Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

av1611jim · Dec 22, 2004

Somehow I missed vs 5.
Here ya go!
Re 7:5
Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

gb93433 · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:

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

That's my point exactly.

So you are saying all of the theologians prior to Darby didn't have the same Holy Spirit and somehow they missed dispensationalism as it has been revised twice in the last 30 years. Who missed the boat? The people now or prior or 30 years ago or the people between 20 and 30 years ago. Which dispensational theory do you subscribe to? Gods' word has not changed but dispensationalism has.

Why has dispensationalism been revised twice just within the last 30 years?

You are saying that God provided two types of salvations? That is what Darby and Chafer taught.

Scripture says in Phil. 3:3, "for we are the true circumcision, . . ." So after reading Phil. 3 you would say there is still the distinction of salvation for the Jews and another for the gentile/ Apparently Paul did not think so.

If the NT totally did away with the OT then how do you explain what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17-19, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Dispensationalists have come to abolish the law but Jesus did not.

Do you do away with the commandments of God in the OT? How about the 10 commandments?

Perfect theological system? Those today sure don't think so. There have seen at least two revisions in a effort to get it straight. Why?

Do you believe in the gap theory that not one scientist subscribes to today, but Scofield did.

Have you ever traced the origin of dispensationalism? You will find it was a reaction to German rationalism. But the problem lies in the fatc that Darby and his followers took it with them into their new found theology.

Why did the Jews never see dispensationalism along with men like Spurgeon and Calvin? Not one until about 1830?

carlaimpinge · Dec 22, 2004

Quote from Old Regular;

You are correct! It is easy if you just look at the Book; with Scofields notes of course. The remainder of your post is pure nonsense as has been ably demonstrated by DPT.

You have taken Paul's teaching from Romans and allegorized them to fit Darbyite theology. Surely you know that allegorizing is a no! no! for those who follow Darby's teaching.

Unquote.

Scofield's notes were not in the old girls' bibles. They were WORLD bibles without notes.

Paul's words are pure nonsense?! Nah!

Deafpostrib demonstrated his non-biblical "belief", not biblical truth from the Holy Scriptures.

Allegorized Paul's words?! Not in the least. You just "demonstrated" that you didn't KNOW or UNDERSTAND how Paul "allegorizes" anything. He calls that "ignorance".

See Gal.4 for one of his teachings of allegory.

My statements were not allegory of his statements, and his statements were not ALLEGORY either. He taught JUST WHAT I SAID. I gave you the chapters. Only Sylvan can help you read them, and the Holy Spirit, help you understand them.

gb93433 · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
Quote from Old Regular;

You are correct! It is easy if you just look at the Book; with Scofields notes of course. The remainder of your post is pure nonsense as has been ably demonstrated by DPT.

You have taken Paul's teaching from Romans and allegorized them to fit Darbyite theology. Surely you know that allegorizing is a no! no! for those who follow Darby's teaching.

Click to expand...

Just read the old dispensationalism teachers, C.H. Macintosh and A.B. Simpson. Jesus on every page?

TakeChrist4Life · Dec 22, 2004

OldRegular

It is unfortunate that people back then took Scoffields notes as Bible, or did they? I read this charge many times, but for the first time I’m inclined to challenge it. I mean there’s no doubt that having the notes there would encourage a Dispensationalist view, but I think it an understatement of the times they were living in, as well as the events going on in the religious life of America, to pawn the whole thing off as a Scoffield Bible delusion. It should be noted that at that time there was intense interest in eschatological matters, with Bible prophecy meetings popping up all over the place. The Scoffield Bible seems to be just one cog in the wheel that gave popular rise to Dispensationalism. Not only that, but also the statement implies a very base type of ignorance on not only the people of that day, but also the Church leadership. Roman Catholicism, if anything, is what splintered the people and the word of God, not the Scoffield Bible.

Well, without spiritualizing or allegorizing the text, Revelation is clear as to whom these people were, and the nature of their circumstances. It very clearly states that the ‘group that no man could number’ were those who came out of Great Tribulation, not simply the deceased saints that have died since the creation of man. Likewise, it very clearly states that the 144,000 are the redeemed of that particular time, for those particular circumstances of the particular tribes of ethnic Israel, hence the delineation of their tribal affiliations, and not the number of living redeemed people living on the earth at any particular time. I believe that it is just this sort of thing which led to the rise of Dispensationalism, which is our insistence on relying on the plain reading of Scripture as opposed to the persistence of others to rely on spiritualized interpretations of the Biblical data. I find that opponents of Dispensationalism, when talking about general eschatological terms, will use plain readings of scripture, but when it comes to the particulars, they quickly leave that behind. As they say ‘the devil is in the details’.

