dispensational/reformed

[Rippon]

any more than a Catholic likes being called a "mackerel snapper"

I have never heard that before in my life. I can try and google it later. That's an uncommon term I would say.

the complex concept of dispensationalism, one will be amazed at the symmetry and truth found in it.

If dispensationalism is complex --wouldn't that mitigate against having symmetry and truth? Complex conveys complications -- not easily understood.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If dispensationalism is complex ...

"Complex" from the misconceptions about it, not what it actually is.

A widespread misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism is that they believe the key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. Almost all theologians will recognize that God worked differently through the Law than He did through Grace. That is not to say that salvation was attained in a different manner, but that the responsibilities given to man by God were different during the period of the giving of the Law up to the cross, just as they were different for Adam and Eve.

The Jews were to show their true faith by doing what God had commanded, even though they couldn't keep the moral Law, for which reason they were given the sacrifices, imprinting in them the idea of blood shed for forgiveness, even though, as the writer of Hebrews said, the blood of animals did nothing for them. It would be the blood of Christ which provided the true deliverance God promised. When the apostle Paul said that as to the Law he was blameless, he didn't mean that he never sinned, but that he obeyed God by following the guidelines of the Law when he did sin, and animal sacrifices were offered for his sins by the priests in the temple.

Salvation came not by keeping the law, but by seeing it's true purpose in exposing sin and the great extent to which it exists in our lives. It forces us to turn to God for salvation, as we have no power in ourselves to seek Him. The Jews weren't saved based on how well they kept the law, as many of them thought. That would be salvation by works. They were saved through faith in God, and the work of Christ on the cross was counted for them, even though it hadn't happened yet. It is what was meant in Genesis 15:6 when God credited Abram's belief as righteousness, a righteousness that would come through Christ's sacrifice some 1,800 years later.

Dispensationalists will define three key dispensations, (1) The Mosaic Law, (2) The present age of Grace, and (3) the future Millennial Kingdom. Most will agree about the first two, and Covenant theology will disagree about the third, seeing this as the 'eternal state'. The reality is so-called Covenant Theology is much more fractured and divergent than anything of which those of us who believe in dispensational theology have been accused. Some convanentalists believe there is no literal Millennial Kingdom, but see a future literal fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom. Others believe Israel has forfeited her promises from God given to Abram/Abraham. Still others accept a literal Millennial Kingdom, even a pre-tribulational rapture and the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the seven years of Tribulation.

A greater breakdown than that provides in the above paragraph, of specific dispensations, is possible, giving most traditional Dispensationalists seven recognizable dispensations.

• Innocence - Adam
• Conscience - After man sinned, up to the flood
• Government - After the flood, man allowed to eat meat, death penalty instituted
• Promise - Abraham up to Moses and the giving of the Law
• Law - Moses to the cross
• Grace - The cross to the Millennial Kingdom
• Millennial Kingdom - A 1000 year reign of Christ on earth centered in Jerusalem

While not everyone needs to agree on this breakdown, the point from the Dispensationalists view is that God is working with man in a progressive way. At each stage man has failed to be obedient to the responsibilities set forth by God. The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations.

The responsibilities God gives to man does change however. The Jews were to be obedient to the Law if they wished God's blessing of Land. If they were disobedient, they would be scattered. However, God promises to always bring them back to the land promised to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant.

After the cross, believers no longer need the Law, though it is still in effect. It points to Christ as the one that took away sin through His perfect sacrifice.

We are under a new Law, the Law of Grace. We have more revelation about God, and are no longer required to keep ceremonial laws given to the Jews. The moral law is always in effect as a guide, but we are no longer condemned by it, since we have a savior that has overcome for us.

Now I ask you, is that complex, misrepresentative of truth? Hardly.

 

[Tom Butler]

The first teaching I ever had on eschatology was dispensationalism--although the emphasis was on the pre-trib rapture than the other parts. For a long time, I didn't know there were other views.

During my dispy period, I also discovered and embraced Calvinism. Although I later adopted another end-times view, I still am a DoG. My change in view on eschatology had nothing to do with my DoG views. At least I couldn't find any conflict between the Dispy and DoG.

So, my question is, is there? Is being Dispy inconsistent with DoG? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

During my dispy period, I also discovered and embraced Calvinism.

I don't believe dispensationalism teaches any but a pre-tribulational rapture, though 1) I can't say for certain that is true, and 2) I am sure there are some who don't accept that view.

My change in view on eschatology had nothing to do with my DoG views.

This is another issue that arises. Is it the contention of those who hold out against the dispensational view that we deny Grace?

So, my question is, is there? Is being Dispy inconsistent with DoG?

