37818
Well-Known Member
.
I don't believe God's church replaces God's Israel. Revelation 21:12-14
-
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!
Questions for dispensationalists
- Thread starter easternstar
- Start date
I totally agree. But then that's not standard dispensationalism; it's an outlier.
37818
Well-Known Member
So then Biblical dispensationalism is an outlier?
How do you get that out of what I wrote? I am a full-blown dispensationalist, and teach a class on "Dispensational Theology." What is an outlier is the belief that the 7 churches represent 7 periods of church history. In other words, one can be a dispensationalist without believing that.
Why?
I know this is addressed to AA, but for me, it's not exegesis. It adds to the text. In other words, there is absolutely nothing in Rev. 2-3 that leads one to believe that those are anything but 7 local churches.
I'm also a dispensationalist, and was taught about the 7 periods back in the 1980s. Now I consider that teaching to be "retrofitting" - seems almost to fit but, as you note, it's adding to scripture.
Armchair Apologist
New Member
Interersting and thanks for sharing!
Seems like they are oversimplifying things with the "three dispensations" and if such is the case, I agree that it hardly represents traditional dispensationalism. I can see 'divisions' in the scripture (example - no governmental authority or capital punishment for murder in the ante-diluvian period, immediately instituted after the flood (Gen 9:6), sacrifies made by Patriarchs, later restricted to the Levitical priesthood in the tabernacle, etc.) and I would even acknowledge the "seven dispensations" but I do see everything as being linear and in line with progressive revelation. I reject the rigid "different people - different destinies" mindset of classical dispensation but I do see the Church and Israel as being separate institutions. I see "One People" at the culmination of Revelation (21:3) and I believe that Paul makes this clear in his writings.
I guess I could bore you with the dispensationalism paper that I wrote and it would be interesting to receive your input. The seminary I attended is dispensational (DTS "light" perhaps) and I did receive an "A" on the paper. While critical of dispensationalism, I do not dismiss it altogether. I wouldn't try to reconcile dispensationalism and covenant theology - both are based upon man's understanding of the scriptures and each raises valid points and each falls off the rails at times.
Armchair Apologist
New Member
I disagree as well. This is a matter of taking a perceived "typology" too far and turning it into something that is dogmatic. There are a few "Whiteboard Scholars" on YouTube that really go to town with this and come up with all sorts of outlandish notions!
With all that said, I cannot unsee all the similarities of the modern church of today and what is written about the church of Laodicea!
Armchair Apologist
New Member
Neither do most Covenant Theologians. RC Sproul (for example) goes to great lengths explaining that we (Gentiles) are "graffed in" to the olive tree and are therefore included in the promise. Israel is still there, not replaced.
Armchair Apologist
New Member
I was taught this as well. While there are some "parallells" that seem to "fit," you are still reading into the text (eisegesis). They also make the case for a Pretribulation Rapture with the "voice of a trumpet" and "come up hither" in Rev 4:1 with the Church no longer mentioned until the "marriage supper" in heaven. Preachers are adamant and foaming at the mouth behind their pulpits desperately holding onto this as their "proof text" for the pretribulation rapture of the Church!
Thanks John of Japan, Just asking a question why the poster has this opinion. I have thought quite a bit about this passage and know that the Revelation is a "prophecy." Still, I am not fully settled in my mind.
Here is one of my comparisons. These 7 churches compared to the 7 mysteries of the kingdom of heaven parables that Jesus gave in Mt 13. Since the time frame of the prophecy covers generally the same time frame, or at least is in the same time frame, I wonder if there is anything to be learned from the comparison.
For instance, in the 4th parable of the 7 in Mt 13 and the 4th church, Thyatira, we are introduced to a wicked woman. In Mt 13, she is hiding leaven in 3 measures of meal til the whole is leavened. I know how meal is made and used symbolically in the feasts of Israel, particularly the feast of Pentecost. There is no reason to think it is different here. Likewise, there is a wicked woman in the 4th church who is teaching the church to commit fornication and to worship idols. She is referenced as Jezebel. There is more said about this church than any of the seven. She is scheduled for fire in the tribulation. She reminds me of Re 17.
Also, there is a division after each of these number 4 women. It might just be a coincidence. In Mt 13 Jesus has been speaking to the multitude down by the seaside. After this parable of the leaven he goes up and gives the other 3 in the house.
Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
The fourth and last church in chapter 2 is Thyatira. I know that most scholars do not believe God had anything to do with chapter and verse divisions and if you are one of those this will be a mute point for me to make.
Anyway, this is thoughts I have had and leads me to think that there might be an intended prophecy of a progression from beginning to end of the church age but like I said I am not yet fully convinced. There are a few other things that weigh in on my thinking that this is the intention of God.
Do you have anything that just stands out to make you think it is not God's intention to make these churches representative of a progression in time?
Last edited:
I agree about the oversimplifying and that it does not represent traditional dispensationalism. I go so far as the say PG is a brand new theology. And the problem with any kind of compromise is that often you are attacked from both sides! I think that is what ha happened to PG since its invention.
You're close to being a dispensationalist!
Ryrie says that differing between Israel and the church is the sine qua non of dispensationalism.Sounds like a good seminary. If you wrote a paper in my seminary eschatology class differing with our dispensationalism, it wouldn't lose you any points on the paper unless you did a lousy job of it! And you are wise not to try to reconcile those two theologies. That simply produced a mess. I could take a look at your paper if you sent it to me via PM, but I doubt if my input with differ much from your prof's.
Interesting. I had not heard of that idea before.
The only thing is, most hermeneutics books that deal with the parables tell you not to get theology out of the parables. They are illustrations, not doctrine. So, we should look for the main idea of the parable, and not affix meaning to the details.
Yeah, I don't see Providence in the chapter and verse divisions. Some of them make no sense at all!
Like I said, there is nothing in an exegesis of Rev. 2-3 that hints at being a prophecy of the church age. Beyond that, the supposed historical divisions often just don't fit, IMO. Think of this. Over 100 years have passed since Scofield invented that paradigm. (I'm pretty sure he was the inventor; at least it was in his Bible notes.) The point is, as soon as one has decided on the divisions between the 7 church eras, history has changed!
The thing is that in every generation since Jesus ascension there have local assemblies exhibiting each one of those 7 churches characteristics
Armchair Apologist
New Member
This would be closer to my position these days. There is quite a bit of stuff that I had "learned" years ago that I had to go back, unlearn, and then relearn! I graduated from a "Back-Room Bible Institute" in an IFB Church years ago which had strong Ruckmanite leanings. I would say that the unlearning and relearning process after leaving all that mess is equivalent at least to an MDiv!
Armchair Apologist
New Member
I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not. If so, I can't even recall where I said anything about this at all until you brought it up! Either way, I think you have my opinion now.
Ruckman theology and beliefs were more akin to a loony toon character then solid bible scholarshipThis would be closer to my position these days. There is quite a bit of stuff that I had "learned" years ago that I had to go back, unlearn, and then relearn! I graduated from a "Back-Room Bible Institute" in an IFB Church years ago which had strong Ruckmanite leanings. I would say that the unlearning and relearning process after leaving all that mess is equivalent at least to an MDiv!