The Days Are Coming When There Will Be A New Covenant With Israel & Judah

[OldRegular]

It is a simple way of looking at the Bible and how God works at different times in different ways with different peoples.
One could make a fair and just accusation against those who believe in Covenant theology. They "cut up" the Bible into several little pieces with various little covenants here and there. We need not use the approach of sarcasm (as I just did), nor accuse one another of heresy, for neither dispensationalism or covenantal theology is heresy. If you want to read a balanced approach to dispensationalism then read John MacArthur.

I believe Dr. Bob himself implied that Bullinger's hyper-dispensationalism is heretical!

And be honest DHK, the Bible speaks of "various little covenants" but not several little dispensations. A new Christian starting with Genesis and reading through Scripture would finish believing that God deals with people through Covenants and he/she would be correct.

 

[DHK]

I believe Dr. Bob himself implied that Bullinger's hyper-dispensationalism is heretical!

And be honest DHK, the Bible speaks of "various little covenants" but not several little dispensations. A new Christian starting with Genesis and reading through Scripture would finish believing that God deals with people through Covenants and he/she would be correct.

I don't know what Bullinger teaches, and frankly don't care. I do know that a good percentage of the posters here on BB are dispensationalists. If you are going to relegate us all to the classification of heretics you are wrong, and have been warned, not only by me, but by Dr. Bob. No one said anything about believing in "Hyper-dispensationalism." I referred to John MacArthur in my last post for someone who believed in a reasonable view of dispensationalism. Is he also a "heretic" to you?
As Dr. Bob said: Be careful when you throw that "heresy" word around!

Again, dispensationalism is just another way of viewing the Bible as opposed to covenantalism.

 

[DHK]

I disagree that the above Scripture you reference show God deals with the nation of Israel as a separate entity. You say, and I do agree:
Jews are saved the same way Gentiles are, period!

We are all saved the same way; Jews and Gentiles alike. If the Jews were not different (a separate people from the Gentiles), why would Paul even take the time to pray for them (Rom.8:1-4; 10:1-3)?

You say so but that is not correct. Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture. It is true that there were some earlier writers who spoke of dispensations but Scripture does not.

Just like the age-old argument--scripture doesn't speak of the trinity either, but it teaches the concept.
You won't find the words: Christology, Pneumatology, or even theology either. I hope you believe in those topics. But you do find the word "dispensation" in the Bible. At least it is present there.

Now you have a problem with your post OR. Your statement is:
"You say so but that is not correct. Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture."
--You have stated this as a statistic and as a fact. Statistics is a science, and science has limitations. This absolutism cannot be scientifically proven as stated. Do you have the means and ability to provide the evidence that absolutely no one for 1800 years never believed in the pre-trib rapture? Did you interview every Christian before Darby to make sure? Of course you didn't. So you can't go out on such a ridiculous ledge and make outlandish statements like that, just because you have never read of anyone that believed in it. Maybe you haven't read enough books.

Scripture speaks of Covenants and God deals with people through Covenants. The word dispensation does not appear in the OT and only 4 times in the NT.

Scripture speaks of many things. The fact that you just agreed it speaks of dispensations is quite an admission! :tongue3:

It is the height of arrogance, a failing dispensationalists have, to imply that those Old Baptists who wrote the Confessions were ignorant of Scripture. I suspect they could put both you and me to shame. Furthermore, I use Scripture as my standard of Faith, not a Confession, not John Nelson Darby, not Margaret MacDonald's vision, not Scofield, not Ryrie, not Walvoord, not Chafer, and most certainly not Bullinger.

I didn't say they were ignorant of scripture just as I wouldn't say that the Presbyterians that believe in infant baptism are ignorant of scripture. But that doesn't make them right. I would rather trust what the Bible says.

Classic dispensationalism is, in my opinion, the invention of John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth [England} Brethern in the early 19th Century. It is most encouraging to see that some dispensationalists are rejecting the dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church and are taking a position more like the Covenant or historical premillennialists.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I suppose he even has the right tp post heresy and that is what his argument that there is a Gospel other than the Gospel Jesus Christ preached and taught constitutes; Heresy! I will simply say further that those who disagree with dispensationalism are routinely and brutally belittled by some, especially if you mention their doctrine of a "parenthesis" Church.

