Featured Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

Clearly you don't pay attention!
I have not once defended Darby. In fact I have distanced myself from him. That is why I quoted to you Isaac Watts. Dispensationalism started well before Darby. I have told you time and again I have never read any of Darby's books. Why would you associate me with him?

I have also reiterated many times that, yes, I am a dispensationalist. But I have never, never, categorized myself into a specific kind of dispensationalist such as you want me to.
You are like the Calvinist who must label all non-covenantalists as dispensationalists after their groupings. The Calvinist typically labels all non-Cals as Arminians. You have the same mind set. You want to put me in a box of your liking where I don't fit. I follow the Bible, not man's teaching.

You really don't know what I believe because you are too busy quoting the beliefs of others to find out what I believe.

Let's get some things straight.
One doesn't have to intertwine and confuse different threads of doctrine.

There is the doctrine of last things called eschatology. That has nothing to do with dispensationalism. It is separate.
Then there is dispensationalism.
Then there is the doctrine of the resurrection entirely apart from the above two, although it has some relevance to the doctrine of eschatology, in that our resurrection is still to happen.

These are separate doctrines.

My wife used to be Presbyterian before she married me.
She was pre-trib and pre-mil, but not dispensational.

There are those on this board that are dispensational but not pre-trib.
Some are mid-trib and some are post-trib.

Chiliasm is Millennialism, and many of them believed in a rapture.
They were dispensational in their thinking. That cannot be denied.
Search it out. This has already been demonstrated to you. You simply flat reject it. It is a denial of truth.
Links to this evidence have been posted before.

Remember:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
--With respect to all your learned sources, that is all a dispensation is.
Work with it.

 

One can lead a horse to water but he can't make him drink.

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

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.scribd.com/doc/11248105/The-Real-History-of-Dispensationalism[/FONT]

That is a history of dispensationalism as we know it. If you are honest you will accept it.

Remember:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
You need to accept this whether or not it agrees with your theology.
--You can mix into dispensationalism ccovenantalism, the rapture, two different resurrections or one general resurrection, or anything you want.
That doesn't change the fact that it is still dispensationalism.
--A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

 

And that supports dispensationalism how?

Just give it up DHK. If this was a boxing match, you'd have been KO about 4 pages ago.

 

One can't discuss anything without a common definition:

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

Until OR is willing to accept that the entire discussion is all in vain. I challengened him weeks ago: Did God deal with Adam (speak to Adam) in the same way that God now speaks to you? He dodged the question and wouldn't answer. He knew where it would lead.

The fact is that we must recognize that God deals differently with people in differeent ages. That is dispensationalism stripped down to its basic core.

That is what Scofield believed; Isaac Watts believed and even many of the ECF believed. That is what dispensationalism is, nothing more, nothing less.
As long as OR won't accept common definitons any debate is useless.

It is like denying the commnon defnition of the trinity, the virgin birth, the depravity of man. One cannot have a discussion on these topics unless one first agrees on a common definition. OR doesn't.

 

That is not the common definition of dispensationalism and you know it. It is inaccurate at best to say that.

Nor does this response answer how Irenaeus' quote supports dispensationalism.

 

Watts is a Dispensationalist. Who said anything about "Classic"?
We don't have to adhere to your terminology, or the kind of dispensationalism that you define.
Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).

As long as Watts fits into that defnition he is a dispensationalist. And he certainly does.
You lose.

What does Watts believe:
Again:
A dispensationalist is simply one who recognizes that God deals differently with people in different ages or economies. (Enns).
Perhaps someday you will get it.

You quote selectively, just like you refused to quote a portion from your own link about Watts, where the author said that Watts outline of dispensations was more like Scofields than Darby or anyone else's that preceded Scofield.

You quote selectively, out of context what you want to quote, making the author contradict himself. That is dishonest and deceitful.

You should be ashamed.

 

It is a common definition of diapensationalism. That is all it is.
A dispensation is a period of time. That is all a dispensation is.
God works in different ways through different ages, yet still in grace, through periods of time or dispensations. That basic truth is taught in Heb.1:1,2.

 

No that is a lie. The one guy that you are trying to hammer may have said that, but that is not the common definition of dispensationalism. That is patently false.

Yes God works in different ways or through different means. Everyone agrees to that. That is not all there is to dispensationalism, otherwise we are all dispensationalists. Nonsense. Also, scripture never says that God works through "dispensations" ever. He works through covenants. It is not in scripture.

And you are still ignoring my fundamental question about the Irenaeus quotation.

 

I just pulled a couple quotes from the first page of results when I Googled dispensationalism definition. While yes there is agreement that it means God works in different ways at different times (though that is twisted in the system too), that is by no means the "common definition" and nothing else. That's pure fantasy.

 

We hold that the Lord has superceded.rendered the Old covenant as being null and voided out now by the much superior New Covenant, so no continuation between the two!

rather , One was for national Isreal, but that is now done away with by the new One!

Do you think God replaced isreal with the Church then? or that the Church received all things promised to national isreal?

 

Your sources are a joke.

Dispensationalism is a system of theology that has two primary distinctives. 1) A consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy. 2) A distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.
http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

Although the above is true it ignores the basic definition of dispensationalism. It describes it but not defines it.

2.
Originally Posted by Desiring God
Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives

--Not looking for a summary. There is no definition here.


3. Dispensationalism is a system of prophetic theology.

In short dispensationalists are those who believe in the pre-tribulational rapture of the church.

Dispensationalists emphasis the teaching of prophecy and the imminent, at any moment, return of Christ.
--This is patently false. Many dispensationalists are not pre-trib, and I think you know that.

Your other source is from theopedia, a ultra calvinistic source.
Originally Posted by Theopedia
Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations." It maintains fundamental distinctions between God's plans for national Israel and for the New Testament Church, and emphasizes prophecy of the end-times and a pre-tribulation rapture of the church prior to Christ's Second Coming.
--However, it has it partly right.

Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God's dealings with mankind, which it calls "dispensations."

That is the basic definition that I have given, that Enns has given. The rest is simply an elaboration of how it developed after that: more description.

 

The definition I have given is not false; you just don't accept it.

Neither does: trinity, depravity, Christology, and host of other theological terms. I suppose you don't believe in those either.

I see you parrot what someone else has already said.
Everytime you use trinity or depravity you take liberties with Scripture that are not yours to take.

 

Dude. Does your quote button work? This thing's a mess.

Regardless. "Got Questions?" gives a very good definition of dispensationalism. Again, it "is a system of theology" that stresses a literal interpretation of scripture and demands a distinction between Israel and the church. You disagree because it contradicts you. Considering Got Questions is dispensational that speaks volumes.

Same with the Desiring God article.

Since when is Theopedia "ultra-calvinistic"? What does that even mean for that matter? And really, what does it matter? There are dispy Calvinists you know.

You seem to miss a major theme among these sources. That dispensation not only stresses these so called "economies/administrations" of time, but also a fundamental distinction between Israel and the church.

Also, saying the idea that a system of different administrations or economies is the same as the general idea that God simply uses different means through time is laughable.

 

did the New Covenant supercede the old one, or was it merely a continuation of it?