No. Absolutely unequivocally not. And anyone who denies that doesn't really understand what Dispensationalists believe. Personally, I hold to the view that man has some very small role in salvation, in that, after having been drawn, called and the mind opened by the Holy Spirit, there is a moment that requires acquiescence, assent. But all that gets one to that point is the total, complete work of God alone. Man is incapable of getting there on his own.

 

[Havensdad]

Secondly, there is, as Agedman stated, really only "one flavor" of dispensationalism today. The "two methods of salvation" claim by anti-dispensation Reformists was hardly ever valid, and it certainly isn't valid today.

As someone who has read the early dispensationalists, such as Scoffield, I have to say "balderdash." Dispensationalism originally taught two methods of salvation. That WAS dispensationalist teaching...something even my dispensationalist brothers frequently admit.

I think the assumption that dispensational thought changes on a regular basis is absurd. If one truly studies -- for the purpose of understanding, not for the purpose of attempting to find fault --the complex concept of dispensationalism, one will be amazed at the symmetry and truth found in it.

But it does. Again, this is something that dispensational scholars frequently admit. Not sure why you would deny something so plainly evident. Its not as if it makes dispensationalism false...(although it is)

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As someone who has read the early dispensationalists, such as Scoffield, I have to say "balderdash."

Simply because people have interpreted Darby's writings as teaching "two salvations" does not make it so. It only means they didn't understand what Darby was saying. Sorry to burst you bubble, but I'm not engaging you in your juvenile efforts to insult other members, hoping they will be bludgeoned into submission, in this thread, either.

 

[Havensdad]

Simply because people have interpreted Darby's writings as teaching "two salvations" does not make it so. It only means they didn't understand what Darby was saying. Sorry to burst you bubble, but I'm not engaging you in your juvenile efforts to insult other members, hoping they will be bludgeoned into submission, in this thread, either.

Not "bludgeoning" anyone. But you are wrong. Funny that you accuse me of being juvenile for simple stating facts. I have not "insulted" anyone. Discuss the topic, or don't. I don't care. But keep your politically correct, "I am a poor victim" stuff to yourself.

 

[Rippon]

I think the assumption that dispensational thought changes on a regular basis is absurd.

The evidence works against your thesis. Did things remain static since the days of Darby? Scofield, Chafer ,Ryrie are not identical in their views to name a few.

Are you a "Progressive Dispensationalist",or as John MacArthur refers to himself --as a "leaky dispensationalist?

There is nothing monolithic about Dispensationialism. It can be compared with Baskin Robbins.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The evidence works against your thesis. Did things remain static since the days of Darby? Scofield, Chafer ,Ryrie are not identical in their views to name a few.

The basic concepts have most certainly been described differently by those and other writers. But to claim that the tenets as I outlined in a previous post have been inconsistent would be incorrect.

Are you a "Progressive Dispensationalist" ...

I'm not sure such an animal exists, if you're asking if I believe salvation has "changed" over the course of the dispensations. As I said, I certainly don't believe salvation has changed from the foundations of the world. Darby didn't teach that it "changed," and neither did any of the others you named.

...or as John MacArthur refers to himself --as a "leaky dispendationalist?

I'm not sure Mac understands what dispensationalism is, honestly.

There is nothing monolithic about Dispensationialism. It can be compared with Baskin Robbins.

That could be said about any other theological concept as well, including Calvinism.

 

[kyredneck]

"Complex" from the misconceptions about it, not what it actually is.

A widespread misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism is that they believe the key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. Almost all theologians will recognize that God worked differently through the Law than He did through Grace. That is not to say that salvation was attained in a different manner, but that the responsibilities given to man by God were different during the period of the giving of the Law up to the cross, just as they were different for Adam and Eve.

The Jews were to show their true faith by doing what God had commanded, even though they couldn't keep the moral Law, for which reason they were given the sacrifices, imprinting in them the idea of blood shed for forgiveness, even though, as the writer of Hebrews said, the blood of animals did nothing for them. It would be the blood of Christ which provided the true deliverance God promised. When the apostle Paul said that as to the Law he was blameless, he didn't mean that he never sinned, but that he obeyed God by following the guidelines of the Law when he did sin, and animal sacrifices were offered for his sins by the priests in the temple.

Salvation came not by keeping the law, but by seeing it's true purpose in exposing sin and the great extent to which it exists in our lives. It forces us to turn to God for salvation, as we have no power in ourselves to seek Him. The Jews weren't saved based on how well they kept the law, as many of them thought. That would be salvation by works. They were saved through faith in God, and the work of Christ on the cross was counted for them, even though it hadn't happened yet. It is what was meant in Genesis 15:6 when God credited Abram's belief as righteousness, a righteousness that would come through Christ's sacrifice some 1,800 years later.

