Dispensational error pt3......or...is it truth?

[Iconoclast]

Wrongly Dividing the Word of truth,pg 2....Gerstner;

The Second Century Most dispensationalists are prone to claim the whole sub-apostolic age for premillennialism. For example, John Walvoord calmly states that “the most ancient view, that of the church of the first few centuries, was what is known as premillennialism or chiliasm.” Such an ambitious 2 statement goes far beyond the evidence. While I grant that Justin Martyr, Hermas, Papias, and Irenaeus may have been premillenarians, and that many regard the Epistle of Barnabas as also premillennial, the following considerations need to be noted.

First, it can be shown with respect even to some of these that their theology was clearly not dispensational. For example, Justin and Irenaeus f regarded the church as the fulfillment of the new covenant of 3 Jeremiah 31:31. This fact precludes their dispensationalism because dispensationalism regards the church age as not predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Second, Justin Martyr, though a premillennialist, did not regard premillennialism as a test of orthodoxy, but admitted that some right-minded Christians did not agree with his view on this subject.4
John F. Walvoord, “Postribulationism Today, Part II: The Rapture and the2 Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 139 (1982): 4. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed.3 Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952; reprint ed.), 1:260–67. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Ante- Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952; reprint


Others take a similar view of premillennialism in the early church. W. Masselink, for example, finds no chiliasm in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Athanasius, or Theophilus. Louis Berkhof writes, “It is not 13 correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number.”14 An important treatment of this period by a dispensationalist is found in the Dallas Seminary thesis by Alan P. Boyd. This work indicts the 15 statement by Charles Ryrie that “Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church.” Citing noted dispensationalists Dwight Pentecost, John 16 Walvoord, and others, Boyd points out that the assumption of “continuative premillennialism” is general among dispensationalists. Focusing on Ryrie, Boyd shows that his “premillennialism” includes rapture thinking, the division of Israel and church, dispensationalism, literalism, and pretribulationism.

 

[Iconoclast]

After carefully surveying and citing the texts of the early church fathers, Boyd ends by saying, “It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie’s statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis.” “
These early churchmen were not literalistic; drew 17 no essential distinction between Israel and the Church; did not have a dispensational view of history; though Papias and Justin had a thousand-year kingdom, that was the only similarity to dispensationalism; did not hold to imminency and pretribulationism; and their eschatological chronology was not synonymous with dispensationalism’s.” In fact, the 18 early eschatology was “inimical” to dispensationalism and was “perhaps” a seminal amillennialism.19

pg6;
Augustine put a virtual end to millennialism for a millennium of church history. Although he had once held to chiliasm, Augustine rejected it because of its carnal features. He did not object particularly to the idea of the Millennium and the saints enjoying it; rather, he insisted that the joys were to be purely spiritual. Fundamentally, however, the Millennium was to be understood as the reign of the saints with Christ during the interadvent period. The first resurrection in Revelation 20:5 refers to regeneration, and only the second to the physical resurrection. Satan’s being restrained refers to his inability to prevent the church from gathering souls from the nations. His binding took place at the first coming of Christ which began the world conquest by the gospel. The church is the kingdom. Here, the saints reign with Christ over their own lusts and their church. The millennial thinking of Pope Gregory the 25 Great, who is generally known as the popularizer of Augustine, and through whom Augustine strongly influenced the Middle Ages, followed the basic pattern of the Bishop of Hippo in expecting the end of the church age to issue in immortality.

John Calvin himself may never have written a commentary on the book of Revelation but that does not imply indifference to apocalyptic notions. According to Calvin, the numbers “144 thousand” (Rev. 7:4, 14:1), “666” (Rev. 13:18) and “one thousand” (Rev. 20:2) were not to be taken literally. Of those who did so construe them, “their fiction is too puerile to deserve refutation.” Calvin dismissed such teaching as a childish fantasy without scriptural support.

 

[Iconoclast]

pg12

Another dispensational innovation is evident in its anticovenantalism. This is a peculiar way to designate this new view for it is pro-covenantal in a sense. It rejects the traditional two-covenant schema of law and grace in favor of many covenants and dispensations. While the traditional view sees the covenant of works as ended by the fall of Adam from his probation and the covenant of grace as then initiated and continued through the Old and New Testaments and into eternity, dispensationalism finds many covenants and regards this unity of the covenant of grace in different dispensations as a fundamental error.