TakeChrist4Life · Dec 22, 2004

gb93433,

No one said theologians prior to Darby didn’t have the Holy Spirit, but neither does having the Holy Spirit prevent a theologian from being in error. As far as revisions go, your point though passionate, is rather trite. There’s no problem with revisions as further light is revealed, but you imply by your strong statement that it has altogether changed. An atheist could say the same about Christianity in general if they apply that same sort of thought to the Protestant revision of Christianity. Yes God’s word never changes, but neither you or I, or anyone else we know, read, or heard, knows everything there is to know about God, theology, or anything else for that matter. Should science be discarded because further light reveals that certain theories or ideas need to be adjusted? I think not. You accuse Dispensationalists of coming to abolish the law, which is nothing but a figment of your own imagination. Jesus fulfilled the law, not abolished it. You kept making the point of the two revisions as if this was such a weighty point you were making, which it is not even close to being. Yes, the gap theory is wrong, but easily understandable in the light of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, which was shipwrecking the faith of many Christians of that day. Even opponents of Dispensationalism, have applauded Darby and his Plymoth Brethren for the strong stance they took on the Bible, and Christianity, when other Christian Church’s and groups were hiding their heads in the sand from the new scientific onslaught. As far as why it took so long for Dispensationalism to come into the forefront of eschatological thought, you can blame that on the thousand plus years of Roman Catholicism and its adherence to Augustine’s Amillenialism, and just a plain lack of interest and systematic thought on eschatology.

OldRegular · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by av1611jim:
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].
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Simple, And after these things simply means that after God reveals the events associated with the first six seals His revelation to John continues.

The passage [Revelation 7:4-8] reads as follows:

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.
5. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
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.
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.
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.

These sealed are described as coming from all the tribes of the children of Israel. Notice, however, that not all the tribes are included. The tribe of Dan is missing. The name Ephraim is missing. The tribe of Joseph is included as is the half tribe of Manasseh. Since the tribe of Joseph, the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, is included why is the half tribe of Manasseh included? Expositors who want to interpret this passage literally have attempted to explain the absence of Dan, the inclusion of both Manasseh and Joseph, and the absence of Ephraim in various ways. However any attempt to interpret this passage literally creates problems. The fact is that the twelve tribes of Israel are not all listed. Therefore the simple solution to the apparent problem is that the passage is not written to be interpreted literally but symbolically

Obviously all the tribes of Israel doesn't mean all the tribes of Israel or you have a discrepancy in the innerant Word of God.

Pastor Larry · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Pastor Larry I need your help. You state: Dispensationalists alone can let the plain meaning of the language stand without reading into it.

Please exegete the following passage for me without standing anything on its head.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Click to expand...

That is one of the easiest questions you have ever asked, and it is extremely simple. I in fact answered this question in another thread recently.

Daniel 9 is about Israel and describing the six things that will happen in the 70 weeks of Daniel from the decree to rebuild the city, which can only be Jerusalem.

The "He" that shall make the covenant is clearly identified in v. 26 as the prince that shall come. That prince in in contrast to the Messiah who is cut off after 69 weeks. The prince (antichrist) with make a covenant with "the people" (v. 24 clearly identifies them as "Daniel's people" -- the Jews). It will be a covenant of peace that will allow the Jews to worship in their own way, based on the idea that the covenant is broken by stopping the sacrifices. After 3 1/2 weeks, the covenant will be broken and the sacrifices will be stopped. At that point, the abomination of desolations will come, will Christ describes as the time of Jacob's trouble.

Some have tried to make the "he" of the covenant to be Christ and his death as the "end of sacrifices." The text simply will not allow that. First, Christ is cut off after 69 weeks and his sacrifice was the end of sacrifices pleasing to God. The "prince who is to come" is clearly not Christ since Christ is a king, not a prince, and he is not "to come" in the sense of Dan 9's usage. Furthermore, the prince who is to come cuts off sacrifices in the middle of the 70th week, not at the end of th 69th week.

