Dispensationalism - yea or nay.

[TCassidy]

What is the difference between Classic Dispensationalism and Revised Dispensationalism? because I honestly don't know which of those two I even fall into.

John of Japan would be the person to ask. He teaches the subject at the college he is part of.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't think that Scofield/Darby are wrong until they advocate the pre-tribulation rapture. The Blessed Hope is that Jesus will rescue us from the false prophet, the beast, and the Anti-Christ and bring to an end the great tribulation. The second advent, taught historically.

 

[HankD]

I don't think that Scofield/Darby are wrong until they advocate the pre-tribulation rapture. The Blessed Hope is that Jesus will rescue us from the false prophet, the beast, and the Anti-Christ and bring to an end the great tribulation. The second advent, taught historically.

I was pre-trib for many years and in fact I still entertain the thought but I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[church mouse guy]

I was pre-trib for many years and in fact I still entertain the thought but I'm not so sure anymore.

I never was taught it so I never signed on to it. Almost 100 years ago Canadian Pastor Oswald J. Smith wrote a short comment on the question:

htts://www.trumpetsounds.net/library/the-rapture/

 

[John of Japan]

What is the difference between Classic Dispensationalism and Revised Dispensationalism? because I honestly don't know which of those two I even fall into.

This could turn into an essay if I'm not careful, but I'll try to be brief. There is actually not a whole lot of differences between the two.

Classic dispensationalism (Scofield, Chafer, etc.) defined a dispensation as an age, but the revised version (Ryrie, Pentecost, etc.) defines it as "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose" (Dispensationalism, by Ryrie, p. 35). In other words, a dispensation is a task given to mankind by God, a way of running God's household.

There are other detailed differences: the church age as a parenthesis (classical), a "dualistic purpose for redemption" (heaven & earth--Dispensationalism, by Michael J. Vlach, pp. 9-10; classical), etc. By the way the little book by Vlach is short and inexpensive, but an excellent intro to the theology.

More to the point, hyper (ultra) dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism are quite different from the classical/revised model. Hyper believes nothing before Acts is for us, among other things, and progressive is radically different, being a compromise with covenant theology.

Clear as mud?

 

[John of Japan]

I am a dispensationalist. I want to learn about differing views concerning unfulfilled prophecy. While I have found ample material written by dispensationalist about other views, I have found little information written by those who hold to the different views.

For the covenant theology view, I've found Louis Berkhov's Systematic Theology to be helpful on the covenant side. He discusses the covenant of works beginning on p. 230 of the pdf, and the covenant of grace beginning on p. 288. (The hard copy version has different pagination.) You can find a pdf of it here: http://downloads.biblicaltraining.org/Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof.pdf

Important things to watch for: (1) covenant theologians use allegorical interpretation, and (2) they differ on the number (2 or 3?) and nature of the covenants.

 

[loDebar]

John, Which of these teachings do you see as correct?

 

[John of Japan]

John, Which of these teachings do you see as correct?

My theology is revised dispensationalism.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For the covenant theology view, I've found Louis Berkhov's Systematic Theology to be helpful on the covenant side. He discusses the covenant of works beginning on p. 230 of the pdf, and the covenant of grace beginning on p. 288. (The hard copy version has different pagination.) You can find a pdf of it here: http://downloads.biblicaltraining.org/Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof.pdf

Important things to watch for: (1) covenant theologians use allegorical interpretation, and (2) they differ on the number (2 or 3?) and nature of the covenants.

Berkhof was a great teacher, but it's important to remember that he was a Presbyterian and a paedobaptist. As others have pointed out, there are significant differences between Baptist Covenant Theology and its Presby counterpart. As well as the 1689 Federalism site already mentioned, I recommend The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink. It's available somewhere on line.
BTW, JoJ, would you like to give an example of Berkhof's 'allegorical interpretations,' please? I'm interested to know what you regard as being allegorical.

 

[John of Japan]

BTW, JoJ, would you like to give an example of Berkhof's 'allegorical interpretations,' please? I'm interested to know what you regard as being allegorical.

I regard the application of OT prophecies to a nebulous, "invisible" or "universal" church as being allegorical or "spiritual" interpretation. Berkhov does this in "General Eschatology, 1. The Second Coming of Christ" (starting on p. 695 in the print edition). The literal interpretation of prophecies to Israel is a sine qua non of dispensationalism. One cannot be a dispensationalist and deny this. (So I don't consider the progressives to be true dispensationalists.)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I regard the application of OT prophecies to a nebulous, "invisible" or "universal" church as being allegorical or "spiritual" interpretation. Berkhov does this in "General Eschatology, 1. The Second Coming of Christ" (starting on p. 695 in the print edition). The literal interpretation of prophecies to Israel is a sine qua non of dispensationalism. One cannot be a dispensationalist and deny this. (So I don't consider the progressives to be true dispensationalists.)

