Dispensationalism - yea or nay.

[John of Japan]

The problem with dispensationalism is the sensational eschatology, which is often defended by labelling any opponent as a heretic. To me it appears to be an American doctrine (albeit borrowed from the UK) amongst Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals, who all join hands at this point in a curious alliance. It is a pity that Christian logic cannot be applied to this debate even after two hundred years. However, mostly dispensationalism lapses into silence about Darby's thinking on the Blessed Hope. So who cares?

This is really harsh, and on a fellowship thread.

1. I've never called non-dispensationalists "heretic," nor has anyone I know or any writer I know on the subject: Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, etc.
2. "Christian logic cannot be applied to this debate." That's really harsh. So we dispensationalists are illogical buffoons?

 

[John of Japan]

I have sought with the OP to be informative rather than argumentative.

Excellent.

I have often been told that because Israel did not accept the Pentecost Gospel, the Joel prophecy has been deferred until after the trib.

Never heard of that one.

End times & Daniel's 70th week await the renewal of the nation of Israel.

We've been in the "last days" since Pentecost.

I looked up his book & quote the only Amazon review -

It's hard to tell what books the reviewer is comparing the volume to. At any rate, what the reviewer apparently missed is that the book is (1) a dissertation made into a book. That means the research is original, not based on public sources. Therefore, it is groundbreaking. (2) a scholarly monograph, not a popular treatment.

 

[John of Japan]

I thought it was clear from the intro & context who the recipients were - 1:1, 1:10-12, 2:9-10, 3:1, 4:1-6, 5:1-7, 5:14b.

I have heard it argued that Peter was writing to Jewish Christians, not including Gentiles, (quoting Gal. 2:7-8) but although including the Galatians in 1:1, he doesn't mention the problems Paul dealt with. Also I don't think the Jews of the dispersion - who attracted Gentiles into their gatherings as recorded in Acts - would have lived as described in chapter 4 -

3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4 wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:5 who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
​

The debate is over the meaning of paroikos (tr. "strangers") in 1 Peter 2:11. Dr. Himes did original research in unpublished sources for this and for proginosko (3:17, to know before).

 

[church mouse guy]

This is really harsh, and on a fellowship thread.

1. I've never called non-dispensationalists "heretic," nor has anyone I know or any writer I know on the subject: Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, etc.
2. "Christian logic cannot be applied to this debate." That's really harsh. So we dispensationalists are illogical buffoons?

The debate rapidly becomes emotional. It is commonplace for anyone who does not believe in dispensational eschatology to be shunned or disinvited. The eschatology is only two hundred years old. No, dispensationalists are not illogical buffoons, but I would like to see one expound a logical refutation of Ladd or Oswald Smith, linked above, which I will link again because he is short. By the way, there have been several debates here over the years. By logical, I merely meant something other than, well, you can see the anti-Christ if you want but I will be raptured.

The Rapture – Oswald J Smith | Trumpet Sounds

 

[John of Japan]

The debate rapidly becomes emotional. It is commonplace for anyone who does not believe in dispensational eschatology to be shunned or disinvited.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither my father or grandfather (preachers) were dispensationalists, though I am, and no shunning ever occurred. You must be talking about the nonsense that happens here on the Internet, not real life.

The eschatology is only two hundred years old.

Irrelevant. Covenant theology is not much older.

No, dispensationalists are not illogical buffoons, but I would like to see one expound a logical refutation of Ladd or Oswald Smith, linked above, which I will link again because he is short. By the way, there have been several debates here over the years. By logical, I merely meant something other than, well, you can see the anti-Christ if you want but I will be raptured.

The Rapture – Oswald J Smith | Trumpet Sounds

Smith was post trib, and you can be post trib and still a dispensationalist. Ladd? Historical premil, just like my father and grandfather. So?

 

[church mouse guy]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither my father or grandfather (preachers) were dispensationalists, though I am, and no shunning ever occurred. You must be talking about the nonsense that happens here on the Internet, not real life.
Irrelevant. Covenant theology is not much older.