Dan 9 is one of the clear passages in Scripture that is dispensational in nature. There is no legitimate way to interpret it covenantally without making the language stand on its head. This is a simple issue. All one needs to do is read the passage for what it says.

OldRegular · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by TakeChrist4Life:
OldRegular

It is unfortunate that people back then took Scoffields notes as Bible, or did they? I read this charge many times, but for the first time I’m inclined to challenge it. I mean there’s no doubt that having the notes there would encourage a Dispensationalist view, but I think it an understatement of the times they were living in, as well as the events going on in the religious life of America, to pawn the whole thing off as a Scoffield Bible delusion. It should be noted that at that time there was intense interest in eschatological matters, with Bible prophecy meetings popping up all over the place. The Scoffield Bible seems to be just one cog in the wheel that gave popular rise to Dispensationalism. Not only that, but also the statement implies a very base type of ignorance on not only the people of that day, but also the Church leadership. Roman Catholicism, if anything, is what splintered the people and the word of God, not the Scoffield Bible.

Well, without spiritualizing or allegorizing the text, Revelation is clear as to whom these people were, and the nature of their circumstances. It very clearly states that the ‘group that no man could number’ were those who came out of Great Tribulation, not simply the deceased saints that have died since the creation of man. Likewise, it very clearly states that the 144,000 are the redeemed of that particular time, for those particular circumstances of the particular tribes of ethnic Israel, hence the delineation of their tribal affiliations, and not the number of living redeemed people living on the earth at any particular time. I believe that it is just this sort of thing which led to the rise of Dispensationalism, which is our insistence on relying on the plain reading of Scripture as opposed to the persistence of others to rely on spiritualized interpretations of the Biblical data. I find that opponents of Dispensationalism, when talking about general eschatological terms, will use plain readings of scripture, but when it comes to the particulars, they quickly leave that behind. As they say ‘the devil is in the details’.
Click to expand...

I know from personal experience that some people take the notes of Scofield as Scripture. Also since those who follow Darby insist they interpret Scripture literally please exegete the two following passages for me, literally if you please.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

OldRegular · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Pastor Larry I need your help. You state: Dispensationalists alone can let the plain meaning of the language stand without reading into it.

Please exegete the following passage for me without standing anything on its head.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
Click to expand...

That is one of the easiest questions you have ever asked, and it is extremely simple. I in fact answered this question in another thread recently.

Daniel 9 is about Israel and describing the six things that will happen in the 70 weeks of Daniel from the decree to rebuild the city, which can only be Jerusalem.

The "He" that shall make the covenant is clearly identified in v. 26 as the prince that shall come. That prince in in contrast to the Messiah who is cut off after 69 weeks. The prince (antichrist) with make a covenant with "the people" (v. 24 clearly identifies them as "Daniel's people" -- the Jews). It will be a covenant of peace that will allow the Jews to worship in their own way, based on the idea that the covenant is broken by stopping the sacrifices. After 3 1/2 weeks, the covenant will be broken and the sacrifices will be stopped. At that point, the abomination of desolations will come, will Christ describes as the time of Jacob's trouble.

Some have tried to make the "he" of the covenant to be Christ and his death as the "end of sacrifices." The text simply will not allow that. First, Christ is cut off after 69 weeks and his sacrifice was the end of sacrifices pleasing to God. The "prince who is to come" is clearly not Christ since Christ is a king, not a prince, and he is not "to come" in the sense of Dan 9's usage. Furthermore, the prince who is to come cuts off sacrifices in the middle of the 70th week, not at the end of th 69th week.

Dan 9 is one of the clear passages in Scripture that is dispensational in nature. There is no legitimate way to interpret it covenantally without making the language stand on its head. This is a simple issue. All one needs to do is read the passage for what it says. </font>[/QUOTE]I am afraid that I will have to give you a grade of F because your explanation is in no way based on a literal interpretation.

The city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70AD. Confirm does not mean "make" it means prevail or cause to prevail. Nowhere is the prince identified as "an" or "the" antichrist. The sacrifice and oblation ceased to be effectual with the death of Jesus Christ, though the Jews did not recoginize it. The actual practice ceased with the destruction of the temple in 70AD. I am pleased to see that you believe that these things have already happened.

