1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Aug 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 7
  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Following are remarks by Chafer and Ryrie. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

    Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

    I did not present them because I did not want to make dispensationalism look worse than it is. I thought dispensationalists had abandoned the idea that people in the Old Testament were saved differently than in The New Covenant and believed that Salvation was by Grace alone.

    I would note once again that Watts did not invent the pre-trib removal of the Church, that was Darby.
     
    #61 OldRegular, Aug 11, 2014
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Dispensationalism doesn not equal pre-trib.
    There are many dispensationalists that are not pre-trib.
    Please do not confuse the two.

    Even the ECF were dispensational. That is what Chiliasm is. But still you won't admit to it. You are just plain wrong on this issue.
     
    #62 DHK, Aug 11, 2014
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    You are wrong. Chiliasm is not dispensationalism. But even if you were not dispensational doctrine is not Scriptural no matter how often you repeat it.

    Classic dispensationalism teaches of a pre-trib removal of the Church, the invention of Darby.

    Classic dispensationalism insists that the Church is a "parenthesis" or an "intercalation" in Gods program for Israel.{Post 61 above} Those are not my words they are the words of Ryrie, Chafer, and Ironside.

    Classic dispensationalism teaches that God has two peoples, a heavenly people the Church, and an earthly people, Israel.

    Classic dispensationalism teaches that the temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifice resumed during the Jewish millennium.

    Thankfully the Progressive Dispensational movement realizes the error in Classic Dispensationalism and is moving away from it to the more Biblical Covenant Premillennialism, just as Classic Dispensationalism disavows hyper dispensationalism.

    Need I say more!
     
    #63 OldRegular, Aug 11, 2014
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Yes, You can admit you don't know what you are taling about.
    I am a dispensationalist according to what the Bible teaches. I have told you that--not according to man's teaching--not according to Ice, Darby, etc. You can divide up dispensationalism into various groupings all you like. That doesn't mean I follow them.

    I will say again: Not all dispensationalists are pre-trib. Many of them are on this board.
    I doubt if any of the dispensationalists have picked up those books and have said to themselves: "This is the one I am going to follow." Foolishness! You are naive if you think that. You might do that with Calvin, but not with dispensations.

    You have been given accurate definitions of what a dispensation is.
    You should know what a dispensation is by now. It has nothing to do with where the tribulation is placed, a "parenthisis" church, "animal sacrifice" being resumed, etc. You assume far too much.
    The early church taught dispensationalism. That is what Chiliasim is--a belief in the Millennial Kingdom and its consequent dispensations. Accept it.
    Ice, Ryrie, Darby, et. al. do not have a stranglehold on dispensations. They never did.
     
    #64 DHK, Aug 11, 2014
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    That is what is known as an oxymoron!
     
    #65 OldRegular, Aug 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2014
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No, it is Biblical. I have explained it to you. You are confounded because you can't put me into one of the boxes of your beloved books. Too bad! I stick to the Bible and not your books. You will have to do better. Your comment reflects that you have no biblical refutation.
     
    #66 DHK, Aug 11, 2014
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Here is the problem:
    A dispensation may be defined as “a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.” (Ryrie)
    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

    Eschatology is the doctrine of last things, things to come, and properly deals with the resurrection, the Millennial Kingdom, the Coming of Christ, the Rapture, etc.

    The two are not the same. To relate one to the other is wrong. Simply because one holds a pre-trib, pre-mil view does not make him dispensational nor are all dispensationalists pre-trib and pre-mil. Dispensations and the doctrine of last things need not be intertwined with each other. Sometimes they are, but not always.
     
    #67 DHK, Aug 11, 2014
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    You claim you stick to the Bible but you cannot get dispensational doctrine from the Bible. No one yet has been able to present a single verse of Scripture that proves a pre-trib removal of the Church. You cannot show me in Scripture of the Old Testament the word dispensation. I can show you the word Covenant and where and when God makes a covenant with mankind. You cannot do that for dispensations, neither can you show me as Watts and Scofield claim where people are tested differently in so-called dispensations.

