• 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!

Dispensationalism Defined, Discussed, Debated

Sapper Woody

Sapper Woody

Well-Known Member
"Always avoid annoying alliteration." That was one of my grammar rules. But it popped into my head, and I decided to make it the title of the thread.

I make no apologies for being pre-trib, pre-mil. But that is always associated with dispensationalist theology, and I wasn't sure where I stood on it, because I honestly don't know much about it. It is brought up by a poster here in a negative fashion, always associated with the parenthetical church idea.

Well, I don't believe in the parenthetical church (defined as the current church is just a parenthesis between God's working with Israel - feel free to help define this as well as the current subject), and I assumed that if it was associated with dispensationalist theology then I wasn't a dispensationalist, either.

So I started studying.

Turns out, they aren't correlated at all. You can be one and not the other. It's like saying "I don't like apples, and there's a such thing as apple pie. So I don't like pie."

So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it. Or right with it. It's basically an object lesson to show the different ways in which God has interacted with man throughout History. It's not a doctrine, or even a standard. It's an observation. Even the most hardcore antidispensationalist would have to agree that there are at least two dispensations; law and grace.

It's a non-issue to me. Believe it or not. In fact, it's not even something to believe or not. It's kind of like arguing the trinity, and getting mad when someone uses a different way of explaining it (which has happened here on the board).

Feel free to disagree, and by all means discuss it. While the parenthetical church was brought up in my OP, I'd appreciate it if it was only brought up for further clarification or identification of a correlation, rather than as a discussion on it's own merit. I'd like to keep the thread more focused on dispensationalist theology.
 
beameup

beameup

Member
It's really irrelevant what people want to "think". God's plan for Israel, as a Nation, is well explained in Romans ch. 9,10,11.
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Rom 10:3 Israel, as a Nation, doesn't understand the righteousness of God... for now.
There will be a time when "all Israel will be saved". This salvation of the Nation is necessary for them to serve Messiah, on the earth, from Jerusalem.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
The Body of Christ has no part in this. This is the "time of Jacob's trouble". This Tribulation is for the purification of the Nation of Israel.

God's Plan for Israel... "in a nutshell"
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (irrevocable).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sapper Woody said:
"Always avoid annoying alliteration." That was one of my grammar rules. But it popped into my head, and I decided to make it the title of the thread.

I make no apologies for being pre-trib, pre-mil. But that is always associated with dispensationalist theology, and I wasn't sure where I stood on it, because I honestly don't know much about it. It is brought up by a poster here in a negative fashion, always associated with the parenthetical church idea.

Well, I don't believe in the parenthetical church (defined as the current church is just a parenthesis between God's working with Israel - feel free to help define this as well as the current subject), and I assumed that if it was associated with dispensationalist theology then I wasn't a dispensationalist, either.

So I started studying.

Turns out, they aren't correlated at all. You can be one and not the other. It's like saying "I don't like apples, and there's a such thing as apple pie. So I don't like pie."

So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it. Or right with it. It's basically an object lesson to show the different ways in which God has interacted with man throughout History. It's not a doctrine, or even a standard. It's an observation. Even the most hardcore antidispensationalist would have to agree that there are at least two dispensations; law and grace.

It's a non-issue to me. Believe it or not. In fact, it's not even something to believe or not. It's kind of like arguing the trinity, and getting mad when someone uses a different way of explaining it (which has happened here on the board).

Feel free to disagree, and by all means discuss it. While the parenthetical church was brought up in my OP, I'd appreciate it if it was only brought up for further clarification or identification of a correlation, rather than as a discussion on it's own merit. I'd like to keep the thread more focused on dispensationalist theology.
Click to expand...

Excellent statement.


God bless.
 
D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
kyredneck said:
Originally Posted by Sapper Woody
...So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it....
Click to expand...

The 800 lb gorilla in the room that you are ignoring.

Christian Zionism
Click to expand...

Why take his statement out of context?


So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it. Or right with it. It's basically an object lesson to show the different ways in which God has interacted with man throughout History. It's not a doctrine, or even a standard. It's an observation. Even the most hardcore antidispensationalist would have to agree that there are at least two dispensations; law and grace.
Click to expand...


Speaking of unnoticed gorillas, I have to disagree with one thing in the OP:


Even the most hardcore antidispensationalist would have to agree that there are at least two dispensations; law and grace.
Click to expand...


In point of fact it was very clear that at least one member would not admit to two dispensations. And not one of the fellows of this member would step forward and help this member understand that denying the distinction between Law and Grace, Covenant of Law and New Covenant...is error.

Why? Because they have more focus on being derisive towards people of faith than they do on Biblical Truth.

So when did that wall come tumbling down?

Who is ignoring what, and which is more important?


God bless.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Darrell C said:
Why take his statement out of context?
Click to expand...