 

[Iconoclast]

on pg 12,13...he offers this helpful chart;
1. Older premillennialism taught that the church was in the forevision of the Old Testament prophecy; dispensationalism teaches that the church is hardly, if at all, in the Old Testament prophets. 2. Older premillennialism taught that the great burden of Old Testament prophecy was the coming of Christ to die (at the First Advent)
and the kingdom age (at the Second Advent). Dispensationalism says that the great burden of Old Testament prophecy is the kingdom of the Jews. 3. Older premillennialism taught that the First Advent was the specific time for Christ to die for man’s sin; dispensationalism teaches that the kingdom (earthly) should have been set up at the First Advent for that was the predicted time of its coming. 4. Older premillennialism taught that the present age of grace was designed by God and predicted in the Old Testament; dispensationalism holds that the present age was unforeseen in the Old Testament and thus is a “great parenthesis” introduced because the Jews rejected the kingdom. 5. Older premillennialism taught that one may divide time in any way desirable so long as one allows for a millennium after the Second Advent; dispensationalism maintains that the only allowable way to divide time is in seven dispensations. The present age is the sixth such dispensation; the last one will be the millennial age after the Second Advent. It is from this division of time that dispensationalism gets its name. 6. Older premillennialism taught that the Second Advent was to be one event; dispensationalism holds that the Second Advent will be in two sections — “the Rapture” and “the Revelation.” Between these two events they put the (to them) unfulfilled seventieth week (seven years) of Daniel 9:23–27, which they call “the Great Tribulation.” 7. Older premillennialism taught that certain signs must precede the Second Advent; dispensationalism teaches that no sign precedes the “rapture-stage” of the Second Advent, which may occur “at any moment.” However, there are signs that precede the “revelation stage” of the Second Advent. The “Rapture” could occur “at any moment,” but the “Revelation” must take place after the seven years of the Great Tribulation. The first stage is undated and unannounced; the second stage is dated and announced. 8. Older premillennialism had two resurrections — the righteous before the Millennium; the unrighteous after the Millennium. dispensationalism has introduced a third resurrection — “tribulation-saints” at the “revelation-stage” of the Second Advent. 9. Older premillennialism usually held what is called the “historical-symbolic” view of the book of Revelation. This view makes Revelation a picture in symbolic form of the main events in the present age. dispensationalism holds generally to the “futurist” view of the book of Revelation, which view makes almost the whole book (especially chapters 4 to 19) a literal description of events to take place during “the Great Tribulation” or Daniel’s seventieth week, which dispensationalism considers as yet unfulfilled.

 

[Iconoclast]

Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth; Gerstner
from pg 12-13
1. Older premillennialism taught that the church was in the forevision of the Old Testament prophecy; dispensationalism teaches that the church is hardly, if at all, in the Old Testament prophets.

2. Older premillennialism taught that the great burden of Old Testament prophecy was the coming of Christ to die (at the First Advent} and the kingdom age (at the Second Advent). Dispensationalism says that the great burden of Old Testament prophecy is the kingdom of the Jews.

3. Older premillennialism taught that the First Advent was the specific time for Christ to die for man’s sin; dispensationalism teaches that the kingdom (earthly) should have been set up at the First Advent for that was the predicted time of its coming.

4. Older premillennialism taught that the present age of grace was designed by God and predicted in the Old Testament; dispensationalism holds that the present age was unforeseen in the Old Testament and thus is a “great parenthesis” introduced because the Jews rejected the kingdom.

5. Older premillennialism taught that one may divide time in any way desirable so long as one allows for a millennium after the Second Advent; dispensationalism maintains that the only allowable way to divide time is in seven dispensations. The present age is the sixth such dispensation; the last one will be the millennial age after the Second Advent. It is from this division of time that dispensationalism gets its name.

6. Older premillennialism taught that the Second Advent was to be one event; dispensationalism holds that the Second Advent will be in two sections — “the Rapture” and “the Revelation.” Between these two events they put the (to them) unfulfilled seventieth week (seven years) of Daniel 9:23–27, which they call “the Great Tribulation.”

