95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[ReformedBaptist]

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

Personally I think we are making too much of the statement. It is like using the rhetoric that Arminianism renders an image of God as impotent. Would any Arminian suggest such a thing? Of course not. Nor would a dispensationalist suggest Christ will be humilated in the manner I think some are taking it. Christ's first coming was a time of humilation, if the term is understood correctly. He did humble Himself.

What I think the quote means is that Christ is not coming again to be in a position of humility. He is not coming again riding on a donkey. He is coming again in great power and glory.

RB

 

[JDale]

Personally I think we are making too much of the statement. It is like using the rhetoric that Arminianism renders an image of God as impotent. Would any Arminian suggest such a thing? Of course not. Nor would a dispensationalist suggest Christ will be humilated in the manner I think some are taking it. Christ's first coming was a time of humilation, if the term is understood correctly. He did humble Himself.

What I think the quote means is that Christ is not coming again to be in a position of humility. He is not coming again riding on a donkey. He is coming again in great power and glory.

RB

RB:

As an Arminian and Dispensationalist, I kind of understand the reaction of PNG. No Dispensationalist would disagree that Christ' return will be in glory. How it unfolds and how He accomplishes His purpose is a different subject.

These "theses" are perjorative in their language, and purposefully mislead or distort what Dispensationalists believe. Don't you agree?

JDale

 

[IFB Mole]

JDale

You actually ADMIT that you're an "Arminian Dispensationalist" WOW, you have guts to admit to such modernistic and man contrived doctrine.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB:

As an Arminian and Dispensationalist, I kind of understand the reaction of PNG. No Dispensationalist would disagree that Christ' return will be in glory. How it unfolds and how He accomplishes His purpose is a different subject.

These "theses" are perjorative in their language, and purposefully mislead or distort what Dispensationalists believe. Don't you agree?

JDale

Of course I don't agree. How can I love those brethren and assume malice in their intent of refuting dispensationalism? Nor do I think their comments are pejorative in the sense that it intending to belittle or disparage people. I think it is their honest assessment of dispensationalism with the intent of refuting an error they believe is destructive the truth of Scripture. Those intentions are noble. If they do have pernicious intent in their rhetoric it must be proved. However, if that is the case, it will manifest itself in due time.

RB

 

[JDale]

JDale

You actually ADMIT that you're an "Arminian Dispensationalist" WOW, you have guts to admit to such modernistic and man contrived doctrine.

:laugh:


That's okay IFB Mole. I've been called worse than that by men (and women) obviously better than you.

I have been saved since September 28, 1980. I have spent over 21 years in ministry, and more than that in the study of Scripture, to glean from it the Truth God would teach me. I admit that I have not arrived. But I am hardly a slouch, either.

Your characterization of my beliefs as "modernistic" and "man contrived doctrine" demonstrates that you know NOTHING about me, and that you are reacting out of ignorance rather than reason, legalism rather than love, self-righteousness rather than humility.

In short, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4).

Your approach in attempting to debate is not in the Spirit of Christ. Please, if you are a "Brother," refrain from such unnecessary attacks.

JDale

 

[JDale]

Of course I don't agree. How can I love those brethren and assume malice in their intent of refuting dispensationalism? Nor do I think their comments are pejorative in the sense that it intending to belittle or disparage people. I think it is their honest assessment of dispensationalism with the intent of refuting an error they believe is destructive the truth of Scripture. Those intentions are noble. If they do have pernicious intent in their rhetoric it must be proved. However, if that is the case, it will manifest itself in due time.

RB

I am, of course, disappointed in your assessment RB. So much for Christian Charity. I suppose any language is justified so long as it is done in defense of the vaunted theology of Reformed Calvinism.

JDale

 

[J.D.]

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.

The Jews must receive Christ their King by faith, right? If so, their salvation is conditioned on faith, just like ours. So the covenant blessings are received on the condition of faith. Hence, the Abrahamic covenant was conditional. True?

 

[J.D.]

Skypair said: 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???

Are you saying that only Moses and the OT and trib saints are on earth during the millinium? Where is the Church?

 

[greek geek]

I have no desire to defend or critique dispensationalism. I do however attend a well known dispensational school - Dallas Theological Seminary. I would not label myself a dispensationalist - although I do understand (at least pretty well) the view. But I also understand, and can appreciate the oppopsing views. I see the pluses and the minuses of both sides.

That being said I am appalled at the website. Yes there are problems with dispensationalism. But in just a quick glance at some of the "95 thesis" I was amazed at how it presented the "facts."

Mostly i was amazed at the lack of citation. If you truly disagree with dispensationalism fine - but give actual citation. Some of the things listed as dispensational views I have never heard before, and there is no way for me to verify where this person got their information. They sometimes mention Ryrie or Walvord in parenthesis - but that is not adequate citation. Do you realize how much those two men alone have written?

If you disagree with someone do your homework. And if you are going to cite your "findings" for others give sources for everything - especially if you are claiming they are wrong. Otherwise it looks like you are only spouting opinion and/or basing your opinion on misinformation.