What does the Bible teach? That is the most important question to answer.
Your answer is different than mine. Does that give either one of us the right to belittle the other?

How can you argue that 70 weeks means 490 years and still claim a literal interpretation?

Because it is. I already told you that the word "week" simply means "seven(s)"
Let me ask you: What is the "Year of Jubilee?"
When does it occur, how often, and why?
Let me answer for you. It occurs on the fiftieth year, the year after a week of years.

To take the 69 sevens and apply a consistent interpretation that they represent 483 years and then insert an unlimited amount of time between the 69th and 70th week is surely not literal interpretation. It is eigesis of the worst sort!.

No, it is a literal interpretation--"seventy sevens"

Furthermore, the Scripture states that The Messiah, Jesus Christ, was murdered AFTER 69 weeks, not at the exact end of 69 weeks. In fact looking at verse 27 it appears He was murdered at the middle of the 70th week. It is a fact that verse 27 is a very difficult passage to interpret and insisting on a strictly literal translation is not possible. I have my belief on what verse 27 means but I am sure it does not agree with your interpretation.

Daniel 9:24-27
24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I am sure it doesn't. I have given mine already in various places on the board.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't know what Bullinger teaches, and frankly don't care. I do know that a good percentage of the posters here on BB are dispensationalists. If you are going to relegate us all to the classification of heretics you are wrong, and have been warned, not only by me, but by Dr. Bob. No one said anything about believing in "Hyper-dispensationalism." I referred to John MacArthur in my last post for someone who believed in a reasonable view of dispensationalism. Is he also a "heretic" to you?
As Dr. Bob said: Be careful when you throw that "heresy" word around!

Again, dispensationalism is just another way of viewing the Bible as opposed to covenantalism.

You are taking the typical dispensational attitude when your beliefs are challenged. You know very well that I have never said anything other than that the classic dispensationalism doctrine is erroneous and that the progressive dispensational doctrine is an improvement because their doctrine of the Church is approaching that of Covenant doctrine.

I have called beameup a heretic because he, in typical hyper-dispensational fashion, insists that there is one gospel taught by the Apostle Paul that is only for the Gentiles and another gospel specifically for the Jews taught by Jesus Christ and Peter.

The Apostle Paul himself said the following about those who would preach another Gospel.

Galatians 1:8, 9
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

That Paul preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that that same Gospel is preached to both Jew and Gentile is shown by the following Scripture:

Romans 1:16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Acts 28:30, 31
30. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31. Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Now if you believe, as beameup does, that Paul preached a different Gospel than the Gospel of Jesus Christ and by Jesus Christ then you have a problem.

I know there are many dispensationalists on this BB and I also realize that they are generally hypersensitive to any criticism of their doctrine.

 

[beameup]

Replacement theologians have to maintain that there is but "one gospel" and that the Jewish nation rejected it.
This is the foundation of Catholicism from the 4th Century onward to today.

If you want the "gospel" for this era, you need look no further than John's Gospel. Having been written
20+ years after the destruction of the Temple, and John having been confined to a Gentile penal colony,
John preached the simple gospel that any uneducated Gentile could understand without reference to a restoration
of the earth (ie: "Millennium"), rulership of earth from a throne in Jerusalem by a Messiah, or writings of Moses, or of David, or the Tenach, etc.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

However, Jesus' prophetic statement still stands unfulfilled:
And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mt 24:14

Now, the Replacement Theologians will tell you that the Kingdom is already established on earth and that the "King" is ruling it from Heaven.
If you believe that, then I have some oceanfront property for sale here in Arizona.

 

[DHK]

You are taking the typical dispensational attitude when your beliefs are challenged. You know very well that I have never said anything other than that the classic dispensationalism doctrine is erroneous and that the progressive dispensational doctrine is an improvement because their doctrine of the Church is approaching that of Covenant doctrine.

I have called beameup a heretic because he, in typical hyper-dispensational fashion, insists that there is one gospel taught by the Apostle Paul that is only for the Gentiles and another gospel specifically for the Jews taught by Jesus Christ and Peter.

I don't agree with Beamup in his theology. He has his extremes. But that does not give you license to put us all in the same camp. This statement is unjustified and false.

Dispensationalism was a mystery revealed to John Nelson Darby, and possibly Margaret MacDonald, in the early 19th Century.