Dispensationalists will define three key dispensations, (1) The Mosaic Law, (2) The present age of Grace, and (3) the future Millennial Kingdom. Most will agree about the first two, and Covenant theology will disagree about the third, seeing this as the 'eternal state'. The reality is so-called Covenant Theology is much more fractured and divergent than anything of which those of us who believe in dispensational theology have been accused. Some convanentalists believe there is no literal Millennial Kingdom, but see a future literal fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom. Others believe Israel has forfeited her promises from God given to Abram/Abraham. Still others accept a literal Millennial Kingdom, even a pre-tribulational rapture and the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the seven years of Tribulation.

A greater breakdown than that provides in the above paragraph, of specific dispensations, is possible, giving most traditional Dispensationalists seven recognizable dispensations.

• Innocence - Adam
• Conscience - After man sinned, up to the flood
• Government - After the flood, man allowed to eat meat, death penalty instituted
• Promise - Abraham up to Moses and the giving of the Law
• Law - Moses to the cross
• Grace - The cross to the Millennial Kingdom
• Millennial Kingdom - A 1000 year reign of Christ on earth centered in Jerusalem

While not everyone needs to agree on this breakdown, the point from the Dispensationalists view is that God is working with man in a progressive way. At each stage man has failed to be obedient to the responsibilities set forth by God. The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations.

The responsibilities God gives to man does change however. The Jews were to be obedient to the Law if they wished God's blessing of Land. If they were disobedient, they would be scattered. However, God promises to always bring them back to the land promised to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant.

After the cross, believers no longer need the Law, though it is still in effect. It points to Christ as the one that took away sin through His perfect sacrifice.

We are under a new Law, the Law of Grace. We have more revelation about God, and are no longer required to keep ceremonial laws given to the Jews. The moral law is always in effect as a guide, but we are no longer condemned by it, since we have a savior that has overcome for us.

Now I ask you, is that complex, misrepresentative of truth? Hardly.

It's about as convoluted as it gets. One has to have a dispensationalist manual or chart to be able to follow it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It's about as convoluted as it gets. One has to have a dispensationalist manual or chart to be able to follow it.

If you believe what you have posted here, it is because your mind has decided it is complex, even though it isn't. There's nothing there complicated or hard to understand -- if one just cares to read.

 

[kyredneck]

Baloney. It take someone like you to explain it and teach it. NNE reading the scriptures on their own with no presuppositions would ever come to the dispensational position, period.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Baloney.

I like mine all-beef, with mustard and American cheese, please. And sea salt and vinegar chips on the side. Yum!

It take someone like you to explain it and teach it.

You seem to have mistaken me for a Ph.D in Theology. Nope. Masters, though. In psychology. I have degrees, certifications and licenses that tell the public I can explain the mind. I really can't. All I can do is try, and as I get more and more experience in doing so, the more I realize every mind is unique and nothing can really explain any given mind on any given day. However, I have a solid, biblically based conceptual theory called Cognitive Behavioral Psychology that helps me understand most of them well enough to help their owners.

On the other hand, I can and do understand the Bible. All I have to do is read it. And I can even explain it, a little bit. That's more than I can do professionally with most minds.

NNE reading the scriptures on their own with no presuppositions would ever come to the dispensational position, period.

Hm. Wonder how it came about then?

OK, in all seriousness, for the life of me, I don't understand why people are afraid of dispensationalism. All it is, is a doctrinal system, a lens through which we can view all of biblical doctrine. It isn't meant to interpret Scripture. All doctrinal systems have an element of human invention, and as such, no doctrine should be used to interpret Scripture. That includes the most loved and very nearly "holy" doctrines defended on this board. Doctrines only explain Scripture. That's all any of them are intended to do.

 

[agedman]

Baloney. It take someone like you to explain it and teach it. NNE reading the scriptures on their own with no presuppositions would ever come to the dispensational position, period.

You are making a huge assumption with this statement.

One that frankly is unsubstantiatable.

Rather, it is provable that dispensational thinking has been around far longer than "Darby."

While reading preachers who lived long ago, they often put a "time line" that indicated:

an pre-fall time,
a pre-noah (or abraham) time,
a pre-law time,
a pre-Christ time,
a church age of grace time,
a future literal reign of Christ time,
a future eternal time.
​

That such was not given a "title" did not mean it was not considered both normal teaching and correct.


>>>>>>>>>>>>


I would like to address another issue raised in this thread and some of the covenant folks would recognize ownership.