I couldn't find where Jesus Christ talked of "Jacob's troubles" and would greatly appreciate a reference.

Pastor Larry · Dec 22, 2004

John 6 was clearly figurative, as illustrated by the reaction of those around him. Rev 12 is clearly figurative as well.

You see, you reveal a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of "literal interpretation." If you have really read Ryrie, then you should already know this. "Literal" means "normal." It is the kind of interpretation we use every day in language. Take the language as normally would. Figures of speech interpreted literally are still figures of speech. They do not become anything else because the literal meaning of the figure is hte figure. The problems comes when you take something that is not figurative and try to make it that. Again, review Ryrie to gain a better understanding of this flaw in your understanding.

DeafPosttrib · Dec 22, 2004

You have to be realize, book of Revelation is a heavily symbolic and spiritual meanings.

I understand Revelation chapter 7 gives us the picture of the harvest of the saints after the sixth seal broken same with Matt. 24:29-31. Notice word, 'four winds' of Rev. 7:1. 'Four winds' find only three times in the New Testament, that relate with the coming of Christ- Matt. 24:31; Mark 14:27; & Rev. 7:1.

'Four winds' means four directions of the world:north, south, west, and east, it represent, all nations of the world shall be gathering together(rapture) is the harvest right after the sixth seal broken(Rev. 6:12-15).

The context of Revelation chapter 7 is the main passage about the harvest of the saints.

Also, we are Israel. Romans chapter 11 teaches us, Gentiles are now grafted into Olive Tree join with Jews, SO, all Israel shall be saved shall be fulfilled at Christ's coming.

Revelation chapter 21 mentioned New Jerusalem, 12 gates around NJ are 12 tribes of Israel, 12 foundations on the wall around NJ are 12 apostles of Christ. It shows us, both O.T. saints and N.T. saints are unity together. Well, as all O.T. saints are now part of Christ's Bride because of Calvary's result.

There is no longer divided among Body of Christ, once both Jews and Gentiles unity together become into ONE through Christ by Calvary 2,000 years ago.

Cannot you understand the purpose of Calvary is all about?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Craigbythesea · Dec 22, 2004

You see, you reveal a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of "literal interpretation." If you have really read Ryrie, then you should already know this. "Literal" means "normal." It is the kind of interpretation we use every day in language. Take the language as normally would. Figures of speech interpreted literally are still figures of speech. They do not become anything else because the literal meaning of the figure is hte figure. The problems comes when you take something that is not figurative and try to make it that. Again, review Ryrie to gain a better understanding of this flaw in your understanding.
Click to expand...

This post is about as contrary to fact as it possibly could be. Literal interpretations and translations of a text are the exact opposite of idiomatic translations where figures of speech in the donor language are translated into comparable figures of speech in the receptor language rather than translating them literally, i.e., word for word.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives us the following:

Main Entry: 1lit•er•al
Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL <liberty in the literal sense is impossible -- B. N. Cardozo> c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man>
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM <a literal translation>
Click to expand...

Literal interpretation = word for word interpretation

Figurative interpretation = idiomatic interpretation

gb93433 · Dec 22, 2004

Ryrie didn't understand what it was to be married either. He is divorced.

gb93433 · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Literal interpretations and translations of a text are the exact opposite of idiomatic translations where figures of speech in the donor language are translated into comparable figures of speech in the receptor language rather than translating them literally, i.e., word for word.

Literal interpretation = word for word interpretation

Figurative interpretation = idiomatic interpretation

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. We would never translate bowels of mercy or compassion. We would translate it heart of compassion or something like that.

If anyone has been to another country where they speak another language you learn fast that idiomatic expressions do not translate word for word. Just as their language does not translate into English so nicely either.

I think a nearly 99 percent misusage is the explanations Americans give to phileo and agapao love.

carlaimpinge · Dec 22, 2004

Quote by GB:

That's my point exactly.

So you are saying all of the theologians prior to Darby didn't have the same Holy Spirit and somehow they missed dispensationalism as it has been revised twice in the last 30 years. Who missed the boat? The people now or prior or 30 years ago or the people between 20 and 30 years ago. Which dispensational theory do you subscribe to? Gods' word has not changed but dispensationalism has.

Why has dispensationalism been revised twice just within the last 30 years?

You are saying that God provided two types of salvations? That is what Darby and Chafer taught.

