensationalism:
1. O. T. Prophecies will be literally fulfilled
2. The Bible makes a distinction between Israel and the Church. (1 Corinthians 10:32)
3. The Bible should be interpreted literally.
4. The Bible ws given through progressive revelation: God Gradually revealed more truth over time. (Jn. 1:17;Acts 17:30;Heb. 1:1-2)
5. There is a distinction between law and grace
6. There will be a pre-tribulational rapture of believers. (1 Thes. 4:13-18;5:9-10;Rev. 3:10)
7. The Millennial Kingdom will be Jewish in nature.
8. God's purpose in His dealing with man is His glory, not man's salvation. (Eph. 1:1-12)
9. There are several charectoristics of each dispensation:
6 characteristics of each dispensation
a. A revelation from God
b. Responsibility upon man
c. A test of obedience
d. The failure of man
e. Judgment from God
f. Grace extended from God
With God extending Grace in every stewardship period then salvation according to classsic dispensationalism was by Grace through faith. The distinction was the Jews were given the as God's standard and they failed to live up to that standard and had to believe in a Messiah (saviour) to come for salvation. By Grace their faith was counted unto them for righteousness.

 

[TCGreek]

Premillennial Dispensationalism is not for me.

 

[HankD]

The reason I ask is this Wiki article states that "Classical dispensationalists are a small minority today". It appears not so here on the BB.

Dispensationalism seems to be and always has been a moving target.

The earliest forms were not know as "dispensationalism" and seem to be a doctrine with some ECF who were know as chiliasts (thousand) - the 1000 year reign of Christ. However they seemed to know nothing (at least that I could find) of a "rapture" apart from the greek word harpazo "caught up" in 1 thessalonians 4:17.

The Latin stem (rapt-, rapturo) comes from the Latin translation of harpazo and is used in the Vulgate in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

Margaret McDonald and John Nelson Darby (early 1800's) developed the idea of a secret "rapture - snatching away" of the saints presumably just before the tribulation coming out of a "discovery" of the "rapture" doctrine by Jesuit priests in the 14-15th centuries.

I'm with winman. There is and only ever has been one gospel.

I think a lot of "dispensationalism" is in reality "sensationalism" and over-reaching with the Scriptures.

e.g. Some hyper-dispensationists would say that only the epistles of Paul are for the church, everything else (even in the NT) is for Israel.

Too bad, because there is (IMO) a goodly deal of truth to the core essentials of dispensationalism. The distinction of Israel (redeemed Israel) and the church, the "harpazo", the tribulation, the millennium.

HankD

 

[kyredneck]

Think that you CAN notice the different views IF one can find 1917 Scofield, and contrast that to the "new Scofield!"

FWIW, I have found this that is supposedly from the original 1909 Scofield Bible. I submit it for anyone who may wish to peruse it; I don't know enough about the Scofield Bible to know what to look for. The problem is that it is 'SELECTED' notes, and that it has been 'EDITED'.:

Selected Notes

Genesis to Revelation

Studies and Annotations From The 1909 -1917 Scofield Reference Bible (KJV): The Most Widely Published and Influential of All Study Bibles

Edited by Jack Moorman

 

[kyredneck]

Thanks for commenting Bob.

Classical dispensationalism refers to the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology and the notes in the Scofield bible.

Another feature would be of the dualistic idea of redemption by some.

....as in Chafer's views brought out in post #25, i.e., more than one plan of salvation?

Many in this camp teach a heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church .....

Can you explain that? Seems I recall a dispensationalist teaching that places Christians in heaven and on earth at the same time. Is this what you're talking about?

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.

There it is again, “a dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples”. What does that mean?

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 therein lies the first and foremost fault of the dispensational system. Contrary to the plain literal rendering of scripture, the dispensationalist unabashedly puts asunder what God has joined together:

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

Contrary to the plain literal rendering of [abundant] scripture, the dispensationalist unabashedly makes a distinction where God clearly does not:

And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction...Acts 11:12

and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9

even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; Ro 3:22

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 9:12

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 10:12

where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3:11

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13

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 to this I agree with Gentry from his article referenced in the OP:

“The newer form of dispensationalism is much more theologically astute than the naive sensationalism of its predecessor. It represents a giant step forward in theological discussion, making huge concessions to covenantal theology. In addition, its theologians are of much greater competence, men who are making serious contributions to evangelicalism in a wide range of theological fields.”

...and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.

And that would be the second foremost fault with the dispensational 'system'. It's unabashedly rife with speculation.

 

[kyredneck]

....I think hyper-dispensationalism complete error....

"Advocates of hyper-dispensationalism accept the term "dispensationalism", but reject the prefix "hyper" or "ultra" as pejorative. Within the United States, advocates often refer to themselves as members of the "Grace Movement""


“...at the heart of most forms of ultra-dispensationalism is the belief that Paul preached a different gospel than what the other apostles taught. Paul’s prison epistles only apply directly to the “body of Christ” or Gentile Church, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are relegated to the old dispensation and are not to be practiced by the church today. In reality, what ultra-dispensationalists do is wrongly divide the Word of God and split it into little pieces.

Other heresies that are common to some types of ultra-dispensationalism include such things as soul sleep and annihilationism. Still others proclaim a brand of universalism that grants salvation even to Satan himself. Without a doubt, whatever name you want to call it, ultra-dispensationalism is a dangerous error that almost always leads to other, even worse errors and often outright heretical teachings.”

