Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Yes, there are some county bumpkin and hillbilly seminaries in the Appalachian and Ozark Mountains that teach dispensationalism, and one well known "seminary" in Texas whose entire faculty (with the exception of about 5% of them) has been so indoctrinated by that school that they have earned from it a Masters degree in dispensational theology. However, to say that dispensationalism is “understood and held to by the common man” can only be true if only about 3% of common Christian folks are “common” Christian folks! Even most county bumpkins and hillbillies can read the Bible!

And no, I am not at elitist —the hills of Santa Monica are no more God’s country than the Appalachian and Ozark Mountains, and the folks that live in Santa Monica are no more God’s people that the country folks, howbeit the Santa Monica folks do tend to have more degrees after their names than the years of grammar school completed by their counterparts.

 

I agree with you. Dispensationalism is a straight derivative of Scottish Realiam and then German Rationalism. If you hear liberals talk they are very similar in their approach as the dispensationalist. They just start and end at two different points. But their approach to scripture is exactly the same. They are veery rational in their approach.

The reason why the Europeans would not buy into Darby, who became a member of something like 39 different churches, is because they look at things longer and are not as gullible as the typical American.

If anyone reads Spurgeon you know what he thinks about Darby--not much.

 

Craig-By-The-Sea, your argumentation on this thread does not refute dispensationalism or even address it. Your argument is basicly, "I am smart and dispensationalists are stupid and ignorant". THAT is an elitist attitude. The question in the title of this thread is "Is dispensationalism elitist?" Your language, reveals that you are an elitist. I think, and I think others who read this thread will agree, that you are an elitist. That answers the question of this thread as to who is an elitist. Thank you for demonstrating the answer so clearly.

 

Craig said ;"And no, I am not at elitist ...howbeit the Santa Monica folks do tend to have more degrees after their names than the years of grammar school completed by their counterparts."
-------------------------------------------------
Methinks Craig has "hoof-in-mouth".




In HIS service;
Jim

 

You may certainly call me anything that you please. But I will have you know that I am the president of the Santa Monica Yacht Club, the most distinguished member of three of the most prestigious country clubs in the Western Hemisphere, that I have more degrees from ivy league universities than some of you could count, and an I.Q. that makes Einstein look like a mentally retarded baboon suffering from the late stages of progressive dementia. I will also have you to know that am a very humble man and that I do NOT drive a Rolls Royce to impress my neighbors but only because I enjoy riding in a comfortable motor car that doesn’t vibrate, shake, and bounce all over the roadway. And at church I sit up on the platform with the pastors rather than deprive one of the lesser folks a place to sit in a pew. Last year I tithed $4,200,000 to my church and I never told anyone but the pastors and deacons that I gave that much.

My wife just told me that the President is on the phone and wants me to take over Don’s job as Secretary of Defense . . . that space cadet still hasn’t figured out that I am a Democrat! Anyway, I need to go and tell that knucklehead that unless he lets me have the Oval Office with the view of the rose garden, I’m not going to work for him. Who does he think he is?

 

The faculty at DTS believe it less and less too. I have not met one person who after questioning them even understands dispensationalism fully.

Who could ever understand Clarence Larkin? I have not met one. I am including those who teach the stuff too. A friend of mine who was a Ph.D. student at DTS many times told me about thing he nor the faculty believe that Chafer, Larkin and Scofield peddled.

If you listen carefully to a full fledged dispensationalsist their attitude very much parallels the rationalist. I know. Having been taught for several years by those pastors and then realizing that I was trying to explain the entire Bible rationally. When in the end I came to ther point where I said to myself, "Explain God." To make along story short, that ended dispensationalism for me.

 

Several "old" ladies that I know understand Larkin. They like the pictures. They KNEW what he said because he used the Bible to "document" what he taught. They KNEW the Bible for they have read it like some people read the Bulletin Board looking for used cars, exercise machines, golf carts, or places to hunt. They didn't have any degrees, and they didn't feign "pretensious piousness", nor did they acclaim their educational abilities above others. They certainly didn't demean the Scriptures as some also do here.

Dispensationalism is not only a fact, but derived from an ENGLISH BIBLE WORD used by the apostle who EXPLAINED the concept from his epistles.

Rejection of dispensationalism manifests ridiculous MINDLESS rhetoric.