    Dispensationalism does not flow normally from the study of Scripture, rather it must be taught! Classic Dispensationalism in the system invented by John Nelson Darby and popularized in this country by the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 1900's!
     
    #68 OldRegular, Aug 11, 2014
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The entire Bible is divided into periods of times. The word "dispensation" is found a number of times. Look to my most recent post and you will find a clear definition of dispensation.
    The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. Do you believe in the trinity?
    And herein is your problem as I just pointed out. Are we discussing dispensationalism or eschatology. They are mutually exclusive or can be. There is no eschatological term found in the definition of "dispensationalism." You are reading more into it than there is.
    You can't show me one verse in all the Bible where the word "trinity" is used. Your argument is invalid.
    Yes, I can. So can others, and others have. But you won't believe even as you haven't believed others.
    Dispensationalism has been taught from the ECF onward. It was called Chiliasm. Your hatred of it is in your denial thereof.
     
    #69 DHK, Aug 11, 2014
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    The word dispensation is not in the Old Testament yet some dispensationalists declare there are five or more dispensations in the Old Testament. If the word is there then please provide book, chapter, and verse!

    Do you believe in the Trinity?

    I have no problem. God deals with mankind through covenants. That is a very clear teaching of Scripture. Why use a manmade substitute. That is your problem.

    The limit of most peoples knowledge of dispensationalism is the "pre-trib Rapture". That is why everyone gets all torqued up when the "parenthesis" Church or the "Intercalation" Church is mentioned. And I did not invent those terms, dispensationalists such as Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside did!

    Read Revelation 4&5. You will find the God the Father, God the Son, and God theHoly Spirit!

    Then do so!

    Patently false!
    That is patently false and you know it. Chiliasm is not dispensationalism it is covenant premillennialism.

    You are good at pejoratives but not in understanding of God's Word!
     
    #70 OldRegular, Aug 12, 2014
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Which is dispensationalism.
    Note one dispensation--the millennium.
    Note the differentiation from another PRE-millennialism.
    That is what dispensationalism is all about.

    I am not talking about eschatology here, but rather dispensations. Keep to the subject.
     
    #71 DHK, Aug 12, 2014
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    You are grasping at straws DHK, going down for the last time.

    1. Chiliasm believed in a Christian millennium, not a Jewish millennium with its temple and renewal of blood offerings.

    2. Chiliasm, or covenant premillennialism, did not invent a 'parenthesis" Church, as Classic Dispensationalism has. Louis Sperry Chafer, founder and first president of the Dallas Theological Seminar wrote about Dispensationalism as follow [Dispensationalism, page 107]

    Chafer obviously has nothing but contempt for the "partial" dispensationalist. I suppose at this time Progressive Dispensationalism would fall under that mantle. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]:
    So you see DHK Chiliasm is not dispensationalism. I would also note once again what Watts said showing that he also is not a dispensationalist because he did not believe in a "parenthesis" Church. And none of the ECF's did either!

    Continued in following post.
     
    #72 OldRegular, Aug 12, 2014
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Continued from previous post.

    Then you should stick with the OP, DHK! I reposted it in #37 as a reminder!

    That being said Eschatology cannot be separated from Dispensationalism. Walvoord, preeminent classic dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Seminary, has said the following regarding the Church and the pre-trib Rapture. Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

    I have posted the above in the OP and in the repost #37 but repetition is a well recognized method of teaching.

    So DHK are you a classic dispensationalists who believes in a "parenthesis" Church or are you only a partial dispensationalist which Chafer contemptuously dismisses as:
     
    #73 OldRegular, Aug 12, 2014
  14. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    When did I ever admit to believing in a parenthisis church. Prove that I do. If not, shut up about it.

    Here is what dispensationaism is:
    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
    --nothing more; nothing less. Quit adding to it
    I don't care what Chafer says.
    According to the standard definition of Dispensationalism:

    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

    Chiliasm is dispensationalism. Live with it
     
    #74 DHK, Aug 12, 2014
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    1. Yoir thread is off base because it is supposed to be on the resurrection of the dead.
    2. Yoiur quotations of the above are totally irrelevant.