The lack of citation shows me that I cannot trust this site.

Oh - and there are many claims on that site that I know my professors would completely deny. There are different types of dispensationalism. And several of those listed on the site may have been held by the "old school" dispensationalists" but are in no way endorsed by any dispensationalist I know.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I am, of course, disappointed in your assessment RB. So much for Christian Charity. I suppose any language is justified so long as it is done in defense of the vaunted theology of Reformed Calvinism.

JDale

By your own assessment, you have joined their ranks. Again, I do not see malice in their rhetoric.

RB

 

[JDale]

The Jews must receive Christ their King by faith, right? If so, their salvation is conditioned on faith, just like ours. So the covenant blessings are received on the condition of faith. Hence, the Abrahamic covenant was conditional. True?

The participation of individual Jews in the Covenant was conditioned upon faith. That God chose national Israel thru which to redeem the world by sending His Son was unconditional. There is a distinction between individual Jews and National Israel with regard to God's plan.

JDale

 

[JDale]

Are you saying that only Moses and the OT and trib saints are on earth during the millinium? Where is the Church?

I don't know what SP is saying, so I can't defend it. I can say that the Church will accompany Christ in His return to earth (Revelation 19:11-16) and once He has defeated Antichrist at Armageddon, He will commence His earthly Kingdom, in which WE [the Church] will reign and rule with Him (Revelation 5:10), as will those who were killed during the Tribulation for their testimony for Christ and refusal to follow Antichrist (Revelation 20:4). These will already be in their glorfied bodies, reigning and ruling with Christ.

Jesus' "capital" will be the City of David, Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:8-11; Psalm 102:16,21; 110:25), from which the whole world will be ruled by Him, and to which all living on the earth will come to worship (Isaiah 2:1-4). By use of the phrase "House of Jacob" here in Isaiah, and clearly in other passages (Romans 11:25-27), Israel, the National, Chosen people will be the preeminent nation on earth, and the "remnant" of individual Jews in the "last days" will be saved, and will recognize Jesus as their Messiah and redeemer.

That the nations will come to worship Him in Jerusalem also clearly demonstrates that there will be those redeemed peoples who survive the Tribulation, and enter the Millennium in their natural bodies. They will enjoy a creation from which the curse will have been lifted, where they will procreate, and in which animals and humans will co-exist peacefully, and where there is abundance and blessing. Yet, personal faith will still be required -- and even then many in natural bodies will refuse to repent and believe, because we are told in Revelation 20:7ff that there will be one final rebellion before Satan and all who follow him are cast into the Lake of Fire eternally.

As to the OT Saints and Moses, there is a difference of opinion among Dispensationalists -- though I personally believe that since they are "with the Lord" as the Church will be, they will reign with Him as will the Church, in a glorified state.

Hope that clarifies how Dispensationalists see this subject in general.

JDale

 

[JDale]

I have no desire to defend or critique dispensationalism. I do however attend a well known dispensational school - Dallas Theological Seminary. I would not label myself a dispensationalist - although I do understand (at least pretty well) the view. But I also understand, and can appreciate the oppopsing views. I see the pluses and the minuses of both sides.

That being said I am appalled at the website. Yes there are problems with dispensationalism. But in just a quick glance at some of the "95 thesis" I was amazed at how it presented the "facts."

Mostly i was amazed at the lack of citation. If you truly disagree with dispensationalism fine - but give actual citation. Some of the things listed as dispensational views I have never heard before, and there is no way for me to verify where this person got their information. They sometimes mention Ryrie or Walvord in parenthesis - but that is not adequate citation. Do you realize how much those two men alone have written?

If you disagree with someone do your homework. And if you are going to cite your "findings" for others give sources for everything - especially if you are claiming they are wrong. Otherwise it looks like you are only spouting opinion and/or basing your opinion on misinformation.

The lack of citation shows me that I cannot trust this site.

Oh - and there are many claims on that site that I know my professors would completely deny. There are different types of dispensationalism. And several of those listed on the site may have been held by the "old school" dispensationalists" but are in no way endorsed by any dispensationalist I know.

My point to RB exactly in an earlier post GG. Thank you -- I agree totally.

JDale

 

[JDale]

By your own assessment, you have joined their ranks. Again, I do not see malice in their rhetoric.

RB

Joined whose ranks RB?

If by this you mean "Reformed" theology, I was using that term in the manner Calvinists always use it -- exclusively of themselves. And it is generally Calvinists (and by extension Covenantalists) who display the kind of vitriol I find on this "95 Theses" site.

Reformation Arminians (and Disoensationalists) in theological circles have generally been drowned out by the multitudes of Calvinists screaming "heretic," "Pelagian," "Papist," and the like for generations.

One who cannot see the malice in this site is either willfully blind to it, or sadly discerning in the Biblical meaning of Christian charity.


JDale

 

[skypair]

Are you saying that only Moses and the OT and trib saints are on earth during the millinium? Where is the Church?