 

[JesusFan]

"Advocates of hyper-dispensationalism accept the term "dispensationalism", but reject the prefix "hyper" or "ultra" as pejorative. Within the United States, advocates often refer to themselves as members of the "Grace Movement""


“...at the heart of most forms of ultra-dispensationalism is the belief that Paul preached a different gospel than what the other apostles taught. Paul’s prison epistles only apply directly to the “body of Christ” or Gentile Church, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are relegated to the old dispensation and are not to be practiced by the church today. In reality, what ultra-dispensationalists do is wrongly divide the Word of God and split it into little pieces.

Other heresies that are common to some types of ultra-dispensationalism include such things as soul sleep and annihilationism. Still others proclaim a brand of universalism that grants salvation even to Satan himself. Without a doubt, whatever name you want to call it, ultra-dispensationalism is a dangerous error that almost always leads to other, even worse errors and often outright heretical teachings.”

One that I am familiar with teaches that the Church age of grace started in Epistles of Apostle paul, as before that jesus and Gospels/Acts wriiten to those in transistion age between law and Grace...

So ONLY what Paul was revealed and wrote on considered valid theology for Church now...

 

[JesusFan]

Well, according to this thread, some of these prominent Dispensationalists believed things I do not believe. However, I still think Dispensationalism is correct, and is much more easier defended with scripture than Preterism is.

I do agree with Dispy theology. especially in the sense that there is both an "earthly/Heavenly" peoples. as the Church is promised new Jerusalem and redeemed isreal the Millinual Kingdom to come upon the Earth when Jesus Returns!

 

[kyredneck]

Well, according to this thread, some of these prominent Dispensationalists believed things I do not believe. However, I still think Dispensationalism is correct, and is much more easier defended with scripture than Preterism is.

From the OP article:

“Orthodox preterism is not so much an eschatological system as a hermeneutic tool. It recognizes the interpretive significance of: (1) time-frame indicators (e.g., Matt. 24:34; Mark 9:1; Rev. 1:1, 3); (2) audience relevance (e.g., the Seven Churches enduring tribulation, Rev. 1:4, 9); and (3) the possible non-literal character of apocalyptic imagery (“falling stars” may indicate “collapsing governments”).”

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

“Applying 'the preterist modifier' to one's NT interpretation is, in actuality, fully adhering to a cardinal rule of scripture interpretation:

“The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.” (C. Hodge)”

 

[J.D.]

Kyredneck, great responses!

From the OP article:

“Orthodox preterism is not so much an eschatological system as a hermeneutic tool. It recognizes the interpretive significance of: (1) time-frame indicators (e.g., Matt. 24:34; Mark 9:1; Rev. 1:1, 3); (2) audience relevance (e.g., the Seven Churches enduring tribulation, Rev. 1:4, 9); and (3) the possible non-literal character of apocalyptic imagery (“falling stars” may indicate “collapsing governments”).”

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

“Applying 'the preterist modifier' to one's NT interpretation is, in actuality, fully adhering to a cardinal rule of scripture interpretation:

“The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.” (C. Hodge)”

Kyredneck: I just wanted to say that you are serving some real aces in this thread. Go, ky, go!

 

[JesusFan]

From the OP article:

“Orthodox preterism is not so much an eschatological system as a hermeneutic tool. It recognizes the interpretive significance of: (1) time-frame indicators (e.g., Matt. 24:34; Mark 9:1; Rev. 1:1, 3); (2) audience relevance (e.g., the Seven Churches enduring tribulation, Rev. 1:4, 9); and (3) the possible non-literal character of apocalyptic imagery (“falling stars” may indicate “collapsing governments”).”

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

“Applying 'the preterist modifier' to one's NT interpretation is, in actuality, fully adhering to a cardinal rule of scripture interpretation:

“The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.” (C. Hodge)”

Also have to add though that there is a future aspect to MUCH prophetic element in the Bible, that not even the heaers of it would FULLY understand its meaning.... As some of it was not to pass until much later in time...

 

[kyredneck]

Also have to add though that there is a future aspect to MUCH prophetic element in the Bible, that not even the heaers of it would FULLY understand its meaning.... As some of it was not to pass until much later in time...

“Only fools and madmen are positive in their interpretations of the apocalypse.” C.H. Spurgeon

“ Experience teaches that the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is exceedingly precarious. There is every reason to believe that the predictions concerning the second advent of Christ, and the events that are to attend and follow it, will disappoint the expectations of commentators, as the expectations of the Jews were disappointed in the manner in which the prophecies concerning the first advent were accomplished.” Charles Hodge

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Honestly, I was Catholic for 32 years & a Presby for about 20 Years & never heard about this till I became baptist. So I cant understand it, & dont want to neither. Thank God for little favors

 

[StefanM]

I'd consider myself generally a progressive dispensationalist.

 

[J.D.]

Honestly, I was Catholic for 32 years & a Presby for about 20 Years & never heard about this till I became baptist. So I cant understand it, & dont want to neither. Thank God for little favors

You should want to. I know it's a headache, and I took your approach myself for several years. But you should know that your view of the end times affects your view of the world and how you worship.

Here is the best resource for understanding the two systems, dispensationalism and covenantalism IMO. It is short, very basic. A good starter.

A comparison of dispensationalism and covenant theology [Paperback]

Richard P Belcher (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00070WALA/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[revmwc]

Honestly, I was Catholic for 32 years & a Presby for about 20 Years & never heard about this till I became baptist. So I cant understand it, & dont want to neither. Thank God for little favors

The man who taught it to me was raised Catholic and when He trusted Christ became a bible teaching Pastor studying all the commentaries and things he could get his hands on. My father was raised Catholic and upon trusting Christ became a baptist and he reinforced to me the Pastors teaching. So the way you were raised has nothing to do with this teaching. It is the Holy Spirit who can and will teach the deep things of the word of God to those who desire the meat of the word.