Smith was post trib, and you can be post trib and still a dispensationalist. Ladd? Historical premil, just like my father and grandfather. So?

Well, I am not talking nonsense but I am not going into details. You know that Fundamentalism does not compromise. Why don't you start a thread and refute Smith, who wrote almost 100 years ago--he was no fool but was well-educated. Ladd was also post-trib. Read his book Blessed Hope, if you don't believe me. Since when was dispensationalism ever post-trib?

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I am not talking nonsense but I am not going into details. You know that Fundamentalism does not compromise. Why don't you start a thread and refute Smith, who wrote almost 100 years ago--he was no fool but was well-educated. Ladd was also post-trib. Read his book Blessed Hope, if you don't believe me. Since when was dispensationalism ever post-trib?

I have no desire to refute Smith or anyone else. That's not how I spend my time. Smith has no rep as a theologian, especially in eschatology. (In scholarship, it is important to go to the most recent sources, and Smith's essay is quite old in the realm of theology--his assertion about the little lady who supposedly invented Darby's theolgy, for example.)

And I teach "Dispensational Theology" in college and eschatology in seminary, and therefore have read a bunch on it, so though I appreciate your reading suggestions, I see no need for me to read them.

I'll restate it: you can be post trib and still be dispensational. Abandon those Internet sources, and read Dispensationalism by Ryrie. He writes that "being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist. (Howevewr, the reverse is true--being a dispensationalist makes one a premillennialist.)" (p. 46). But he says nothing in the whole book about the pretrib view. Or, find me somewhere in Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, that says you must be pretrib. He even calls the pretrib position a "theory," though he holds to it.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I am not talking nonsense but I am not going into details. You know that Fundamentalism does not compromise.

This is not a valid description of Fundamentalism in any way, shape or form. All the fundamentalists I know are willing to compromise in various areas, but not on essential doctrine.

 

[church mouse guy]

I have no desire to refute Smith or anyone else. That's not how I spend my time. Smith has no rep as a theologian, especially in eschatology. (In scholarship, it is important to go to the most recent sources, and Smith's essay is quite old in the realm of theology--his assertion about the little lady who supposedly invented Darby's theolgy, for example.)

And I teach "Dispensational Theology" in college and eschatology in seminary, and therefore have read a bunch on it, so though I appreciate your reading suggestions, I see no need for me to read them.

I'll restate it: you can be post trib and still be dispensational. Abandon those Internet sources, and read Dispensationalism by Ryrie. He writes that "being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist. (Howevewr, the reverse is true--being a dispensationalist makes one a premillennialist.)" (p. 46). But he says nothing in the whole book about the pretrib view. Or, find me somewhere in Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, that says you must be pretrib. He even calls the pretrib position a "theory," though he holds to it.

Okay, did anyone come out of Dallas who was post-trib?

It is too bad that you find a flaw in Smith that lets you decline to refute him. As for the most recent sources, I suppose that would be Ladd but I doubt if his theology would be any different than Smith's. And I am not using internet sources, unless you mean that Smith is on the internet, but then I heard of him before there was an internet, okay?

Apparently there is no one who is pre-trip who cares to defend it. People are just too busy to give an answer.

 

[church mouse guy]

This is not a valid description of Fundamentalism in any way, shape or form. All the fundamentalists I know are willing to compromise in various areas, but not on essential doctrine.

I would assume that pre-trib is an essential doctrine of Fundamentalism.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, did anyone come out of Dallas who was post-trib?

How in the world would I know??

It is too bad that you find a flaw in Smith that lets you decline to refute him. As for the most recent sources, I suppose that would be Ladd but I doubt if his theology would be any different than Smith's. And I am not using internet sources, unless you mean that Smith is on the internet, but then I heard of him before there was an internet, okay?

What I gain by refuting Smith: 00.0

Apparently there is no one who is pre-trip who cares to defend it. People are just too busy to give an answer.

Well, you've already been quite harsh, so what do I gain by debating you about it? To me, it's a lose-lose proposition.