Yes! Here's the reasons:

1) They have never believed on Christ but scripture says "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." The OT saints do it in the MK, the lost at the GWT.

2) This is where they get "born again" -- as in John 3 "ye MUST be born again." "Born again to the OT/trib saints is to be resurrected by the Spirit into the kingdom of Christ.

3) The Abrahamic, Davidic, and Palestinian Covenants demand it! Israel is yet to receive a "land," reign in a kingdom, and experience the blessings (they will have already received the cursings) of Deut 30.

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

Yes! Here's the reasons:

1) They have never believed on Christ but scripture says "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." The OT saints do it in the MK, the lost at the GWT.

2) This is where they get "born again" -- as in John 3 "ye MUST be born again." "Born again to the OT/trib saints is to be resurrected by the Spirit into the kingdom of Christ.

3) The Abrahamic, Davidic, and Palestinian Covenants demand it! Israel is yet to receive a "land," reign in a kingdom, and experience the blessings (they will have already received the cursings) of Deut 30.

skypair

The millennial reign is really confusing to me. According to pre-mil/pre-trib, the millennium occurs just after the 7 year tribulation in which God has poured out His wrath and most of the earth is a vast wasteland of death and destruction. At this point, He returns to this terrible scene, with the ressurected saints and there begins a literal 1000 year reign with ressurected saints (in eternal bodies) and the living survivors (in their curruptible bodies) of the tribulation. This is the way that I understand it and it really doesn't make sense to me.

 

[JDale]

The millennial reign is really confusing to me. According to pre-mil/pre-trib, the millennium occurs just after the 7 year tribulation in which God has poured out His wrath and most of the earth is a vast wasteland of death and destruction. At this point, He returns to this terrible scene, with the ressurected saints and there begins a literal 1000 year reign with ressurected saints (in eternal bodies) and the living survivors (in their curruptible bodies) of the tribulation. This is the way that I understand it and it really doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense, Amy, for the resurrected, glorified Lord Jesus to walk through locked doors and ask the disciples to touch the nailprints in His hand and thrust their hands into His side either. This would be akin to the mystery and bewilderment one might feel at the idea of glorified saints reigning with Christ on the earth with those in mortal bodies still present. Yet, this is the picture painted by the Scriptures.

A clarification -- it is an error to say that the OT Saints will not be "saved" or "born again" until the Millennium. Scripture demonstrates that they certainly believed during their lives, looking forward to the ultimate redemption God would provide (Hebrews 11). Scripture also indicates that Jesus descended to the "lower parts of the earth" and "preached" to the spirits "in prison" (Ephesians 4:7-10; I Peter 3:18,19), with apparently successful results among these Old Testament Saints, who after His death on the Cross were rasied and walked in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50-53)!

The fulfillment to Israel in the Kingdom Age will be to the remnant of the Jewish people who recognize Christ as their Messiah, and in whose nation Jesus will set up His throne. Of course, the resurrected OT Saints will rejoice in this fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic and Palestinian Covenants, and in the rightful restoration of the "land" to Israel -- but their is also a greater spiritual dimension to the fulfillment of the Covenants, in which ALL of God's redeemed people from every era will participate and rejoice.

JDale

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Joined whose ranks RB?

If by this you mean "Reformed" theology, I was using that term in the manner Calvinists always use it -- exclusively of themselves. And it is generally Calvinists (and by extension Covenantalists) who display the kind of vitriol I find on this "95 Theses" site.

Reformation Arminians (and Disoensationalists) in theological circles have generally been drowned out by the multitudes of Calvinists screaming "heretic," "Pelagian," "Papist," and the like for generations.

One who cannot see the malice in this site is either willfully blind to it, or sadly discerning in the Biblical meaning of Christian charity.


JDale

You accuse them of malice, yet one can see a similar rhetoric in your own reply about them. And again here, characterizing Calvinists as "screaming" and "vitriol" which is to characterize your brethren with extreme bitterness.

Then you end your rant with an either/or fallacy.

I have not read all 95 of the theses statements. Did they personally attack anyone, or did they deal with the doctrine? Here you have personally attacked.

 

[thomas15]

There are some parallels between the judgements during the tribulation and the judgements on Egypt (and Pharo) in Exodus.

The millennial reign is really confusing to me. According to pre-mil/pre-trib, the millennium occurs just after the 7 year tribulation in which God has poured out His wrath and most of the earth is a vast wasteland of death and destruction. At this point, He returns to this terrible scene, with the ressurected saints and there begins a literal 1000 year reign with ressurected saints (in eternal bodies) and the living survivors (in their curruptible bodies) of the tribulation. This is the way that I understand it and it really doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Humblesmith]

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

This is one of the key problems with the whole debate. Many things are claimed that the other side believes or teaches, but not enough statements "straight from the horses mouth."

There is way too much of people claiming the other side believes a certain way, with no direct quotes to back them up. If the website in the OP is the one that I am thinking, it does that way too much, at least in some key areas.