There have been enough threads on dispensationalism for you to know it is a false statement. You don't need to go on repeating falsehoods. Go and search this forum for threads on dispensationalism and see where others have proved you wrong. This statement is all-inclusive of all dispensationalists. If you want to relegate your remarks to just ultra dispensationalists or the type of theology that Beamup believes then find a better way to express yourself. But this is unacceptable.

 

[kyredneck]

DHK, have you denied being a dispy in the past? For some reason I thought you had.

 

[DHK]

DHK, have you denied being a dispy in the past? For some reason I thought you had.

No, I have always been dispensational in my theology.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't agree with Beamup in his theology. He has his extremes. But that does not give you license to put us all in the same camp.

I have put no other dispensationalist in the same camp as beameup except "ituttut" and he is a hyper-dispensationalist like beameup. They both insist that there are two Gospels. The Apostle Paul said let such be accursed as I posted earlier.

There have been enough threads on dispensationalism for you to know it is a false statement. You don't need to go on repeating falsehoods. Go and search this forum for threads on dispensationalism and see where others have proved you wrong. This statement is all-inclusive of all dispensationalists. If you want to relegate your remarks to just ultra dispensationalists or the type of theology that Beamup believes then find a better way to express yourself. But this is unacceptable.

Dispensationalism in its current classic form was started by Darby. No one has proven different. If so then show where a pre-trib rapture of the Church existed before Darby.

What is Dispensationalism?
Written by Michael Vlach.

*Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths now available in store

Introduction

Since the mid-1800s, the system of theology known as dispensationalism has exerted great influence on how many Christians view the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology. In this article, we will survey the history of dispensationalism and look at the key beliefs associated with the system.

History of Dispensationalism

Theologians continue to argue over the origin of dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists argue that the basic beliefs of dispensationalism were held by the apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not dispensationalists often argue that dispensationalism is a new theology that began in the 19th century. What is clear, though, is that dispensationalism, as a system, began to take shape in the mid-1800s.

1. John Nelson Darby The beginning of systematized dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe in a future salvation and restoration of national Israel. Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy earthly blessings that were different from the heavenly blessings experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe in an "any moment" rapture of the church that was followed by Daniel's Seventieth Week in which Israel would once again take center stage in God's plan. After this period, Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with Israel.1 According to Paul Enns, "Darby advanced the scheme of dispensationalism by noting that each dispensation places man under some condition; man has some responsibility before God. Darby also noted that each dispensation culminates in failure." 2 Darby saw seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles; (6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own testimony, Darby says his dispensational theology was fully formed by 1833.

2. The Brethren Movement Dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain. Those within the Brethren Movement rejected a special role for ordained clergy and stressed the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit's guidance, to teach and admonish each other from Scripture. The writings of the Brethren had a broad impact on evangelical Protestantism and influenced ministers in the United States such as D. L. Moody, James Brookes, J. R. Graves, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield.3

3. The Bible Conference Movement Beginning in the 1870s, various Bible conferences began to spring up in various parts of the United States. These conferences helped spread Dispensationalism. The Niagara conferences (1870—early 1900s) were not started to promote dispensationalism but dispensational ideas were often promoted at these conferences. The American Bible and Prophetic Conferences from 1878—1914 promoted a dispensational theology.

4. The Bible Institute Movement In the late 1800s, several Bible institutes were founded that taught dispensational theology including The Nyack Bible Institute (1882), The Boston Missionary Training School (1889), and The Moody Bible Institute (1889).

5. The Scofield Reference Bible C. I. Scofield, a participant in the Niagara conferences, formed a board of Bible conference teachers in 1909 and produced what came to be known as, the Scofield Reference Bible. This work became famous in the United States with its theological annotations right next to the Scripture. This reference Bible became the greatest influence in the spread of dispensationalism.

6. Dallas Theological Seminary After World War I, many dispensational Bible schools were formed. Led by Dallas Theological Seminary (1924), dispensationalism began to be promoted in formal, academic settings. Under Scofield, dispensationalism entered a scholastic period that was later carried on by his successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer. Further promotion of dispensationalism took place with the writing of Chafer's eight-volume Systematic Theology.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism

 

[OldRegular]

More on Dispensationalism.