It has to do with taking literal or allegorical great amounts of Scriptures.

Dispensational thinking folks are often greatly exercised in the Spirit when they read or listen to Covenant folks allegorize Scriptures and attempt to rearrange the clear teaching in trying to conform it to covenant view(s).

The great second coming and millennial reign of Christ is one of the most clearly stated passages of Scripture and if it were about any other than eschatology, it would be a linchpin doctrinal statement of every believer.

But, because it is prophetic, and any prophetic even (even the second coming) is held in suspension (not suspicion), then some make great attempts to fit it into their own covenant scheme.

The Pre-trib have their view, the covenant folks their view, but the only view that takes Scripture at face value and without making great modifying and allegory is the dispensational thinking.

One other point that is clear.

There are is as much "modification" and dispute over certain passages by the covenant folks as there is by the dispensation folks.

The claim that one side has "historically" remained stagnate without change is inaccurate. I have read attempts on the BB to use this thinking as supportive, but it is not factual. Reading the Puritan writers shows that some had sharp disagreement over covenant matters and views.

No other than Johnathan Edwards agreed that God was not finished with the Jews, but did have a future plan for them. That BOTH the church and Israel would be grafted together.

I gave that as just one example of the deep fractures that some covenant thinkers wish did not exist but do.

On a side, personally, I think the pre-trib rapture books of the last few decades has clouded and confused what is perhaps the clearest and most reliable interpretation view of Scriptures. But, this thread isn't about rapture thinking.

The OP was seeking those who have experienced the "disconnect" or "tension" when soteriology would probably be considered reformed, and the dispensational camp isn't comfortable with reformed thinking?

And, at the same time the reformed camp isn't comfortable because of the dispensational view.

Is there anyone else who have similar views and knows the struggle/rejection?


.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Now that man looks more like a theologian to me. :laugh:

:thumbsup: A/M. Good post.

 

[agedman]

However, I have a solid, biblically based conceptual theory called Cognitive Behavioral Psychology that helps me understand most of them well enough to help their owners.

My soul!

You should have long ago switched to a more personal responsibility theory such as Glasser's reality therapy or perhaps a some humanistic oriented Existential theory - but then if I have read correctly, you question "free will" that the Existential embraces.

Dr. Phil would be disappointed.

:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

My soul!

You should have long ago switched to a more personal responsibility theory such as Glasser's reality therapy or perhaps a some humanistic oriented Existential theory - but then if I have read correctly, you question "free will" that the Existential embraces.

Dr. Phil would be disappointed.

:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

Yes he would, wouldn't he? :laugh:

But [Christian psychiatrist] Dr. Aaron Beck, the developer of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy -- so named because he figured naming it "Biblically based psychology" would get him laughed out of the APA -- would love me!

 

[quantumfaith]

I like mine all-beef, with mustard and American cheese, please. And sea salt and vinegar chips on the side. Yum!

You seem to have mistaken me for a Ph.D in Theology. Nope. Masters, though. In psychology. I have degrees, certifications and licenses that tell the public I can explain the mind. I really can't. All I can do is try, and as I get more and more experience in doing so, the more I realize every mind is unique and nothing can really explain any given mind on any given day. However, I have a solid, biblically based conceptual theory called Cognitive Behavioral Psychology that helps me understand most of them well enough to help their owners.

On the other hand, I can and do understand the Bible. All I have to do is read it. And I can even explain it, a little bit. That's more than I can do professionally with most minds.

Hm. Wonder how it came about then?

OK, in all seriousness, for the life of me, I don't understand why people are afraid of dispensationalism. All it is, is a doctrinal system, a lens through which we can view all of biblical doctrine. It isn't meant to interpret Scripture. All doctrinal systems have an element of human invention, and as such, no doctrine should be used to interpret Scripture. That includes the most loved and very nearly "holy" doctrines defended on this board. Doctrines only explain Scripture. That's all any of them are intended to do.

Do you have "experience or knowledge" of educational psychologist etc.? If so, any stand outs in your estimation?

 

[quantumfaith]

My soul!

You should have long ago switched to a more personal responsibility theory such as Glasser's reality therapy or perhaps a some humanistic oriented Existential theory - but then if I have read correctly, you question "free will" that the Existential embraces.

Dr. Phil would be disappointed.

:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

Would that be William Glasser?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Do you have "experience or knowledge" of educational psychologist etc.? If so, any stand outs in your estimation?

It's not my arena, though I've heard of some, such as Aubrey Wang, Tony Perez, and Marcus Dreisel. They've done some good work, from what I've read, but again, as a cognitive therapist, I don't have a lot of contact with that discipline.