7. Older premillennialism taught that certain signs must precede the Second Advent; dispensationalism teaches that no sign precedes the “rapture-stage” of the Second Advent, which may occur “at any moment.” However, there are signs that precede the “revelation stage” of the Second Advent. The “Rapture” could occur “at any moment,” but the “Revelation” must take place after the seven years of the Great Tribulation. The first stage is undated and unannounced; the second stage is dated and announced.

8. Older premillennialism had two resurrections — the righteous before the Millennium; the unrighteous after the Millennium. dispensationalism has introduced a third resurrection — “tribulation-saints” at the “revelation-stage” of the Second Advent.

9. Older premillennialism usually held what is called the “historical-symbolic” view of the book of Revelation. This view makes Revelation a picture in symbolic form of the main events in the present age. dispensationalism holds generally to the “futurist” view of the book of Revelation, which view makes almost the whole book (especially chapters 4 to 19) a literal description of events to take place during “the Great Tribulation” or Daniel’s seventieth week, which dispensationalism considers as yet unfulfilled.

10. The general attitude of older premillennialism was on the whole mild and reverent in its approach to Scripture. There have been some outstanding scholars who have been persuaded that the premillennial is the correct view. In contrast, dispensationalism has assumed a far more dogmatic attitude. It has introduced a number of novelties in prophetic interpretation that the church never heard of until about a century ago.

 

[Iconoclast]

1 8 In his autobiography, Half a Century, 20, Gaebelein makes this incredible1 9 statement about the traditional Christian view, which unfortunately, is characteristic of writers of the dispensational school. “Israel, that method teaches, is no longer the Israel of old, but it means the Church now. For the natural Israel no hope of a future restoration is left. All their glorious and unfulfilled promises find now their fulfillment in the Church of Jesus Christ.” This certainly does make it hard on the Jews! When they might have had a glorious piece of real estate on the Mediterranean, all they end up with under this interpretation is Christ, of whom it was said that “it pleased the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell” (Col. 1:19). To add further irony, by no means all covenantalists deny a future for the Jews in Israel.

 

[Iconoclast]

That dispensationalists attempt to explain away the many scripture passages which clearly teach or assume the essential unity of Israel and the church (see, for example, Rom. 2:28–29; 4:11–17; 11:17–21; Gal. 3:7; Eph. 2:11–16) is a continuing source of amazement to non-dispensationalists. The pretribulational Rapture theory, the utter novelty of which has already been noted, is so problematic because it is here that this alleged separation of Israel and the church comes to eschatological fruition. Here the theoretical Rapture becomes an actual historical rupture.

pg78;
Literalism
Certainly dispensationalists claim to be literal in their method of interpreting the Bible. They pride themselves on this and claim a thorough faithfulness to Scripture. They generally think that other schools of thought are not as faithful, and that they fall into error primarily because of their adoption of a “spiritualizing” hermeneutic.

While they will concede that many non-dispensational conservatives affirm the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture, dispensationalists also feel that not all are equally docile before Scripture. The non-dispensationalist tends, in his view, to be more sophisticated and less submissive while dispensationalists, to use the words of Isaiah 66:5, “tremble” more at God’s Word.
This conviction, in turn, can lead to a spiritual arrogance bordering on a feeling of infallibility. Thinking that they see the truth clearly (when others more learned do not because they do not follow the simple method of easy literalism), dispensationalists can feel superior with very little reason for doing so. By a certain naivete they suppose that their method brings them into an immediate apprehension of Scripture as over against the “interpretations” of others.7 While we must recognize that the self-understanding of dispensationalists tends to highlight the differences between dispensational and non-dispensational biblical interpretation (with the unfortunate psychological consequences noted above), and that dispensationalists believe that their theology flows from their literal hermeneutic rather than vice versa, a closer look at the matter reveals that dispensationalists are not as far removed from their non-dispensational conservative friends as they suppose. In spite of all contentions that dispensationalists are the consistent literalists, they start out in their biblical interpretation pretty much where everyone else does.

 

[Iconoclast]

No one has better exposed the inconsistency of the dispensationalists on this literalistic principle as applied by them to history and prophecy than O. T. Allis. He points out that they tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, 12 Canaan must mean Canaan.

