Dispensationalism

[Charlie24]

Ok, if that's what you choose to believe. I'll not bother you anymore.

Let me throw in this thought before I leave you alone, lol.

The OT saints were saved the same way we are through the Blood of Christ.

Rom. 3:24-25

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

 

[Charlie24]

Let me throw in this thought before I leave you alone, lol.

The OT saints were saved the same way we are through the Blood of Christ.

Rom. 3:24-25

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Surly you can understand that the blood of the animals meant nothing in and of themselves.

It's what that animal blood represented to the OT saints, which was the Blood of the coming Redeemer for the Atonement of sins.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Ok, if that's what you choose to believe. I'll not bother you anymore.

And you are espousing a saving faith that is not in Christ, but the blood of animals. This is why I loathe dispensationalism so much. It fractures much of God's holy writ.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Surly you can understand that the blood of the animals meant nothing in and of themselves.

It's what that animal blood represented to the OT saints, which was the Blood of the coming Redeemer for the Atonement of sins.

But faith in that blood, that blood that never atoned one sin, is fruitless my friend. It could never atone for sin.

 

[Marooncat79]

Ok, if that's what you choose to believe. I'll not bother you anymore.

Hebrews 11. They were saved by faith

 

[Marooncat79]

Ok, if that's what you choose to believe. I'll not bother you anymore.

Job said. I know that my redeemer lives and that in my flesh I shall see God

 

[Ben1445]

I don't believe He has cast them away, either. But I don't believe they are the center of history. I believe the church is that, not a mere parenthesis in history.

You are ignoring what “His people” is defined as in the text.

 

[Ben1445]

So, you say that those who reject dispensationalism are ignorant unbelievers. Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Gospel.

It’s comments like this that have people questioning you about salvation. You’ve just said that you can be dispensationalist and be saved but now it is a perversion of the gospel.
A little less keyboard warrior and a bit more consistency would be helpful to the conversation.

 

[Ben1445]

Let me line it all up for you.

I think you can be saved, nowhere did I say otherwise.

So, you say that those who reject dispensationalism are ignorant unbelievers. Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Gospel.

 

[Ben1445]

The Baptists that i am aware of from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were covenantal.

One of the earliest Dispys that I can remember was Pink and he recanted

I think Paul gets the “earliest” title.

 

[John of Japan]

What I don't believe is that Israel is the real focus of God, and the church just a parenthesis to be taken out of here so God can deal with Israel. I don't believe God would approve of the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, and I don't believe there are two paths to salvation, one for Gentiles and another for the Jews.

You have just named several myths about dispensationalism. So your hatred for us dispensationalists does not have factual basis. You are just being nasty. I teach a college class in Dispensational Theology, so I know the facts.

1. Israel is not the "real focus of God." That "real focus" is His glory and the glory of His Son, Christ Jesus. Dispensationalism has a doxological basis. Israel was only God's instrument to bring the Messiah into the world. You need to study Heilsgeschichte, "salvation history." Having said that, since God made promises to Israel in the covenants, He will keep His word.

As far as the church being "just a parenthesis," you have missed the point altogether. The church is the Bride of Christ, and there can be no greater human glory.

2. The "reinstitution of animal sacrifice" is not a dispensational doctrine. Read the major works on the theology, such as Ryrie's Dispensationalism. Some dispensationalists think that will happen, but others do not. (Have you actually read a single book on the theology, or is it "Got my information off the Internet, and we all know it is never wrong."

3. Dispensationalism does not teach that "there are two paths to salvation, one for Gentiles and another for the Jews." This myth came about because of a poor phraseology in just one place in the Scofield Reference Bible. Darby did not teach that, nor has any dispensationalist since Scofield.

If you are honest, you will either find quotes from true dispensationalists to back up your attacks, or you will apologize.

 

[John of Japan]

I think you can be saved, nowhere did I say otherwise.

Are you kidding me? You accused dispensationalists of a "denial of the work of Christ." What in the world do you think the "work of Christ" is in this context, other than salvation? If I "deny the work of Christ," I'm eternally lost.

 

[John of Japan]

So, you say that those who reject dispensationalism are ignorant unbelievers. Dispensationalism is a perversion of the Gospel.

Yes, this is the second time you've said that. If you believe it is a perversion of the Gospel, then dispensationalists cannot be saved.

So, what is the Gospel? Do you believe it is something other than what Paul taught in 1 Cor. 15:1-8? Because that is the Gospel that I believe as a dispensationalist. And again, if we do not teach the true Gospel, then Paul said we are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). So if dispensationalism teaches a false Gospel, as you maintain, then we dispensationalists are lost and cursed and on our way to Hell. Which is it?