Scripture says in Phil. 3:3, "for we are the true circumcision, . . ." So after reading Phil. 3 you would say there is still the distinction of salvation for the Jews and another for the gentile/ Apparently Paul did not think so.

If the NT totally did away with the OT then how do you explain what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17-19, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Dispensationalists have come to abolish the law but Jesus did not.

Do you do away with the commandments of God in the OT? How about the 10 commandments?

Perfect theological system? Those today sure don't think so. There have seen at least two revisions in a effort to get it straight. Why?

Do you believe in the gap theory that not one scientist subscribes to today, but Scofield did.

Have you ever traced the origin of dispensationalism? You will find it was a reaction to German rationalism. But the problem lies in the fatc that Darby and his followers took it with them into their new found theology.

Why did the Jews never see dispensationalism along with men like Spurgeon and Calvin? Not one until about 1830?

Unquote.

Why in the world doesn't anyone DISCUSS the verses which were posted?

No, I'm saying that the Holy Spirit DID NOT go to sleep. He REVEALED truth which the ones before Darby didn't LEARN. Now why they DIDN'T GET IT is unknown. Who doesn't know that God's word is the same? APPOLLOS LEARNED FURTHER REVELATION FROM PAUL.

That's all I said.

Why has the gospel changed SINCE it first began to be preached?

The ONLY salvation is through Jesus Christ, but RIGHTEOUSNESS and JUSTIFICATION was acquired as God SAID IT WAS down through history. (See Heb.11) The righteousness of God WAS NOT REVEALED before Paul proclaimed it AS YOU KNOW IT. (Rom.3)

I said nothing about Paul DISTINGUISHING a difference in the salvation of Jews and Gentiles in this age. You did FOR A SETUP.

The NT did not do away with the OT law. It did away with the ENMITY of the law. (Eph.2) The law is STILL FUTURE, according to Paul with observances of days, months, etc. (Col.2)

Paul doesn't do away with the commandments. (Rom.12, 1 Tim.6, Eph.6) He doesn't INCLUDE the Sabbath, for it was given to Israel as a SIGN.

Dispensationalism is the BIBLICAL SYSTEM given within the Holy Scriptures, STATED and ADHERED to by Paul. See my post, which no one has commented about scritpurally except to rail and throw in their STATEMENT of "questions".

I don't believe EVERYTHING in the Scofield notes, no more that I believe everything my wife tells me. I prove all things AS Paul said. (1 Thess.5)

The origin of dispensationalism IS FOUND in the Bible. (See my first post.)

The Jews are LOST and unbelievers. (Rom.10) They can't see Christ, much less biblical dispensationalism.

Calvin and Spurgeon are both heretics according to "revealed" bible truth. (Appollos "would have been" HAD HE NOT followed Aquilla and Priscilla's ADVICE and TEACHING from Paul! (Acts 18) Hymaneus and Philetus were because they DID NOT.

Dispensationalism has been around since the BEGINNING of the church. Many dispensational schemes are attested to down through history. What RESURFACED in the 1800's was PAULINE DISPENSATIONALISM. Darby put the emphasis back on PAUL and his teachings, as did Scofield and Larkin.

Now other than this questionable chitchat, what about the VERSES from Paul as to DIVISIONS IN TIME, and the manner in which they have been carried out? That is DISPENSATIONALISM. PAUL RECORDED IT and IT"S FACTS. The OT scriptures bears witness to it.

A message attesting to the grace of God given unto him was revealed (the gospel of the grace of God) which is NOW PREACHED. It concerns a mystery. (Rom.16, Eph.3, Col.1, Titus 1) Paul was the first to proclaim these FACTS due to the dispensation of the grace of God GIVEN UNTO HIM. (Eph.3)

Daniel David · Dec 22, 2004

Oldreg, your understanding of history reveals a bias toward ignorance. I encourage you to learn ya something true.

Premillenial theology is actually the earliest commentary on Scripture that we have. I don't know that ANYONE disputes this fact. Even covenantal, presbyterian, amills will concede this point.

Further, they will also say that the earliest record of amill theology dates to ORIGEN, a heretic. Nice association by the way.

Still further, while the fathers believed they were in troublesome times and experiencing tribulation, there is no reason to believe they thought they were in THE tribulation. They were looking for Christ's return at any moment.

Guess what you get when you combine imminency with premillenialism? You get pretrib, premill theology.

Now, dispensationalism as advocated by Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, etc., might not be correct. However, pretrib, premill theology is correct. We are right. You are wrong. Your antagonism toward pretrib, premill is just a cover for your unbelief in God's word. You are wrong. Your eschatology is weak, unconvincing, and rebellious toward truth. You have become the judge of truth instead of one who believes it. You should repent of your unbelief immediately.

What you fail to get is that a belief in "one people of God" (of which I hold to) does not lead to amill theology. Unbelief leads to amill theology.

Please also note that even secular history refers to the time between 500 AD - 1500 AD as the 'DARK AGES'. Nice to know that the reign of amill theology was when the people couldn't have or read the Bible, only the pagan catholics had access to religion, and eschatology quickly changed once the people could read the Bible.

So, am I an elitist? Well, YES. Your theology is poor and the result of much confusion.

There is not a SINGLE text in all the Bible that hints at amill. Disagee? Give me one. Just one.

[ December 22, 2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Daniel David ]

Craigbythesea · Dec 22, 2004

Premillenial theology is actually the earliest commentary on Scripture that we have. I don't know that ANYONE disputes this fact.
Click to expand...

Well, now you do!

Garbage in > Garbage out!

Daniel David · Dec 22, 2004

Well Oldreg, you at least have Craig on your side. Snicker snicker.

OldRegular · Dec 22, 2004

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
John 6 was clearly figurative, as illustrated by the reaction of those around him. Rev 12 is clearly figurative as well.

You see, you reveal a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of "literal interpretation." If you have really read Ryrie, then you should already know this. "Literal" means "normal." It is the kind of interpretation we use every day in language. Take the language as normally would. Figures of speech interpreted literally are still figures of speech. They do not become anything else because the literal meaning of the figure is hte figure. The problems comes when you take something that is not figurative and try to make it that. Again, review Ryrie to gain a better understanding of this flaw in your understanding.
Click to expand...

That is what I like about Darbyism. You just interpret Scripture to suit your bias. Fortunately there is a movement away from ultra and classic dispensationalism called progressive dispensationalism. The progressives are either eliminating or waffling on what I consider the worst errors of Darbyism: 1] That the Church was not in prophecy and 2] That God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism]. And please don't tell me you took Daniel 9:27 in its normal sense.

Pastor Larry I am embarrassed to think that you imply I am lying when I say that I have read Ryrie's book Dispensationalism.

Charles Ryrie in Dispensationalism, writes as follows concerning literal interpretation[page 90]:

“Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. ..... Taking the text at face value and recognizing distinctions in the process of revelation leads to the recognition of different economies [dispensations] in the outworking of God’s program. In other words consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism, and since consistent literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation, dispensationalism is more than justified. It is only by adjusting or adding to the principle of literal interpretation that dispensationalism is avoided. Face-value incorporates distinctions; distinctions lead to dispensations. Normal interpretation leads to clear distinctions between words, concepts, peoples and economies. This consistent hermeneutical principle is the basis for dispensationalism.”

[Ryrie gives a much more detailed explanation of his literal hermeneutic in Chapter 5 of his book. Vern S. Poythress attempts to explain Ryrie’s literal hermeneutic in Chapters 8 & 9 of his book Understanding Dispensationalists.]

It is unclear what Ryrie means when he tells us that “Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value.” Certainly we must understand that God did not give His revelation in order to confuse man. Nevertheless, we must also understand that even those who recorded that revelation were not always given understanding [Daniel 12:7-9], a clear refutation of Ryrie’s “accepting the text of Scripture at its face value”.

John MacArthur presents a much better approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Writing in Charismatic Chaos, MacArthur defines literal interpretation as follows [page 91]:

“When we speak of interpreting Scripture literally, we are not talking about a slavish, rigid literalism. Literal interpretation means we understand Scripture in its normal sense, including figures of speech like parables, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and symbolism.

Scripture is to be read naturally. In years past theologians spoke of the usus loquendi, meaning that the words of Scripture are to be interpreted the same way words are understood in ordinary daily use. God has communicated his Word to us through human language, and there is every reason to assume he has done it in the most obvious and simple fashion possible. His words are to be understood just as we would interpret the language of normal discourse. