Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

OldRegular,

You wrote:
No, they are all the same Kingdom. However, some dispensationalists have attempted to differentiate between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. [See Walvoord Major Bible Prophecies, page 213.]
TakeChrist4Life:
You’re right on that point, I do believe some Dispensationalists have tried to distinguish between these terms instead of just seeing them as synonyms of each other. However these distinctions are not necessary to Dispensationalism, and as further light on the topic has been revealed, such notions at least on my part have been discarded.

You wrote:
Dispensational theology teaches that mortal man will inhabit the [now] so-called millennial kingdom. What more can I say.

TakeChrist4Life:
Again, the subject was not mortal man in some general sense, but redeemed National Israel in particular. Further, as to the exact nature of things in the Messianic Kingdom was not something we were discussing at all, until you brought up this point. Lets create another board if you want to discuss this, so that we won’t get off topic, like some others have on discussing the literal hermeneutic. Of course looking back over it now, I guess we’ve all gotten off topic since this board was started to discuss whether Dispensationalism was elitist.

You wrote:
The truth is the truth!

TakeChrist4Life:
Alrigthy then. I can only assume from this answer you were tired of this discussing this particular point, so in keeping with this standard you set, I shall declare that my beliefs are the truth. End of discussion.

You wrote:
He is not talking about National Israel. He is talking about the elect of Israel [Verses 2-5; 7; 23] I notice that you did not respond to my remark that the Deliverer came out of Sion 2000 years ago.

TakeChrist4Life:
How can you say that OldRegular when you can see for yourself that Paul in verse 7 says Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded. Paul then continues talking about the rest that were blinded, saying in verse 8 God hath given them the spirit of slumber. In verse 9 Paul quotes David, saying let their table be made a snare and in verse 10 let their eyes be darkened. You know good and well that these are not things spoken of the elect. You’re just dead wrong on this point. You don’t have to be a Dispensationalist to see that Paul is not talking about the elect of Israel. Over and over I have stressed that we have an honest discussion. In an honest discussion we both have to recognize the problems inherent with our views, and try to deal with them honestly. You simply blanketing Chapter 11 as a discussion of the elect of Israel is not an honest attempt at shoring up your views. No one is disputing the fact that the Deliverer came out of Sion 2000 years ago. What’s your point? The deliverer shall return to Sion at some point in the future. There is a second coming.

You wrote:
The Church is judging the 12 tribes of Israel because Jesus Christ said they would. However, those of the 12 tribes who are a part of the Church will escape judgment

TakeChrist4Life:
All national Israel shall be saved in Christ, without ever becoming a part of the Church, as scripture said they would. We’re getting nowhere with responses like this.

You wrote:
1. That is not an answer. Paul states there is only one Gospel.

2. That is the New Jerusalem, the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ.

3. They would not be made perfect until the sacrifice in time of Jesus Christ.
TakeChrist4Life:
1. Yours likewise is no answer. Your question was what Gospel was preached to Abraham, not how many Gospels there are. I used the same terms that Paul used in that verse, without qualifying them.
2. No, Abraham was not looking for New Jerusalem or any Jerusalem for that matter, nor was he looking for the Church, or the Bride of Jesus Christ. Jerusalem did not exist in Abraham’s time, nor did he have any conception of the Church, Jesus, or the Bride of Christ. The best answer is to use the same words that the Bible gave for what he was looking for, and which was what I stated: He looked for a city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God, and leave it at that.
3. Agreed. This point does no harm to Dispensationalism, nor does it prove your eschatological views, whatever they are. This brings me to a question I asked in the previous post: What Eschatological view do you espouse?

You wrote:
That is true until Jesus Christ returns in power and great glory at which time there will be a general resurrection of all the dead followed by the Great White Throne Judgment and the formation of the New Heavens and Earth.

TakeChrist4Life:
No, this is true for this Dispensation, until the Church is raptured, the Great Tribulation ensues, Christ returns again, the Millenial or Messianic Kingdom is realized, the first resurrection is past, the second resurrection is completed, the wicked dead judged at the Great White Throne Judgment, the formation of the New Heaven and New Earth, and finally Christ turns everything over to the Father, and God is all in all.

