95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[Reformer]

I just ran across this and thought some of you folks might like it.
http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/95theses.shtml

A few quotes

2. Contrary to the dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward. (See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).

19. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ historic position that the Sermon on the Mount was designed for Israel alone, to define kingdom living, and “is law, not grace” (SRB, p. 989), historic evangelical orthodoxy sees this great Sermon as applicable to the Church in the present era, applying the Beatitudes (Matt 5:2-12), calling us to be the salt of the earth (Matt 5:13), urging us to build our house on a rock (Matt 7:21-27), directing us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), and more.

43. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental theological commitment to the radical distinction between “Israel and the Church” (Ryrie), the New Testament sees two “Israels” (Rom. 9:6-8)—one of the flesh, and one of the spirit—with the only true Israel being the spiritual one, which has come to mature fulfillment in the Church. (The Christian Church has not replaced Israel; rather, it is the New Testament expansion.) This is why the New Testament calls members of the Church “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:26-29) and the Church itself “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).

77. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).

84. Contrary to dispensationalism’s structuring of history based on a negative principle wherein each dispensation involves “the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), so that each dispensation ends in failure and judgment, the Bible establishes a positive purpose in redemptive history, wherein “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (John 3:17) and “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” (2 Cor 5:19a)

Reformer

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I found this before too. Awesome stuff. The response from the dispies was just disdain. Nothing of substance.

 

[skypair]

Both of you...

...ought to reconsider. Is there or is there not an OT, old covenant, and a NT, new covenant? Besides that being more than one covenant (your one "covenant of grace"), it speaks of 2 distinct dealings of God with His "elect" at the time.

You know, despite all your "eminent scholars," this "mustard" is not that hard to "cut!" :laugh:

skypair

 

[J.D.]

This is a good web site. I've been viewing it off and on for a couple of weeks now. I have friendly relationships with many dispensationalists, and I sure hope that continues; yet it would be good for the ones with a "literalist" superiority complex to get off their high horse and see some of the weaknesses of their system.

 

[skypair]

The response from the dispies was just disdain. Nothing of substance.

I didn't read the responses but yours is of course, the answer most Reformers would give.

It's really simple to prove dispensationalism though -- How many covenants has God made with men? That's how many dispensations there are because each covenant sets new "ruling factors" (Renald Showers term) or arrangements with God's the kingdom on earth.

Yes, there is only one means of salvation -- faith in God. But there are at least 7 means by which God progressively SANCTIFIES, sets apart, believers basically protecting them against Satan, IMO.

skypair

 

[Marcia]

Here we go again! <sigh>

Contrary to dispensationalism’s structuring of history based on a negative principle wherein each dispensation involves “the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), so that each dispensation ends in failure and judgment, the Bible establishes a positive purpose in redemptive history

The failures are man's, not God's.

Dispensationalists believe that there is a "positive purpose in redemptive history." Redemption is positive!

Didn't the children of Israel set the pattern long ago -- constantly turning to the worship of false gods and other sins? They did this over and over and over! Whose failure was that - man's or God's?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I didn't read the responses but yours is of course, the answer most Reformers would give.

Sp, that is a compliment I don't think I derserve, but thanks.

 

[Jerome]

It's odd that Dr. Redmond is quoted prominently before and after this NiceneCouncil.com-sponsored screed, as he has expressed disagreement with the Nicene Creed's description of the Trinity.

 

[thomas15]

From the date of my salvation in 1977 until 1990, I belonged to churches that were reformed and taught A-MIL theology. I did not question it and agreed with one of my mentor/pastor friends that A-MIL position was correct.

In 1990, for reasons that had nothing to do with end times theology, I joined a dispy church. At the point following that event where I knew enough about it, I did not question the dispensationalist position either.

Then there came a point about 10 years ago where I kind of figured that if you are in an A-MIL environment, then you will believe it without reservation, if on the other hand you are in a dispensational environment, you will likewise believe it the same.

Both sides have good arguments and godly people associated with them. So, what to do, what to think, what to believe? Ten years ago I took a fresh look at both positions. I think I can attend a church or fellowship that believes either way and not get caught up in the vortex, but I wanted to know in my heart which position held the best chance of being the most Biblical. Cutting and pasting snippets of quotes and so forth don't really prove anything other than your ability to cut and paste. The question is what does the Bible teach?