What is Dispensationalism?
Written by Michael Vlach.

*Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths now available in store

Foundational Features of Dispensationalism 4

1. Hermeneutical approach that stresses a literal fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel Though the issue of "literal interpretation" is heavily debated today, many dispensationalists claim that consistent literal interpretation applied to all areas of the Bible, including Old Testament promises to Israel, is a distinguishing mark of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists usually argue that the progress of revelation, including New Testament revelation, does not cancel Old Testament promises made with national Israel. Although there is internal debate concerning how much the church is related to the Old Testament covenants and promises, dispensationalists believe national Israel will see the literal fulfillment of the promises made with her in the Old Testament.

2. Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made with national Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) must be fulfilled literally with national Israel Although the church may participate in or partially fulfill the biblical covenants, they do not take over the covenants to the exclusion of national Israel. Physical and spiritual promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel.

3. Distinct future for national Israel "Only Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation."5 This future includes a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity and function.

4. The church is distinct from Israel The church does not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to as Israel. According to dispensationalists, the church did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with the church. Evidences often used by dispensationalists to show that the church is distinct from Israel include: (a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18; (b) an essential element of the church—Spirit baptism—did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the "new man" nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel; (f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20); (g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct. On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct."6

5. Multiple senses of "seed of Abraham" According to Feinberg, the designation "seed of Abraham" is used in different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference to ethnic, biological Jews (cf. Romans 9—11). Second, it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are spiritually related to God by faith (cf. Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). Feinberg argues that the spiritual sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.

6. Philosophy of history that emphasizes both the spiritual and physical aspects of God's covenants According to John Feinberg, "nondispensational treatments of the nature of the covenants and of Israel's future invariably emphasize soteriological and spiritual issues, whereas dispensational treatments emphasize both the spiritual/soteriological and the social, economic, and political aspects of things." 7

Other significant, although not necessarily exclusive features of dispensationalism, include: (1) the authority of Scripture; (2) belief in dispensations; (3) emphasis on Bible prophecy; (4) futuristic premillennialism; (5) pretribulationism; and (6) a view of imminency that sees Christ's return as an "any-moment" possibility.

Variations Within Dispensationalism

The above features characterize the beliefs of those within the dispensational tradition. However, as Blaising writes, "Dispensationalism has not been a static tradition." 8 There is no standard creed that freezes its theological development at any given point in history. Blaising offers three forms of dispensational thought:

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s) Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer's eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition.9

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The "heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead." 10

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption.11 In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer

2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985) Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Revised dispensationalists usually reject the idea that there are two new covenants—one for Israel and one for the church. They also see the church and Israel as existing together during the millennium and eternal state.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present) What does "progressive" mean? The title "progressive dispensationalism" refers to the "progressive" relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.12 Charles Ryrie notes that, "The adjective 'progressive' refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom)." 13

"One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ."14

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism

 

[OldRegular]

More on Dispensationalism.

What is Dispensationalism?
Written by Michael Vlach.

*Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths now available in store

Foundational Features of Dispensationalism 4

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations 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. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the 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. Progressive dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ, seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign awaits Israel in the millennium.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

1. See Floyd Elmore, "Darby, John Nelson," Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, ed., (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996) 83-84.

2. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989) 516.

3. See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 10.

4. These essentials of Dispensationalism are taken from John S. Feinberg's, "Systems of Discontinuity," Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism is based on the three following characteristics: (1) a distinction between Israel and the church; (2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) 38-40.

5. Feinberg, 83.

6. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel, 1994) 118.

7. Feinberg, 85.

8. Blaising and Bock, 21.

9. Blaising and Bock, 22.

10. Blaising and Bock, 24.

11. Blaising and Bock, 27.

12. Blaising and Bock, 49.

13. Charles C. Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism," Issues in Dispensationalism, John R. Master and Wesley R. Willis, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 20.

14. Blaising and Bock, 49.
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

OR, if you're going to post information from people who haven't undertaken a study of dispensationalism themselves, who choose to borrow information from other researchers to "explain it," all without discussing its merits or failings in your own words, it tends to me to be an indication you yourself have engaged in study of it in order to understand or debate it.

Therefore, I'd suggest you kindly refrain from posting about it until you actually learn what it teaches and can discuss it with one of us dispensationalists with aplomb. Thank you in advance. God bless.