On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbo1.13 But if it be argued that the “stars” signify a heavenly seed and the “dust” an earthly seed, then the question arises, What is the difference between dust and sand? Why is Israel of the days of Solomon likened to the “sand” in 1 Kings 4:20 and to the “dust” in 2 Chronicles 1:9 and why are the stars referred to in 1 Chronicles 27:23 in David’s census of earthly Israel? “Sun of Righteousness” (Mal. 4:2) and “morning star” (Rev. 22:16) are beautiful figures used of the coming of Christ.14 Some dispensationalists try to defend their inconsistent procedure. Thus, M. R. DeHaan explains what we could call the spiritualizing of Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of the dry bones. Dispensationalists apply this vision to the revitalization of the Jews in the end-time period. “To be sure, the vision of the valley of dry bones is a figure, but it is a figure of a literal thing and this is certainly not the church, or the nations of the world.”15 I am not here concerned with the application of the dry bones, whether to the world, to the church, or to Israel. I merely observe that DeHaan is “spiritualizing” the bones and that he justifies this procedure (which he would condemn in others) by saying that “it is a figure of a literal thing.” Needless to say every “spiritualizer” teaches that the things spiritualized are real, or literal, things. If we say, for example, that the vision of the lamb and the wolf lying down together has a reference to ferocious and docile people dwelling together under the influence of Christ, we consider that a literal thing or a real thing to which the prophecy refers

 

[DMorgan]

Lewis Sperry Chafer:
"
Like the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism wherein a very great company have been won from Arminianism to Calvinism and few if any from Calvinism to Arminianism, so of the vast company who have turned to dispensationalism very few are known to have ever abandoned the new ground they have taken. It is the dispensationalists who are promoting Bible study movements over the whole land and they are the major factor in all evangelistic and missionary activity today. Dispensationalism has always been disastrous to theological dicta that cannot stand the acid test of Biblical proof."

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Dispensationalism (p. 15). . Kindle Edition.

 

[Iconoclast]

Lewis Sperry Chafer:
"
Like the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism wherein a very great company have been won from Arminianism to Calvinism and few if any from Calvinism to Arminianism, so of the vast company who have turned to dispensationalism very few are known to have ever abandoned the new ground they have taken. It is the dispensationalists who are promoting Bible study movements over the whole land and they are the major factor in all evangelistic and missionary activity today. Dispensationalism has always been disastrous to theological dicta that cannot stand the acid test of Biblical proof."

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Dispensationalism (p. 15). . Kindle Edition.

He was sincere as are many who hold to this idea.
Ironically it is when people continue on in study that they leave this position.

 

[Iconoclast]

on pg107;

In Norman Geisler, the implicit Arminianism of dispensationalism has become explicit. This former Dallas Seminary professor very clearly makes the divine purposes in salvation entirely dependent upon human choice. Geisler writes, “God would save all men if He could. God will achieve the greatest number in heaven He possibly can.” The limitation on the divine will is human will. God will save as many as God can “without violating their free choice.” Divine election is dearly dependent on the human sinner’s “free choice.” No Arminian has ever been more specific in his denial of Calvinistic doctrine than this selfdesignated dispensational Calvinist. Geisler not only denies the fourth point, “irresistible grace,” but unconditional election as well because, emphatically, he makes divine election the result of fallen man’s “free will.”

Second, the evangelical call itself is only to the regenerate. Unfortunately, this point is often poorly explicated by authentic Calvinists. That is, the evangelical call is not to unregenerate people to come into the kingdom but to regenerate, for without regeneration no one will enter the kingdom (see John 3:3). The call is to whomever will (the regenerate), and not to whomever will not (the unregenerate). The call is to those who labor and are heavy laden (see Matt. 11:28), and not to those who are proud in their self-righteousness. The call is to sinners and not to the righteous (see Matt. 9:13). The offer and promise are to the penitent and not to the impenitent (see Acts 11:18). The only ones who do become regenerate are the elect (see John 6:44). So the call is always to the regenerate and never to the unregenerate. It is not even to the elect while unregenerate but only to the elect when regenerate. The elect are the ones for whom Christ died and who are regenerated at the appointed time when they hear Christ calling by the gospel.