 

[John of Japan]

I would assume that pre-trib is an essential doctrine of Fundamentalism.

By no means. Even Ernest Sandeen does not say this in his history of Fundamentalism, which postulates that the movement came from the 19th century millenarian disputes. "Both pre- and posttribulationist champions exist within American Fundamentaism more than half a century after that paper war" (of the 1890's; The Roots of Fundamentalism, p. 220).

 

[church mouse guy]

How in the world would I know??


What I gain by refuting Smith: 00.0

Well, you've already been quite harsh, so what do I gain by debating you about it? To me, it's a lose-lose proposition.

I know--I'm a deplorable.

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus fulfilled Daniel's 70th week with his death on the cross in the middle of it. Dispensationalists ignore this, and turn Jesus into Antichrist placing him somewhere somewhere into the future. They fabricate a gap which scripture knows nothing of, between the 69th and 70th weeks. And stuff it like a burrito with false prophecies that totally contradict the New Testament teaching on Israel and the spiritual nature of the kingdom.

Until they can prove from scripture a gap between the 69th and 70th week in Daniel's prophecy exists, their entire end time scheme rests on nothing more than thin air and human invention.

 

[Covenanter]

It's instructive the way Peter handles the Sinai Covenant in 1 Peter 2. Christ fulfilled the terms of the Exo. 19 covenant by his own perfect obedience. Now the believers (strangers) become the full beneficiaries of the OC & are experiencing the OC promise.

The key to 1 Peter is realizing to whom it was written. My son is a Petrine scholar. You can buy his Ph.D. dissertation-turned-book on 1 Peter here: https://www.amazon.com/Foreknowledg...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1536952916&sr=8-5

I thought it was clear from the intro & context who the recipients were - 1:1, 1:10-12, 2:9-10, 3:1, 4:1-6, 5:1-7, 5:14b.

The debate is over the meaning of paroikos (tr. "strangers") in 1 Peter 2:11. Dr. Himes did original research in unpublished sources for this and for proginosko (3:17, to know before).

My understanding is that Peter was writing to the Christians in Asia/Turkey - Galatia & surrounding area - who because of their faith were being persecuted as "strangers" by Jews, locals & Romans. I'm sure your son earned his Ph.D. but not sure that it will help me in my understanding of Peter's letters.

Go on - tell me the secret in a paragraph, or I will go on believing that Peter wrote to Christians converted from Judaism & paganism.

 

[John of Japan]

I know--I'm a deplorable.

Well...if you say so.

 

[John of Japan]

My understanding is that Peter was writing to the Christians in Asia/Turkey - Galatia & surrounding area - who because of their faith were being persecuted as "strangers" by Jews, locals & Romans. I'm sure your son earned his Ph.D. but not sure that it will help me in my understanding of Peter's letters.

Go on - tell me the secret in a paragraph, or I will go on believing that Peter wrote to Christians converted from Judaism & paganism.

You want me to condense a scholarly monograph into a BB post??? There's no secret, just a dissertation on the meanings of some key Greek words. I'll just say this: he links "strangers" and "foreknowledge."

But you might enjoy his other book, written more for popular consumption. It's about the cultural and social background of the churches in Rev. 2 & 3: https://www.amazon.com/Where-Your-A...8&qid=1537201002&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+a+himes

 

[church mouse guy]

Well...if you say so.

No, you said so.

 

[John of Japan]

No, you said so.

No, I didn't. That's a false accusation. I only pointed out that you said some harsh things (criticizing what you said). That does not mean I attacked you personally (calling you "a deplorable").

This is exactly what is wrong with many Internet debates: failing to distinguish between criticism of one's statements as versus a personal attack.

 

[church mouse guy]

No, I didn't. That's a false accusation. I only pointed out that you said some harsh things (criticizing what you said). That does not mean I attacked you personally (calling you "a deplorable").

This is exactly what is wrong with many Internet debates: failing to distinguish between criticism of one's statements as versus a personal attack.

Really, I should think that you said that I had been quite harsh, John of Japan.