PS: I guess this answers my query the other day as to whether you really did not understand it, or worse, you did and chose to misrepresent it. Nice to know it is not a deliberate spinning of facts.

 

[OldRegular]

The following is extracted from a long article by Dr. Ice who I believe is a dispensationalist. Other than that I present it without comment!

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE

by Thomas Ice

Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe that John Nelson Darby (1800– 1882) revived this lost New Testament teaching through intense Bible study during convalescence from a riding accident in December 1827 and January 1828. Evangelical opponents of pretribulationism often put forth theories that cast Darby in a bad light. For example, some say Darby got it from Edward Irving (1792–1834), while others say it originated from the prophetic utterance of a fifteen-year old Scottish lassie Margaret Macdonald (1815–1840). Both sources are understood to be tainted since Irving was considered exocentric and heretical and Macdonald’s prophetic utterance is thought to be demonic. What is the evidence that Darby developed his view from his own personal study?

//snip//

DARBY’S NEW THEOLOGICAL PARADIGM {Page 9}

These five biblical discoveries noted above are the basis upon which Darby builds his new theological paradigm that includes dispensationalism and pretribulationalism. From the beginning of Darby’s dissent from the established church, these items were core essentials upon which he began to build his unique theology. Stunt concludes, “it was in these months that finally the questions in his mind began to resolve themselves. Central to his faith from now on was the belief that he and all Christians were ‘united to Christ in heaven’, and delivered ‘by the power of His resurrection.’”57 Carter sees “its radical distinction between the Jewish and Gentile dispensations—‘the hinge’, as Darby referred to it, . . . the distinction between these two dispensations forms the basis for Darby’s understanding of both ecclesiology and eschatology.”58 These items are important since pretribulationism is built upon first one’s view of ecclesiology that is set within a certain eschatological framework. Darby perceives a clear distinction between Israel and the church. “It is important to notice here that Darby came to the realization of these points alone, without the influence of other men,”59 surmised Weremchuk. “Darby’s views, when fully developed later, would prove to be in many points contrary to the ones normally accepted by the church at large.”60 It was during Darby’s convalescence that the original spark of his ideas burst forth from his personal Bible study and fanned into the flames of his theology during the next decade and beyond.

It has been long recognized that pretribulationism is built upon one’s view of ecclesiology as much or more than one’s eschatology. The greatest pretribulationist scholar of the twentieth century was the late John F. Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary, who recognized the central place of ecclesiology in support of pretribulationism. Walvoord writes:

What is essential to premillennialism becomes an indispensable foundation in the study of pretribulationism. It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church, and any consideration of pretribulationism that does not take this major factor into consideration will be largely beside the point.61
​

The point that should not be missed regarding Darby’s convalescence discoveries is that they centered on ecclesiology. Darby was concerned about what was happening to the church in which he was involved in Ireland and searched the Bible for answers to his concerns. Stunt notes that one of the assurances Darby received “was the assurance that he (together with all Christians as opposed to Christendom) was risen and spiritually united with Christ in heaven.”62 This ecclesiastical realization forms the heart of Darby’s theology and spiritual hope that extended throughout the rest of his life.

The first two essays written by Darby were both about ecclesiastical issues, which further demonstrates his focus upon understanding the Church. The first, though not published until much later, was the one expressing his disagreement with Archbishop Magee’s petition and the second, from Dublin in 1828, was “Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ.”63

Darby did not just develop an ecclesiology that was isolated from interaction with other areas of theology. Rather, he clearly set it against God’s plan for Israel. In one of his convalescence statements he said:

Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a Davidic reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven.64​

Thus, Darby sees the church as distinct from Israel, since there would be a Davidic reign for Israel in the millennium, God’s earthly people. On the other hand, Darby saw that he was positionally united with Christ in heaven, a heavenly destiny. Dispensationalists today see such a distinction as their sine qua non. Leading dispensational spokesman Charles Ryrie says, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” Ryrie explains:

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 distinctions; and one who does will.65​

Non-dispensational, covenant theologians recognize this essential about dispensationalists as noted by Michael Williams.