 

I have read most of those books and got more and more confused the more I read until I stopped reading most all books and spent a lot more time reading scripture. I would rather be one who has spent loads of time studying scripture rather than studying the work of J.N. Darby and those who have modified his work. What I find rather interesting is that the modern-day dispensationalists are moving away from the original classical dispensationalism that came on the heels of Scottish realism and German rationalism.

Sometime it takes time for people to realize where the wrongs are and get back to scripture and interpret it for what it is--God's word. I have yet to see a perfect systematic theology. Why do we need a systematic theology when we have scripture? Scripture must be always be the standard not a systematic theologian.

Seems to me the dispensationalists are guilty of the very same things they accuse Catholics of--traditionalism. They interpret in light of what J.N. Darby and his followers wrote. Darby was not and will not ever be a perfect theologian nor will any of his followers. That ought to be sufficient enough evidence to throw his works out the window.

We must remember 2 Timothy 3:16 not Darby and his works. Scripture is God's word and it perform all kinds of surgery and encouragement as needed. Something no systematic theology does.

If every systematic theology vanished we would lose nothing and would probably actually gain in that more people would be reading their Bible rather than what others think.. But if scripture vanished we would lose most everything.

 

That's good that you are a learner. You will never get bored or lazy with an attitude like that.

 

Larry,

I am somewhat familiar with the Epistle to the Romans and the literature on that epistle (I have in my home library 233 commentaries on Romans and hundreds more volumes on the theology and letters of Paul), and I am curious as to whom you mean by your expression, “Most commentators.”

 

Schreiner in his comments on 9:6 lists 17 commentators excluding himself who say that 9:6 is a reference to ethnic Jews in both uses. He then immediately follows that with "Nowhere in Romans 9-11 is the term "Israel" transferred to the church, and the issue that Paul confronts is whether the promises made to ethnic Israel will be fulfilled." I take by that that the 17 he refers to (which at a brief glance appears to be the major commentaries) agree with that statement. It seems those 17 represent the major commentaries, inasmuch as they seem to be the ones cited for support. I certainly can't speak for 233, though if you have read all 233 you may feel free to. I also said they "seem to agree," meaning that I may be misinterpreting Schriener's comments.

 

Fair enough. Thank you!

 

Carl, Larry & Andy,

I am a "Pauline Dispensationalist". It has been quite a while since I posted on this message board as I became dismayed at the REJECTION of Paul's doctrines for the body of Christ.

However, I want to thank the three of you for holding them up to the readers when it is obvious that your opponents are not going to REPENT concerning their theological errors. May the Lord bless each one of you for ILLUMINATING His Word and words.

The three of you most certainly need not be ashamed of your scriptural studies that stand approved unto God. I lift the three of you up in fervent prayer before the Heavenly Father that you continue to rightly divide the word of truth. In Jesus Holy Name, Amen.

Your friend in Christ,

R J

 

233 Commentaries on Romans? WOW! Most seminaries and colleges do not even have that many!

 

233 commentaries? Just on Romans? How many on the other 65 books?
Craig, when do you have time for the Bible?

All that reading of the "Rabbis" has muddled yer mind!

(All in fun craig, sorta)

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim,

I love you too!

Happy New Year and Merry Christmas 2005!

 

Craig,

You must put to good use those 233 commentaries because I get a lot out of your posts. My favorites are Matthew Henry for inspiration and Alfred Edersheim for the historical background. But what is your favorite commentator that bases their works on the Greek. Looking for a good one that was written before pre-Darby and Scofield era. (have to scruitinize too much post-Darby works)

I also noticed that, especially in you last excellent post, you used nothing but scripture of which it doesn't seem as though anyone has addressed yet the points that made a great deal of sense, (unless I missed it.

However, I must admit, even I would like to see a little clarification on "233 commentaries on Romans."

 

I have in my home library several or more commentaries on the Greek text of each of the 27 books of the N.T. and several or more commentaries on the Hebrew text of each of the 39 books of the O.T. that were written by specialists studying their particular book of the Bible. A number of these commentaries comprise two or more volumes on the individual book of the Bible, especially those that are deeply theological, for example, Romans and the Gospel According to John. Therefore I seldom use commentaries written on the entire Bible, but rather commentaries on individual books of the Bible written by scholars who have made that particular book of the Bible a major part of their life’s work.