Thank you, JoJ Personally, whilst I see a universal Church very clearly in the N.T. as well as a spiritual Israel, I don't see either of your examples as being 'allegorical.' I would call seeing the Beast out of the Sea as being anti-Christian Gov't, and the Beast out of the Earth as being false religion as being allegorical (I agree with both of those ).
However, I'm not sure if this is the right thread to tackle these questions. I leave that up to you.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you, JoJ Personally, whilst I see a universal Church very clearly in the N.T. as well as a spiritual Israel, I don't see either of your examples as being 'allegorical.'

The word "Israel" occurs 11 times (twice in one verse) in Romans (all in 9-11), and every single time is clearly the nation Israel. So, I don't see how it can be other than allegorical when not interpreted literally, as the nation Israel, in the NT.

I would call seeing the Beast out of the Sea as being anti-Christian Gov't, and the Beast out of the Earth as being false religion as being allegorical (I agree with both of those ).
However, I'm not sure if this is the right thread to tackle these questions. I leave that up to you.

Yeah, I'm not sure how far we can go in this direction and keep to the OP.

 

[1689Dave]

I came from a Dispensationalist background having only ever been taught that. But what helped me the most was Romans 11. Paul says God removed the unbelievers from Israel. And will reattach any who believe. So, Jesus (Abraham's seed) and believers in him are Israel under the new covenant. And the broken off Jews are not. So in view of this, when Paul says “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20), it nullifies today's state of Israel's claim to the promises. And makes them just another nation of the world.

 

[Revmitchell]

I came from a Dispensationalist background having only ever been taught that. But what helped me the most was Romans 11. Paul says God removed the unbelievers from Israel. And will reattach any who believe. So, Jesus (Abraham's seed) and believers in him are Israel under the new covenant. And the broken off Jews are not. So in view of this, when Paul says “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2 Corinthians 1:20), it nullifies today's state of Israel's claim to the promises. And makes them just another nation of the world.

And that is in regards to who is part of the church. It in no way negates God's promises to be fulfilled to physical Israel in the future. Israel and the church are not the same.

 

[1689Dave]

And that is in regards to who is part of the church. It in no way negates God's promises to be fulfilled to physical Israel in the future. Israel and the church are not the same.

Jesus IS Israel along with those who believe in him. All the promises are Yes in Him. Today's state of Israel is just another secular nation with nothing in common with Biblical Israel except for their borrowed name.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus IS Israel along with those who believe in him. All the promises are Yes in Him. Today's state of Israel is just another secular nation with nothing in common with Biblical Israel except for their borrowed name.

Uh no His promises toward Israel are eternal

 

[1689Dave]

Uh no His promises toward Israel are eternal

This is true. But Israel IS Jesus and all related to him by faith. The church = the congregation of the Lord in the OT. Used over 300 times. Under the New Covenant, God removed all of the unbelievers from the congregation, leaving only believers in Christ (YHWH). In Romans 11, God will reunite any broken off from Israel through faith in Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is true. But Israel IS Jesus and all related to him by faith. The church = the congregation of the Lord in the OT. Used over 300 times. Under the New Covenant, God removed all of the unbelievers from the congregation, leaving only believers in Christ (YHWH). In Romans 11, God will reunite any broken off from Israel through faith in Christ.

No Israel is Israel. Jesus is Jesus. Calling Jesus Israel is heresy not just a secondary issue. I suggest you be very careful on this board with such heresy. If you want to stick around that is.

 

[1689Dave]

No Israel is Israel. Jesus is Jesus. Calling Jesus Israel is heresy not just a secondary issue. I suggest you be very careful on this board with such heresy. If you want to stick around that is.

Jesus is Israel “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1) compare to; “And (Jesus) was there (in Egypt) until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The word "Israel" occurs 11 times (twice in one verse) in Romans (all in 9-11), and every single time is clearly the nation Israel. So, I don't see how it can be other than allegorical when not interpreted literally, as the nation Israel, in the NT.

Well I'm sure you won't be too shocked to discover that I don't believe that all those references to Israel are referring to the nation of Israel. If we take the very one you mentioned: 'For they are not all Israel who are of Israel' (Romans 9:8), we can see that not everyone who is a physical descendant of Israel (aka. Jacob) is an Israelite. This is in line with Romans 2:28-29 and Philippians 3:3.

As it is written, 'I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal......' (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4). Only a remnant of Physical Israel will be saved, and that by grace (Romans 9:15) through faith (Romans 11:5). The rest are not of Israel QED.

Yet, 'And so all Israel will be saved' (Romans 11:11:26). 'All Israel' is the believing Jews plus the believing Gentiles. The 'middle wall of separation' has been broken down, 'that He [Christ] might reconcile them both [Jew and Gentile] to God in one body through the cross.......'(Ephesians 2:14-16). There is now only one people of God, and that's not 'replacement theology,' it's Inclusion Theology! 'For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call on Him. For "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"' (Romans 10:12-13; Joel 2:32).

If that's allegory then I'll be an allegorizer and proud of it!

Yeah, I'm not sure how far we can go in this direction and keep to the OP.

Fair enough. Perhaps we can look at Revelation 13 on another thread.

May I add that it's always a pleasure to discuss with you, John, however sharp our disagreements. You take the Scriptures seriously and that counts for a lot with me. I'm always happy to defer to your knowledge of the Biblical languages, though not always your interpretation of those languages.