The Darbyist church/Israel distinction constitutes the one great organizing principle of classical dispensationalism. The metaphysical and historical distinction between the church and Israel is the axle upon which the theology of Darby, Scofield, and Chafer rides. It is the one great absolutely necessary or essential element of the system. The Darbyist metaphysical distinction between Israel and the church is the sine qua non of classical dispensational theology.66​

Whether dispensationalists or non-dispensationalists, all recognize for dispensationalism the importance of the distinction between God’s rule for Israel and His rule for the church.

From the time of his convalescence, Darby developed a theology that taught and supported a dispensational, premillennial, pretribulationism. Essentially Darby came to understand that his place or position was the same as Christ, which is in heaven. Thus, the church is a heavenly people, not an earthly people like the established church, in which he was a clergyman. Juxtaposed to the heavenly and spiritual church was Israel, who are composed of a spiritual, ethnic, and national people on earth who have a future in God’s plan after the church age.

Darby came to understand that the church could be taken to heaven at any moment without signs preceding that event, in what would later be known as the pretribulational rapture of the church. Darby’s realization of a change in dispensations laid the groundwork for the development of dispensationalism, since he saw a distinction between God’s plan for the church and His plan for Israel. By this time, Darby also developed a pessimistic view of the visible church, Christendom, and came to believe that it was in utter ruins.

By January 1828, February at the latest, John Nelson Darby had not only come to an understanding of the idea of pretribulationism, but, he had also come to see other components, along with a rationale to support this view. This does not mean that his ideas relating to pretribulationism came out of the womb fully developed along with no internal contradictions.67 There was still developmental work to be done. Stunt surmises: “In fact for some years after his experience of deliverance there was something decidedly ambivalent about some of the positions adopted by Darby.”68 It would take at least another decade for Darby to develop full confidence in his new views and their implications. The basics were in place by early 1828. This was too early to have received seminal influence from others regarding things Darby strongly contends he came to understand from personal Bible study alone during his Dublin convalescence.

CONCLUSION{page 11}

J. N. Darby’s pretribulationism appeared as a seminal idea from his own Bible study during a convalescence period of December 1827 through January 1828 while staying at his sister’s house in Dublin. Darby was in distress about issues relating to the true nature and purpose of the Church during his convalescence, which led to his ideas of the rapture of the Church, an ecclesiastical and eschatological issue. Stunt concludes: “we must emphasize that Darby was a very complex person whose understanding of scripture and theology was continually evolving.”69 Darby possessed the intellect, education, and capability needed for original thinking, and the discipline to develop ideas into a system. There is nothing in the record that indicates that this is not what he in fact did do. Through Darby’s own personal testimony on multiple occasions, he provided the theological rationale to support pretribulationism, something that would be unlikely if it was just an idea stolen from another source.

 

[DHK]

OR,
It is nice to see that you can quote people and still not have a basic understanding of dispensationalism. This comes from your lack of interaction with various posters on the board, as noted, as well as your biased presuppositions.
BTW, do you always believe what you hear or read for that fact.
Just because your sources "say so," doesn't make it true.
To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible.
To say: There was no dispensational belief before Darby is a universal negative, a statement impossible to prove. It is logical fallacy. You can't prove the statements you make. You can't come up with such documentation. It is impossible.
OTOH, a dispensationalist, to prove you wrong, only has to find one person in 1800 years of history that believed in dispenationalism and that would prove everything you have said to be false, wouldn't it?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is a simple way of looking at the Bible and how God works at different times in different ways with different peoples.
One could make a fair and just accusation against those who believe in Covenant theology. They "cut up" the Bible into several little pieces with various little covenants here and there. We need not use the approach of sarcasm (as I just did), nor accuse one another of heresy, for neither dispensationalism or covenantal theology is heresy. If you want to read a balanced approach to dispensationalism then read John MacArthur.

I hold to Dispy theology in regards to isreal/Church, Future days though!

Point was and is that while Dispy views are biblical, Hyper Dispy ones are not!

same way that Hyper Calvinism is wrong, even though I hold to Calvinistic Sotierology view!