However, for an excellent commentary of the entire Bible written before Darby, I would suggest the six volume commentary by Adam Clarke (1762-1832) who was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek plus several additional languages. This very fine work has been continuously in print every since it was first published and is widely available both new and used in hard copy, and the soft copy can be downloaded for free from the internet. The best place to download it from is at http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html where it can be downloaded as part of a very extensive but free Bible study program including more than 20 different translations of the Bible into English, several other Bible commentaries, the works of Edersheim, Bible dictionaries, a Bible atlas, and very many others resources one free module at a time until one has a very excellent Bible study program.

Thank you for your kind words. Pastor Larry commented very briefly on this post.

Approximate 350 writers that I am aware of have published in book form a commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Of these 350 commentaries, I have 233 in my home library.

 

Craig,

Thank you so much for the referrals

I will definately get that series. I was on the west coast recently and would love to have seen that library of yours!

I hope you keep posting here. You do a very thorough, understandable, and to the point presentation while being considerate at the same time.

I expected you'd have a valid explanation for 233 commentaries on Romans!

 

gp93433,

I came to God after praying to know Him, then reading the bible on my own before ever going to church. Different churches have been different disapointments because of theologies, traditions and motives. I've been sprinkled, told I haven't received the Holy Spirit because of tongues, and dunked. Told, I had to confess this way, any moment that way... So who are you going to listen to?...

I'm trying to settle in on the Baptist church because of a Pastor-friend telling me the fellowship is important and the theologies are non-essential.

Glad to hear a scholar would turn his bible study more directly toward God's words. I'm sure He will bless you with wisdom for that.

I wonder if the "dispensational elitists" are serving their own elitist agenda of superiority. It reminds me of how Jesus talked to the scribes and lawgivers. Also 1 Corinthians 1:17-27

Anyway, Is dispensationalism elitist? I say it tends to lean that way.

 

That was my first set of commentaries years ago. I was challenged by what I read to be better equipped and gain a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

 

Benjamin,

There is an excellent booklet out by John R.W. Stott called 'Baptism & Fullness,' The Work of the Holy Spirit Today.

He looks at every aspect of the promise, the fullness, the fruits and gifts of the Spirit and yet does it in a respectful, scriptural and methodical way.

 

TrailBlazer,
Thanks, but the title of that book alone bugs me!
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

I believe that wisdom comes from knowledge of the Word of God with guidance from the Holy Spirit. I fear that if I study to many theological views my learning will be from blanket statements, beliefs, and wants, covering up the truth in my heart with a false since of achievements that come from another’s heart which could include incompletes, misinterpretation or some type of foolishness.

As for gifts of the spirit, other than wisdom, I believe if someone had enough faith and no doubts he could move mountains, as Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith"

Now, I may not have enough faith and too much doubt to always be able to move mountains. If I had enough faith to heal from a gift from God, I would head to the hospital and tell no man. “ Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.”

What I have is hope, love for God, thankfulness for the Holy Spirit, trust in Him, discernment and my Bible. "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"

As for baptism:
I believe it is God’s will that we should not sin so He sent His Son to show us how much He loves us. That His only Son would die to pay for our sins. That we show a love and obedience for Him and His sacrifice and teachings by signifying a cleansing by baptism. Yet many of His baptized brats would walk around and say, "All you have to do is believe."

 

benjamin,

That is fine. It was just a suggestion. I even agree that scripture first is priority.

However, I know of no one that does not use at least a few educated works occasionally for different views on an issue. I always take what I have read and compare it to scripture. That is how I am able to hold firm on what I believe about dispensationalism - that it is not scripturally sound doctrine in spite of the fact that this board is filled with dispensational expositors.

Look at this way also. Just by being on this board we are "comparing" our held views with others who think differently - it's just not in paper form.

 

trailblazer,

Your right, the veiws are good to get me digging. The dispensationalism - well I guess Jesus even had some of that. I just find it hard to tolerate the elitist long enough to get involved or see holes in theologies that don't hold water at the begining.

 

Also,
I guess I would be judging that book by it's cover. Sorry