Now whether or nor you call them what Scofield did makes no difference. THE CONCEPT OF EACH IS THERE. (Innocense, conscience, etc.) They were ALL TAUGHT by Paul. Whether or not most Christians "grasp" them is superfluous. IF THEY READ THEIR BIBLE MORE THAN THE BARNEY GOOGLE THEY WILL BY THE LEADING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO WROTE THE BOOK. If they sit under people, whom the Holy Spirit has ALREADY TAUGHT, (Darby, Scofield, Larkin), then they will learn quicker. He gave teachers OF MEN to HELP YOU besides the Holy Spirit. (Eph.4)

Now what does Paul say.

Paul divides those WITHOUT LAW, UNDER LAW, and UNDER GRACE. (Rom.2,3,6) This is the basic cut. (2 Tim.2) He divides Adam from Moses, who is divided from Christ. (Rom.5) He speaks of time past. He speaks of SIN coming in by Adam. (Rom.5) He speaks of a time of INNOCENSE, when he was alive WITHOUT THE LAW, then dying CORROBORATING Rom.5 to humanity. (Rom.7) He speaks of those judged by CONSCIENCE, who have the WORK OF THE LAW written in their hearts. (Rom.2) He speaks of RULE OF GOVERNMENT handed down. (Rom.13) He speaks of the PROMISES given to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. (Rom.9) He speaks of the law. (Rom.3) He speaks of Grace which is NOW MANIFESTED. (Rom.3,5,6) He speaks of the FUTURE day of the righteous jugdment of God. (Rom.2) He speaks of the ages to come.

There's seven, with another. (Eight)

Anyone who reads the OT can "find" them AS HE TAUGHT. (Excluding the PRESENT one, of course)

It's real easy IF you just "look" at the Book.

 

The main problem I see with dispensationalism as it is taught today is that it is way too rigid in terms of timeframes. As if, one day God acts this way and the very next day He acts a different way because a "new" dispensation has just begun. This kind of ultra-dispensationalism leads to the kind of unBiblical mindset that teaches that God cannot deal with Israel and the church at the same time (i.e. Church MUST be raptured before the 70th week begins, sound familiar?) This kind of forced division is not supported by scripture. After all, AD 70 was well within the 'church age' and so was 1948 & 1967, etc, etc. A cursory review of the history of the Jews since AD 33 ought to put that kind of thinking to rest, but sadly, pre-tribbers hang on to it dogmatically as a foundation to their belief.

Has and does God deal differently with different peoples? Sure. Does this mean that He ONLY deals with one group at a time? Absolutely not!

 

Carl,

I disagree.

That is KJVO.

I do support KJV. But, I do not worship KJV as idol. I thank God for English Bible, so I can read in my own language.

Word, 'dispensation' is not find from Greek Textus Receptus, when 1611 Authorized Version translated from Greek. Greek says, 'stewardship' - 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; & Col. 1:25. The actual meaning of this word is administration, and duty.

I understand the Bible gives us two parts about the covenant - old testament and new testament.

God only have one plan of salvation for everyone from the beginning to the end.

Throughout, many priests made offerings and sacrifices by slain animals with blood to forgive people's sin often. But these animals do not forgive their sins. These were the example of memorial to remind people about forgive. These were under the old covenant.

Christ came to earth to died on the corss, his blood paid all our sins at once. Now, we are under the new covenant. EVEN, include all Old Testament saints are NOW under the new covenant. Christ took all O.T. saints' sins through Calvary, include took all our(N.T.) sins also.

Laws do not saved us. Laws do not saved O.T. saints. Laws are for to reveal people like as mirror to show us that we break the laws and sin against God daily.

Romans 4:3-5; Galatians chapter 3 tell us, Abraham was saved by the faith only, not of works. The plan of salvation of Ephesians 2:8 never change since from the beginning to the end.

Also, Calvary ALREADY make both Jews and Gentiles reconciled together into ONE at once 2,000 years, no more divided again forever -Eph. 2:12-22.

Israel is not divided now, Isreal is ALREADY reconciled at once according Romans chapter 11 and Ephesians chapter 2 through Calvary.

There is none "special" plan for 'Israel' & 'Church' in the future. Christ already make Jews and Gentiles reconciled together at once 2,000 years ago.

Dispensationalists teach there are different groups of 'saints'. They saying, there are 3 or more different groups of saints: 1. O.T. saints 2. N.T. saints 3. Israeli saints 4. Church saints 5. Tribulation saints 6. Millennial saints.

I do not believe in divided among within body of Christ. I believe Bible teaches us the unity together body of Christ through Calvary at once 2,000 years ago, there shall be NO MORE divided again forever and ever.

I consider, Dispensationalism causes people into confusion, because of complex and philosophy comes from men's teaching (Colossians 2:8). I rather follow what the Bible saying than what men saying.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Confusion abounds in Christendom today mostly because of misunderstanding.