 

[Yeshua1]

OR,
It is nice to see that you can quote people and still not have a basic understanding of dispensationalism. This comes from your lack of interaction with various posters on the board, as noted, as well as your biased presuppositions.
BTW, do you always believe what you hear or read for that fact.
Just because your sources "say so," doesn't make it true.
To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible.
To say: There was no dispensational belief before Darby is a universal negative, a statement impossible to prove. It is logical fallacy. You can't prove the statements you make. You can't come up with such documentation. It is impossible.
OTOH, a dispensationalist, to prove you wrong, only has to find one person in 1800 years of history that believed in dispenationalism and that would prove everything you have said to be false, wouldn't it?

ing to say a classic Covenant theology A Mil position, and insist that is only right position, yet early Church fathers taught pre Mil views also!
Would be like hold

 

[OldRegular]

OR,
It is nice to see that you can quote people and still not have a basic understanding of dispensationalism. This comes from your lack of interaction with various posters on the board, as noted, as well as your biased presuppositions.
BTW, do you always believe what you hear or read for that fact.
Just because your sources "say so," doesn't make it true.

Dr. Thomas Ice is himself a dispensationalist and coauthored Charting the End Times with LeHaye so any problems you have with his article you can take up with him!

***********************************************************
.

To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible.

Again you can debate that with Dr. Ice.

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice...Darbyandth.pdf

JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE

by Thomas Ice

From the time of his convalescence, Darby developed a theology that taught and supported a dispensational, premillennial, pretribulationism. Essentially Darby came to understand that his place or position was the same as Christ, which is in heaven. Thus, the church is a heavenly people, not an earthly people like the established church, in which he was a clergyman. Juxtaposed to the heavenly and spiritual church was Israel, who are composed of a spiritual, ethnic, and national people on earth who have a future in God’s plan after the church age.

Darby came to understand that the church could be taken to heaven at any moment without signs preceding that event, in what would later be known as the pretribulational rapture of the church. Darby’s realization of a change in dispensations laid the groundwork for the development of dispensationalism, since he saw a distinction between God’s plan for the church and His plan for Israel. By this time, Darby also developed a pessimistic view of the visible church, Christendom, and came to believe that it was in utter ruins.

So you see that dispensationalist Dr. Ice is in general agreement with me. Sadly, according to Dr. Ice, John Nelson Darby is rejecting the promise of Jesus Christ when He said:

Matthew 16:18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**************************************************************

To say: There was no dispensational belief before Darby is a universal negative, a statement impossible to prove. It is logical fallacy. You can't prove the statements you make. You can't come up with such documentation. It is impossible.

You can verify the following by searching this thread!

Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture. It is true that there were some earlier writers who spoke of dispensations but Scripture does not. Scripture speaks of Covenants and God deals with people through Covenants. The word dispensation does not appear in the OT and only 4 times in the NT.

So you see you misrepresent what I say!

***********************************************************

OTOH, a dispensationalist, to prove you wrong, only has to find one person in 1800 years of history that believed in dispenationalism and that would prove everything you have said to be false, wouldn't it?

That is absolutely nonsense. The Apostle Paul used the word dispensation 4 times as I noted in the above quote I repeated.

The word dispensation does not appear in the OT and only 4 times in the NT.

1Corinthians 9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

That does not establish the doctrine of Darby!

 

[OldRegular]

ing to say a classic Covenant theology A Mil position, and insist that is only right position, yet early Church fathers taught pre Mil views also!
Would be like hold

But early Church Fathers did not teach a pre-trib Rapture! Early Church Fathers did not believe as Darby apparently did:

JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE

by Thomas Ice

By this time, Darby also developed a pessimistic view of the visible church, Christendom, and came to believe that it was in utter ruins.

 

[DHK]

Dr. Thomas Ice is himself a dispensationalist and coauthored Charting the End Times with LeHaye so any problems you have with his article you can take up with him!

I am debating you, not him.

Again you can debate that with Dr. Ice.

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice...Darbyandth.pdf

The cat got your tongue? Or has Dr. Ice taken the place of your Bible?
What's the problem OR? Can't speak for yourself anymore?
Here is my statement once again:

"To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible."
It has nothing to do with Dr. Ice, nor with anyone else.
It is impossible for you to state: "There was no dispensationalism before Darby, or that Darby was the founder of it."
Pure garbage. The statement is not a proveable statement. You have no documentation, evidence, nor ever will have. Can you interview every person between Darby and the Apostles to very if this is true or not? NO! Therefore it is a false statement; one that cannot be proven.