If I have had any success in meeting my goal of looking at this issue with an open mind, then the results of that effort for me has been to give the dispensationalist view the upper hand, but that is just me. I have started reading the Bible from cover to cover. Right now I'm on the 3rd time doing this and it has been a real eye opener in many ways. When you study the OT historical books you find that the Israelites were sinners just like us. But yet God made certain promises to the Israelites that are everlasting and not dependant on their faithfulness.

Call me old fashioned, but if I must take the words in Gen ch 1 literally (God created everything in (6) 24 hour time units) then I have to believe when he was talking to the Israelites and making promises to them, then he must keep those promises regardless of the foul behavior of those receiving the promise. If God can break that promise to the Israelites, then what will stop Him from breaking His promises to me, as I'm just as bad a sinner as the Israelites?

And thats my opinion.
Tom

 

[ReformedBaptist]

thomas15,

Just a few comments regarding your post.

Cutting and pasting snippets of quotes and so forth don't really prove anything other than your ability to cut and paste. The question is what does the Bible teach?

I hope this was just an aside comment. I don't believe that the OP was designed to be an exhaustive polemic against dispensational theology. I think it was meant to bring attention to a website that is working to the glory of God to refute dispensationalism, and making some quotes as a "sample." I am sure it was also meant to spark some discussion on the subject, which it has.

Call me old fashioned, but if I must take the words in Gen ch 1 literally (God created everything in (6) 24 hour time units) then I have to believe when he was talking to the Israelites and making promises to them, then he must keep those promises regardless of the foul behavior of those receiving the promise. If God can break that promise to the Israelites, then what will stop Him from breaking His promises to me, as I'm just as bad a sinner as the Israelites?

I don't think the logic follows here. It is too broad in my opinion and seems to smack of a logical fallacy. The proposition I see in your comment here is:

A. Genesis 1-11 is literal
B. God makes promises to Israel
C. Therefore, all promises to Israel must be interpreted literally.

I just don't think that necessarilly follows. It also assumes that an allegorical interpetation of certain texts of Scriptures means the promises of God are broken to Israel.

The main problem I see with this reasoning is that it appears to ignore how the NT interprets the OT. I cannot say this with certainty, but I believe one of the errors of dispensationalism is that it allows the OT to interpret the NT, rather than the NT interpreting the OT.

RB

 

[thomas15]

ReformedBaptist, I simply stated my opinion on the topic at hand. I do not wish to offend anyone or their beliefs, I'm too old for that.

My opinion is that the essential message of the Bible (cover to cover) is very simple. Yet sinful man tries to make it complicated. To me Individual soul liberty allows me (and you) to ask the father for guidance and then expect to receive it.

I respect your right to believe what ever you want. All I was trying to communicate was the result of my study in the matter. The saved individual is saved because he is trusting in the shed blood of Christ, not his views on end times or certian points of theology. You don't have to agree with my logic or my method and still be my brother in Christ.

Tom

 

[ReformedBaptist]

ReformedBaptist, I simply stated my opinion on the topic at hand. I do not wish to offend anyone or their beliefs, I'm too old for that.

My opinion is that the essential message of the Bible (cover to cover) is very simple. Yet sinful man tries to make it complicated. To me Individual soul liberty allows me (and you) to ask the father for guidance and then expect to receive it.

I respect your right to believe what ever you want. All I was trying to communicate was the result of my study in the matter. The saved individual is saved because he is trusting in the shed blood of Christ, not his views on end times or certian points of theology. You don't have to agree with my logic or my method and still be my brother in Christ.

Tom

Of course brother. But this is a debate forum. So I was just discussing the subject.

 

[Reformer]

I will say up front until about a month ago my knowledge of dispensationalism was 0 and I seem to be having a very hard time even understanding it, perhaps because I have been so involved and informed with Covenant Theology. The debate seems to be a little confusing to me as a result. But some of the things I see in dispensationalism. Are so new to me that I didn't know anyone believe them like this quote

77. Despite the dispensationalists’ fundamental principle of God’s glory, they teach a second humiliation of Christ, wherein He returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom, ruling it personally for 1000 years, only to have a multitude “like the sand of the seashore” revolt against His personal, beneficent rule toward the end (Rev 20:7-9).