    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

    As long as you depart from this basic definition of dispensationalism I will assume you don't know what you are talking about.
     
    #75 DHK, Aug 12, 2014
  16. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Your complaint was:
    The resurrection does have something to do with eschatology does it not? You are beginning to look like a spoiled brat DHK. You can't debate the issues so you make silly remarks.


    It is obvious that you know nothing. I have quoted those who are the fathers of dispensational doctrine and you either plead ignorance or make asinine comments. I repeat what Chafer said constitutes a dispensationalist and Ryrie's concurrence.

    It is a mystery to me why anyone would want to claim to be a dispensationalist when they do not know what constitutes dispensationalism. But perhaps, DHK, you are one of those "partial dispensationalists" that Chafer contemptuously dismissed as:
     
    #76 OldRegular, Aug 12, 2014
  17. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Yes, indeed it does. But you don't want to keep it there. You keep derailing the thread to dispensationalism.
    Here is your OP:
    It was supposed to have been on the resurrection, what the Baptists have generally believed throughout history. It didn't have to be on dispensations, but you drew it in that direction.
    I don't care who you quote.
    What are you talking about: the resurrection (eschatology), or dispensations?

    "A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies." (Enns).
    --If you can't agree to something as basic and simple as this then there is no use in going any further.
    I am a Bibical dispensationalist. I get my doctrine from the Bible, not from men. I haven't read the books you have read, nor do I care to. So you can't peg me into one of those corners.
    I tell you again:

    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

    That is all it is.
    If you want to discuss the resurrection in reference to some of those dispensations that is fine. There is no need to compare my beliefs to those scholars you cited. That is just a red herrig and causes confusion.

    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

    Until you come to an agreement that the above is what a dispensation is, we will get nowhere.
     
    #77 DHK, Aug 12, 2014
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I have shown you repeatedly where Classic Dispensationalism believes that the Church is a "parenthesis" {Ryrie, Ironside} or an "Intercalation" {Chafer} in God's program for Israel. If you don't like it that is too bad! Bail out!

    I don't try to define dispensationalism I go to the source beginning with Darby, continuing with Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Enns, etc.

    Then there are the remarks of Enns praising the dispensationalism of Ryrie:
    I assume Ryrie's point #1 above is the basis for dispensational defining a "parenthesis" Church by Ryrie and "intercalation" Church by Chafer! Of course that doctrine is invented out of "whole cloth" but????? So you see DHK you really must expand your field of knowledge.


    When a Covenant premillennialist on this Board admits they are a dispensationalist then the above remark won't look quite as silly!
     
    #78 OldRegular, Aug 12, 2014
  19. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I have never admitted to a "parenthesis" church. Why do you keep throwing that at me?
    I have never admitted to "Classic Dispensationalism," or any other kind of dispensationalism." So all of this is just false accusations on your part. You do this because you can't debate the issue.
    They aren't the source. The Bible is the source. But with the Bible we need some basic definitions of words.
    This is a BASIC definition. I previously gave you the same definition in my own words. You rejected it with sarcasm. Now I give it to with someone else who may have a bit more authority:

    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

    It is a simple basic defintion that one can work with. That is all that is needed.
    Not needed; irrelevant.
    Your assumption that I believe in a parenthesis church is wrong.
    I have never looked up "intercalation" in the dictionary and still don't know its proper meaning, and don't really care.
    It doesn't matter to me what these men say; it is irrelevant.

    A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
    --That is what is important--a simple working definiton of dispensation.
    I have no idea what you are talking about. MacArthur is a dispensationalist. Do you have a problem with that?
     
    #79 DHK, Aug 12, 2014
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    So after all the stuff you have been shouting at me in defense of Darby's epiphany and subsequently a systematic doctrine of dispensationalism you won't 'fess up that you are a dispensationalist. It was clear you did not know much about dispensationalism but that is normal. The knowledge of most who claim to be dispensationalists doesn't extend beyond "Rapture Ready"!:laugh::wavey::laugh::wavey:
     
    #80 OldRegular, Aug 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2014
Page 4 of 7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...