It's precisely within context. There's a WHOLE LOT wrong with Dispensationalism from the aspect alone of what it has morphed into. It's no longer a benign harmless eschatology but a theo-political system that carries grave consequences for the entire world.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Another sickening, disgusting aspect of it is the utter shallowness of the 'adrenaline rush Sensationalism' of it all. Spoiled, soft, sheltered Christian Zionists over here unconditionally support Israel politically, religiously, financially while taking their ease at home and gleefully indulging in the excitement of living in the last days and watching the great tribulation materialize before their eyes, like sitting on the couch and watching a really good thriller or playing a video game in their living rooms, totally oblivious to the human misery being directly caused by U.S. interventionism, funding, and support. As long as all this 'last days' stuff goes on 'over there', they're just snug as a bug in a rug with their heresy. But's it's eventually going to 'come home and roost'. This incredible debt load we've left our children with is going to bring it home in a very real way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
kyredneck said:
It's precisely within context. There's a WHOLE LOT wrong with Dispensationalism from the aspect alone of what it has morphed into. It's no longer a benign harmless eschatology but a theo-political system that carries grave consequences for the entire world.
Click to expand...

You describe precisely...the same thing seen in the constant barrage of attack on Dispensationalists.

And I gave the context of his statement:


So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it. Or right with it. It's basically an object lesson to show the different ways in which God has interacted with man throughout History. It's not a doctrine, or even a standard. It's an observation. Even the most hardcore antidispensationalist would have to agree that there are at least two dispensations; law and grace.
Click to expand...


It is a neutral position, unlike yours:



kyredneck said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper Woody
...So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it....
Click to expand...

The 800 lb gorilla in the room that you are ignoring.

Christian Zionism
Click to expand...


What exactly did he ignore?

He makes an excellent observation that neither you nor anyone can show tobe erroneous.

You present his statement by itself and change the context to one which is supportive of the view that you enjoy ridiculing. Then say he is ignoring something.

So what is the word we use when someone charges someone else with something, vilifies them...then does that very thing themselves?

And what usually happens, is the OP is forgotten, and then comes along a cheerleader and the result...?

Contention among the brethren.

How should we view that kind of thing?


God bless.
 
R

revmwc

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
It's precisely within context. There's a WHOLE LOT wrong with Dispensationalism from the aspect alone of what it has morphed into. It's no longer a benign harmless eschatology but a theo-political system that carries grave consequences for the entire world.
Click to expand...

Paul definitely taught dispensations does he too fall under your disdain too?

Ephesians 1:21 from the imterlinear, that is straight from Greek to English,

21 OVER-UP OF-EVERY ORIGINal sovereignty AND authority AND ABILITY power AND masterdom AND EVERY NAME beING-NAMED NOT ONLY IN THE eon this but AND also IN THE beING-ABOUT one-impending

Notice the word Eon = alternative spelling of aeon, an indefinite long period of time. That would be in this EON and the EON to come. More to show the dispensations that Paul taught. Thus from the straight Greek to English we see that God deals with mankind through EON's, long periods of time followed by another. That would be what we call a dispenstaion wouldn't it?

The KJV,

21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
 
D

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
kyredneck said:
Another sickening, disgusting aspect of it is the utter shallowness of the 'adrenaline rush Sensationalism' of it all. Spoiled, soft, sheltered Christian Zionists over here unconditionally support Israel politically, religiously, financially while taking their ease at home and gleefully indulging in the excitement of living in the last days and watching the great tribulation materialize before their eyes, like sitting on the couch and watching a really good thriller or playing a video game in their living rooms, totally oblivious to the human misery being directly caused by U.S. funding and support. As long as all this 'last days' stuff goes on 'over there', they're just snug as a bug in a rug with their heresy. But's it's eventually going to 'come home and roost'. This incredible debt load we've left our children with is going to bring it home in a very real way.
Click to expand...

But the abundance of your heart inspires warm fuzzy thoughts, right?


God bless.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There's no way to present the reality of it in a 'warm and fuzzy' context. It doesn't take a genius to see that there is someday coming a reckoning for our abandoning sound judgment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
revmwc said:
Paul definitely taught dispensations does he too fall under your disdain too?
Click to expand...

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

Paul did not teach your 'Dispensationalism'. He in fact vehemently warned us against it.
 
R

revmwc

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

Paul did not teach your 'Dispensationalism'. He in fact vehemently warned us against it.
Click to expand...

Where did He warn against? Verses He spoke the dispensation of Grace. He talked about us being in the current eon "long period of time" and that another eon was to come. That is what dispensationalist teach. It was shown in the verse that I posted.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
revmwc said:
.... He talked about us being in the current eon "long period of time" and that another eon was to come.....
Click to expand...

...and there it is, the 'parenthesis Church' that you all mock OR for correctly pointing out.

Briefly, concisely, without lobbing your gobs of c & p, where zactly did Paul say that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top