 

[John of Japan]

The Baptists that i am aware of from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were covenantal.

One of the earliest Dispys that I can remember was Pink and he recanted

You shouldn't trust anything by Pink, least of all his theology. He was arrogant, and didn't think anyone could teach him anything. If you must be a Calvinist, be a Spurgeon type Calvinist, not a follower of Pink. Besides that, I've read his little book on dispensationalism, and it is badly flawed. If you want to criticize the theology, fine, but don't get your information from Pink. He didn't even know the difference between Scofield and Bullinger (the hyper dispensationalist).

I posted this elsewhere on the BB:

From Richard P. Belcher, Arthur W. Pink—Born to Write (Richberry Press, 2013)​

• As a young man, he enrolled in Moody Bible Institute for summer school, but dropped out without even finishing that class. “Perhaps it was his strong individualistic spirit that made it difficult for him to submit to any human authority” (p. 25).
• “He came to the conviction that God is the primary teacher and that man really needs no one else to teach him” (p. 28).
• “He wrestled with God’s will for his life, and…faced recurring depths of despair and a nervous breakdown” (p. 41).
• He pastored for two years, then quit the church (p. 44).
• In 1919 he suffered from deep depression. He tried to go to the church to preach but could not even make it out of bed (p. 49).
• “He was not a sociable person. He did not seem to enjoy being with and fellowshipping with people” (p. 58).
• He split a church in Australia over his view of predestination (p. 78).
• He and his wife moved to England, and on a ship with 500 people he couldn’t find any Christians he could fellowship with, and evidently did not win anyone to Christ (p. 86).
• “Doors remained shut and he was more convinced than ever that apostasy and darkness had surely settled over Christendom” (p. 96).
• He was “admonishing people to withdraw from their local churches” (p. 111).
• “Twice in 1938 he informed readers that he would not receive visitors who called at his home” (p. 112).
• Living in England at the end of his life, he showed little love for the lost or saved, refusing to go to any church for the last 14 years of his life (Cf. pp. 111-112).

 

[Charlie24]

Job said. I know that my redeemer lives and that in my flesh I shall see God

And Job also sacrificed animals to God, shedding the blood of the animals that represented Christ for his sons and daughters in case they had sinned.

Before the Law the man of the household was considered the priest of the family. He offered up sacrifices to bless the family.

But the sacrifices did nothing for the members who did not have faith in what that blood sacrifice was in the coming Redeemer.

It's believed by His 10 children dying in Job's great testing that was the case, they did not believe in the Blood of the Lamb.

 

[Charlie24]

And you are espousing a saving faith that is not in Christ, but the blood of animals. This is why I loathe dispensationalism so much. It fractures much of God's holy writ.

You can loathe Dispensationalism all you want, ok with me.

But I will tell you upfront you do not understand the details that prove it's worth.

 

[John of Japan]

When people "loathe dispensationalism," it is usually through ignorance of the theology, something I've seen multiple times on this thread. I've not seen a single opponent of Dispensationalism on this thread that understood the theology. You who oppose it have so far not written a single thing that is important in dispensationalism, but a bunch of very peripheral interpretations.

When educated people like John Gerstner (A Primer on Dispensationalism, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth) hate the theology, it is through opposition to grammatical historical interpretation.

 

[John of Japan]

P. S. I have to say, though, that Gerstner is nasty about his opposition, just like the ignoramuses on this thread! This seems to be a symptom of some kind of, shall we call it, Dispensational Derangement Syndrome, (DDS).

 

[Charlie24]

P. S. I have to say, though, that Gerstner is nasty about his opposition, just like the ignoramuses on this thread! This seems to be a symptom of some kind of, shall we call it, Dispensational Derangement Syndrome, (DDS).

It's not just this topic, it's everything. It's a head-on battle with the Reformed with any and everything.

It just puts me in an unnecessary spiritual stress and I don't need that in my condition. I've just had enough of it, I'm out of here.

 

[JesusFan]

I'd love for easternstar to stand up and be counted as to why he/she is so nasty against dispensationalists. Apparently he doesn't think we can be saved. Then there are kyredneck and SovereignGrace who who gave him thumbs, up apparently agreeing that we cannot be saved since we are dispensationalists. Stand up and be an adult. All three of you, tell me howI have denied the true gospel and the work of Christ by being a dispensationalist.

Any who were saved by the grace of God are my sister/brother in Christ, buit would say that there are some pretty significant differences in some theological areas