Do dispensationalist really believe in a second humiliation of Christ? And if so WHY?? Where in the world does that come from? I have found several thing similar to this, but I am willing to admit most of the comments are from the opposing view and not straight from the horses mouth.

So, as for now I'm just kind of staying out of the debate and trying to learn a little before I jump in and put my foot in my mouth. But sometimes I come across something I think others might find interesting and that might start a little debate that I could learn from, so I choose to, show off my ability to cut and paste snippets of quotes that don't prove anything, for that reason.

Reformer

 

[thomas15]

...Do dispensationalist really believe in a second humiliation of Christ? And if so WHY?? Where in the world does that come from? I have found several thing similar to this, but I am willing to admit most of the comments are from the opposing view and not straight from the horses mouth...
Reformer

I'm not aware of anyone who calls the episode at the end of the 1000 years a "second humiliation of Christ". Maybe there are some who do, I don't know.

The Bible teaches that God is in total control. Satan is bound during the 1000 years and then let loose for a while. My understanding is that the reason for this is that during the 1000 years, sin will be in check but humanity will still have the sin nature. Letting satan loose will expose those who are not true believers. God, being in control, lets satan loose and then He throws him in the pit forever. Satan does what satan does but satan has no control over the outcome. Christ has already paid our sin debt in full, there is no reason for Christ to be humiliated again, but I'm sure that the unbelievers that follow satan at the end of the 1000 years will mock Jesus the same as unbelievers have always done.

I'm not a theologian nor do I care to defend dispensationalism to the death. I'm only trying to give my opinion. Reformer, it is not easy to understand dispensationalism. I really had to discipline myself to get a handle on it. As I have said before, reading the Bible thru cover to cover has been of great benefit to me.

 

[J.D.]

I think the author of the 95 thesis exposes his amil/postmill views, but he started out right by highlighting the differences between dispensational premillinialism and historical premillinialism. That's where we can clearly see the difference between dispy'ism and covent'ism. The question then is: is the millinium a golden age for the church or for Moses?

By the way if the promises to the fleshly descendants of Abraham are unconditional, why then do they not receive the fulfillment until they accept Christ?

 

[thomas15]

...By the way if the promises to the fleshly descendants of Abraham are unconditional, why then do they not receive the fulfillment until they accept Christ?

Salvation in any of the dispensations is by grace thru faith in the shed blood of Christ. Before the cross and after. It is impossible after the cross to be reconciled to God without faith in Christ, be ye Jew or Gentile. Before the cross, men were saved by faith in Christ although he had not gone to the cross yet and man's understanding of the cross was incomplete. In effect they (pre-cross justified persons) were saved on credit.

The point in time where the decendants of Abraham receive the kingdom is when they receive the king of the kingdom-Christ. The Kingdom is a theocracy. There would be no Jewish interest in a messianic kingdom without a messiah, in my opinion.

 

[Marcia]

Are so new to me that I didn't know anyone believe them like this quote Do dispensationalist really believe in a second humiliation of Christ? And if so WHY?? Where in the world does that come from?

Undoubtedly the words "second humiliation of Christ" are the words of the person who wrote these theses or whatever he calls it.

These are not words any believer I know would use. It reflects the condescending view of the author of these theses and does not reflect a Christian love toward his brothers and sisters in Christ.

I believe as Thomas15 posted but that does not mean a "humiliation" of Christ.

 

[skypair]

I will say up front until about a month ago my knowledge of dispensationalism was 0 and I seem to be having a very hard time even understanding it, perhaps because I have been so involved and informed with Covenant Theology.

That is a refreshing bit of honesty!

Do dispensationalist really believe in a second humiliation of Christ? And if so WHY?? Where in the world does that come from?

Well, calling it the 'second humiliation' is prejudicial commentary, for sure. What we believe is Rev 20:7-9 -- there is a last rebellion on earth of hypocrites who were allowed by Christ to live (and not burn outside Jerusalem where the worm shall not die of having flesh to eat, Isa 66:24) so long as they obeyed "the laws," Mt 5-7 + OT. You know, people can be very "discrete" when their lives are on the line but as soon as an opportunity arises to rebel with the hopes of getting their way, they will.