But personally DPT, in my own thinking, I don't find dispensationalism as the element causing confusion in the Church. Neither do I find it a very complex issue (comparatively speaking as Calvinism vs. Arminianism).

Confusion arises out of incomplete or faulty knowledge of any given subject.

I can understand a subject and disagree, but disagreement is not confusion.

That is the witness of probably every poster here DPT. No one says "Bah humbug with the Bible, now I'm going to follow the precepts of men starting today".

Do you believe in the Trinity? It took men at least 2 centuries of disagreement and debate to come up with a short and concise definition of the Trinity - God is three distinct persons in one divine essence.

HankD

 

DeafPostTrib

Confusion does not come from Dispensationalism, but usually from a lack of study on the Christians part. You could ask the average Christian to explain the details involved with Soteriology(study of salvation), Pneumatology(study of the Holy Spirit), Christology(study of Christ), and any of a host of Christian doctrines we hold to be true, and there would be some confusion as to what and how they explain it. This is mainly due to Christianity being studied more from a devotional point of view, than it is from a scholastic point of view. At least this has been my experience when dealing with fellow Christians on various theological discussions. Not that this is bad, it just has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that it keeps the Christian’s life centered on the proper focus of theology which is God Himself. The disadvantage is that when pressed, Christians often give inadequate, or not well though out answers to questions posed to them, whether the question comes from some skeptic questioning the validity of Christianity itself, or in a simple discussion amongst fellow Christians on some theological doctrine. Balance is what is needed.

As far as what you said about Israel, the Church, and the various groups of saints that Dispensationalists distinguish, I believe your statements belie a problem that many times we fail to reconcile, which is the problem of recognizing unity within diversity. The most classic example of this problem are the issues that some people have with the Trinity. They just cannot fathom how one God can exist in three persons. Similarly, some people cannot fathom how the various groupings of saints are still one people. So in order to not cause confusion, or what I call oversimplify, they simply throw out all distinguishing characteristics, and like you, lean only on those scriptures that speak of the saints as one body. The problem is that you have to ignore various scriptures that do distinguish the saints. One such example of this is in Revelation where you see the sealing of the 144,000, and yet in another place you see a group of saints which no man could number. Now without going into all sorts of interpretation as to who these people are, the point is clear that they are two distinct groups of people, and yet who would say that they are so distinct as to constitute entirely separate peoples of God. Isn’t it the same God who saves both? They are one and yet distinct. God does not destroy diversity, and bringing about the unity of the people of God. Of course there are more examples of this same type of scriptural phenomenon, but for now this should suffice. I look forward to reading your reply.

 

HankD

Amen to your reply. It's amazing that while I was typing my reply to DPT, you had already posted with some of the same ideas I replied with.

God is Great,

 

Danrusdad,

You can take any doctrine, and find adherents that are not balanced, and bring a repugnant extremism to how they express it. But in honestly dealing with any doctrine, we cannot take extremists and what they say as the primary or sole reason for disagreeing or dismissing the doctrine itself. The way you described Dispensationalism is not in my opinion accurate. God does not do one thing one day, and then the very next does something totally different and unconnected, and nor have I heard any Dispensationalist describe it that way.

In regards to whether God deals with Israel and the Church at the same time, and your supporting your view with documented history, does not really address any facet of Dispensationalism. The events of A.D 70, 1948, and 1967, as well as the present troubles that Israel are experiencing are well within the purview of Dispensationalism, and in fact is used to prove the validity of Dispensational eschatology. The Dispensational idea that God is dealing with the Church now, does not exclude prophetic events from being fulfilled that will usher in the next dispensation. Furthermore, when Dispensationalists say God is dealing with the Church, and not Israel, what is meant is the personal and relational dealings with ethnic Israel, and not simply the results of their disobedience and rejection of their Messiah, as seen in the historic events you mentioned.

 

Thanks for the laugh Brother. You ARE funny.
I love ya man! No...REALLY!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The 144,000 represent the total number of the redeemed on earth at any time in history, those who have been sealed by the Holy Spirit [Ephesians 1:13, 14].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How you come up with THAT is beyond me. Plain reading of Scripture gives you who the 144,000 are.
Re 7:4
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Re 7:6
Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
Re 7:7
Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
Re 7:8
Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
Re 7:9
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Re 7:10
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
_________________________________________________

Now. Care to exegete? What does "after this" mean?
What does "all the tribes of Israel" mean?
Obviously you missed the boat here my friend. They are two different groups. Yet one group of the redeemed.

"Jes' wanna be a he'p to ya'!"

In HIS service;
Jim