So you see that dispensationalist Dr. Ice is in general agreement with me. Sadly, according to Dr. Ice, John Nelson Darby is rejecting the promise of Jesus Christ when He said:

People shouldn't say things they cannot verify should they?

So you see you misrepresent what I say!

No I didn't. If you are now saying there were earlier dispensationalists, while at the same time saying Darby is the founder and the first one, then you are contradicting yourself at the very least, and possibly lying. Which is it?

That is absolutely nonsense. The Apostle Paul used the word dispensation 4 times as I noted in the above quote I repeated.

And so?

That does not establish the doctrine of Darby!

No, what establishes dispensationalism is that well known fact that God deals with different people in different ages in different ways. That is not a hard concept to accept or believe or understand. It is stated quite well in the Bible itself, which I assume you believe.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

 

[OldRegular]

I am debating you, not him.

The cat got your tongue? Or has Dr. Ice taken the place of your Bible?
What's the problem OR? Can't speak for yourself anymore?

You really are not debating, you are taunting hoping you can find an excuse to ban me.

You asked for the basis of my beliefs regarding Darby and dispensationalism. I insist that you cannot present Scripture showing a pre=trib Rapture of the Church and you have not and cannot, neither can any other who believes dispensational doctrine. Furthermore, you cannot present Scripture showing that the Church for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" an interruption in God's plan for Israel.

I present an analysis of Darby's life that led to his development of dispensationalism by a prominent dispensationalist and you try to insult me asking

has Dr. Ice taken the place of your Bible?

***************************************************

Here is my statement once again:

"To prove that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism is impossible."
It has nothing to do with Dr. Ice, nor with anyone else.
It is impossible for you to state: "There was no dispensationalism before Darby, or that Darby was the founder of it."
Pure garbage. The statement is not a proveable statement. You have no documentation, evidence, nor ever will have. Can you interview every person between Darby and the Apostles to very if this is true or not? NO! Therefore it is a false statement; one that cannot be proven.

The statement above is pure garbage. In my last post I presented a quote from a previous post showing that I conceded that there were writers prior to Darby who indicated there were different dispensations. I present it again hoping you will be courteous enough to admit you are misrepresenting what I say:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture. It is true that there were some earlier writers who spoke of dispensations but Scripture does not. Scripture speaks of Covenants and God deals with people through Covenants. The word dispensation does not appear in the OT and only 4 times in the NT.

****************************************************

People shouldn't say things they cannot verify should they?

The above quote proves that statement to be true.

*******************************************************

No I didn't. If you are now saying there were earlier dispensationalists, while at the same time saying Darby is the founder and the first one, then you are contradicting yourself at the very least, and possibly lying. Which is it?

I did not say there were earlier dispensationalists. I said well you can read what I said above. Paul mentioned one dispensation but he was no dispensationalist.

************************************************************

No, what establishes dispensationalism is that well known fact that God deals with different people in different ages in different ways. That is not a hard concept to accept or believe or understand. It is stated quite well in the Bible itself, which I assume you believe.

The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?[/QUOTE]

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

The initial expression in time of the Covenant of Grace was Genesis 3:15; it is sometimes called tha Adamic Covenant but that is a poor name.

Then there was the Covenant with all people after the Flood sometimes called the Noahic Covenant.

After that there was the Covenant with Abraham and the promise that through the seed of Abraham, whom Paul identifies as Jesus Christ, all families would be blessed.

Following this there is the Covenant with the children of Israel, and the giving of the Ten Commandments, called the Mosaic Covenant.

The next covenant is called the Palestinian Covenant.

After that there is the covenant with the Israelites through King David.

Finally the promise of the New Covenant which, when instituted through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, would fulfill the promise of Genesis 3:15.

Matthew 26:28. for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Luke 22:20. And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
1 Co 11:25. In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

We see above that the writers of three of the Gospels and the apostle Paul testify that Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah. However, we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which you quoted above, the following wonderful testimony of the fulfilling of the New Covenant. I have taken the liberty of underlining the quote from the Prophet Jeremiah {31:31-34}.

Hebrews 8:1-13, KJV
1.Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2. A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Hebrews 9:11-15
11. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12. and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
14. how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15. And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

So you see DHK God deals with people through Covenants, not dispensations. GOD is GOOD is HE not!