Is it humiliating? No. God immediately sends a consuming fire on them and Christ and all believers are raptured to heaven, 20:11.

Regarding your interest in dispensationalism, dispensationalism is most easily seen in Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" parables beginning especially with the overview in Mt 13:3-33 (IOW, it's not all that easy ). It basically teaches that Christ is a "sower," "householder," "master," etc. who is in charge of an earthly kingdom and "governs" it in such a way as to a) not allow Satan to completely take over earth and mankind and b) to deal through certain people, believers, in successive "administrations" or "economies" according to what needs to be done to grow the kingdom among fallen mankind. There is also a very interesting reprisal of these dispensations in the seal judgments of Rev 6 after which Satan is allowed, in the trumpets, to actually rule most of the world!

If you believe that Christ has any kingdom on this earth, you probably also realize that it is a spiritual kingdom of believers. You must also notice that the OT saints believed almost none of what we do for lack of having the same revelation, right? There are, then back-to-back, two very different administrations of His kingdom by Christ spiritually, and especially religiously, and politically! Do you see and acknowledge that? You likely do because one thing that "sticks in the craw" of most Reform and Calvinist believers is that the MK seems to return to the OT, not the NT, "administration (this is probable why they don't study eschatology).

Anyway, do you have any comments so far? anything that you just cannot see?

skypair

 

[skypair]

The question then is: is the millinium a golden age for the church or for Moses?

Moses and the OT and trib saints. The church will already have something better than the kingdom of Christ -- the kingdom of God, New Jerusalem!! What would the church want with sin and death once we've been raptured to heaven physically???

By the way if the promises to the fleshly descendants of Abraham are unconditional, why then do they not receive the fulfillment until they accept Christ?

Because they don't receive Christ until they are resurrected into His 1000 year kingdom. It is quite obvious that Christ, the King of a spiritual kingdom for the time being, cannot give the land to Israel as promised. Why? Because the land is under the control of the "unlawful possessor" as was Hanmeel's field that Jeremiah bought and took a sealed scroll of promise for (Jer 32:7-15). Ring a bell? Rev 5-6?

J.D., I'd love to go through all this with you if you are open to considering it. :type: I think you would be blessed by having more of the counsel of God and not just a theology that can't look seriously into eschatology.

skypair

 

[persona non grata]

I will say up front until about a month ago my knowledge of dispensationalism was 0 and I seem to be having a very hard time even understanding it, perhaps because I have been so involved and informed with Covenant Theology. The debate seems to be a little confusing to me as a result. But some of the things I see in dispensationalism. Are so new to me that I didn't know anyone believe them like this quote Do dispensationalist really believe in a second humiliation of Christ? And if so WHY?? Where in the world does that come from? I have found several thing similar to this, but I am willing to admit most of the comments are from the opposing view and not straight from the horses mouth.

So, as for now I'm just kind of staying out of the debate and trying to learn a little before I jump in and put my foot in my mouth. But sometimes I come across something I think others might find interesting and that might start a little debate that I could learn from, so I choose to, show off my ability to cut and paste snippets of quotes that don't prove anything, for that reason.

Reformer

No. Dispys don't believe in a "second humiliation of Christ." That's ludicrous. Dispys believe in the ABSOLUTE failure of mankind -- Total Depravity. Many today claim that man is only "the way he is" because of the environment in which he lives. If, they say, man lived in an ideal environment, his behavior would improve just so.

That there will be a rebellion at the end of the Millennium should not come as a surprise. Even though Jesus rules on earth, even though natural men -- and descendents of the redeemed -- remain alive on earth, and even in the presence of the Lord Himself, some men will still have a heart full of rebellion. It should be noted that God will see to it that Satan is released "for a short season," so it does not follow that Christ is "humiliated" again. Would He humiliate Himself?!

That is not God's failure my friend, that is man's failure. That is not Jesus' humiliation, that is mankinds humiliation. The charge is ridiculous on its face, and the writer of these theses apparently knows little of Dispensationalism save to distort it to his own ends.

PNG