Debate on Dispensationalism

[evangelist6589]

Because of a recent thread that a certain poster around here hijacked I am creating a new thread for him to join. Hmm perhaps I should hijack his thread and turn it into a Lordship Salvation vs. Free Grace debate. Nah I got better manners. Anyways the previous thread was attempted to be a debate on the various rapture views before this certain poster hijacked it.

So since we are on Dispensationalism it is a flat out lie that Darby invented it. There is a certain book in print (cant remember the name) that was released this year that defends dispensationalism from church history as NOT being an invention by John Nelson Darby exclusively. The book is big and college level. If only I had a copy and could remember the name, I could use the arguments from church history that rebuffs the Darby lie.

 

[Aaron]

So since we are on Dispensationalism it is a flat out lie that Darby invented it. There is a certain book in print (cant remember the name) that was released this year that defends dispensationalism from church history as NOT being an invention by John Nelson Darby exclusively. The book is big and college level. If only I had a copy and could remember the name, I could use the arguments from church history that rebuffs the Darby lie.

LOL! "If only I knew church history, I would use it in my arguments!" ROFLOL

 

[evangelist6589]

LOL! "If only I knew church history, I would use it in my arguments!" ROFLOL

I do not, but I know some people that do know church history well and could rebuff that Darby invented the system lie.

 

[evangelist6589]

Actually doing some research by looking at books in my library I discovered plenty of evidence for dispensationalism before Darby. Take one example in Johnathan Edwards whom in 1699 wrote a two volume book called A complete History or survey of the dispensations. Or other examples are Isaac Watts (174-1748) and Pierre Poiret (1546-1719). There are others I could mention that predate Darby whom came around in 1800. But my reading does prove that neither Darby nor the Plymouth Brethren invented dispensationalism.

 

[InTheLight]

Why is the source or the age of dispensationalism relevant? Shouldn't the theology be examined on its merits and not on its heritage?

Calvinists go into a tizzy whenever someone denigrates Calvin yet they have no compunction to attack John Nelson Darby.

 

[kyredneck]

Shouldn't the theology be examined on its merits and not on its heritage?

Precisely: Evangelical End Times Fatalism

It's just as extreme and radical as Islam's fatalism. In fact, because of the theo-politics of Dispensationalism dominating the right wing party of the most powerful nation on earth it makes it: The Most Dangerous Cult in The World

 

[Rippon]

Take one example in Johnathan Edwards whom in 1699 wrote a two volume book called A complete History or survey of the dispensations.

It's who, not whom.

There are others I could mention that predate Darby whom came around in 1800.

It's who, not whom.

Whomitis is curable. More reading should help you.

Darby was born in 1800. He "came around" to his rapture theory in 1830 or so.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Ages and Dispensations Of The Ante-Nicene Fathers." Author Larry V. Crutchfield

"Among those whose doctrine of ages and dispensations has survived from the Ante-Nicene period are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and to a minor degree Victorinus of Petau."

 

[blessedwife318]

Showing that people saw different ages in the Bible does not prove that Dispensatiolism predates Darby.

I will let Charles Ryrie tell us all what makes a dispensationalist a dispensationalist.

Theoretically, the sine quo non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world. Covenant theologians hold there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. Charles Hodge, for instance believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall -- Adam to abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end. Berkhof writes, as we have seen, of only two basic dispensations--the Old and the New, but within the Old he sees four periods and all of these are revelations of the covenant of grace. In other words, a person can believe in dispensations and even see them in relations to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist.

Is the essence of dispensationalism the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system....

Perhaps the issue of premillennialism is determinative. Again the answer is negative, for there are those who are premillennial who definitely are not dispensational... At anyrate, being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist. (however the reverse is true--being a dispensationalist makes one a premillennialist.)

What then is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.

1. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that the basic premise of Dispensationalist is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity.... Chafer summarized it as follows: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purpose: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved with is Christianity. "

This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will...

2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics...

3 A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter that will be discussed more fully later. It concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world.

Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism 1995 pages 38-40
Italics in original
bold mine

So I say again viewing different ages does not a dispensationalist make.
To say it does is dishonest and one could just as easily argue that to believe in Covenants makes one a Covenant theologian.
It all comes down to how one views Israel and the church.

As far as I'm concerned if you claim to be a dispensationalist, Darby and Schofield are fair game to quote, just like if someone claims to be a Calvinist, then John Calvin is fair game.

 

[Revmitchell]

Ages are not dispensations. It is best to actually study what a dispensation is before commenting on it.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Showing that people saw different ages in the Bible does not prove that Dispensatiolism predates Darby.

I will let Charles Ryrie tell us all what makes a dispensationalist a dispensationalist.


Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism 1995 pages 38-40
Italics in original
bold mine

So I say again viewing different ages does not a dispensationalist make.
To say it does is dishonest and one could just as easily argue that to believe in Covenants makes one a Covenant theologian.
It all comes down to how one views Israel and the church.

As far as I'm concerned if you claim to be a dispensationalist, Darby and Schofield are fair game to quote, just like if someone claims to be a Calvinist, then John Calvin is fair game.

You're confusing those who live in 'bliss' with facts!

 

[blessedwife318]

Ages are not dispensations. It is best to actually study what a dispensation is before commenting on it.

I have studied, I was a dispensationalist up until a few months ago. Besides I quoted Charles Ryrie who no one can accuse of not knowing what dispensationalism is.

Ages are just another term for dispensations and you know it

That's why there is the:
Age of Innocent
Age of Conscience
Age of Human Government
Age of Promise
Age of Law
the Church Age
and the Millennium

 

[blessedwife318]

You're confusing those who live in 'bliss' with facts!

I know but you never know who might be reading.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have studied, I was a dispensationalist up until a few months ago. Besides I quoted Charles Ryrie who no one can accuse of not knowing what dispensationalism is.

Ages are just another term for dispensations and you know it

That's why there is the:
Age of Innocent
Age of Conscience
Age of Human Government
Age of Promise
Age of Law
the Church Age
and the Millennium

And your quote fails to support your claim and in fact supports mine. Dispensations are not about ages but about economies. Ryrie said:

"Theoretically, the sine quo non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world."

 

[blessedwife318]

And your quote fails to support your claim and in fact supports mine. Dispensations are not about ages but about economies. Ryrie said:

"Theoretically, the sine quo non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world."

Actually it does support my claim as Ryrie clearly says "In other words, a person can believe in dispensations and even see them in relations to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist."

seeing dispensations (or different ages or economies to use Ryrie word) does not a Dispensationalist make. I see you missed the word "Theoretically" in the part you quoted. Amazing what context does as Ryrie has to acknowledge that it doesn't work that way because even Covenant Theologians recognize different dispensations by the end of the paragraph.

 

[percho]

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed (singular BTW), through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. ---- {A question on this verse. Does that mean that the seed (singular) also inherited because of the righteousness of faith? Whose, faith?}
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

? The only dispensationalism that counts ?

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.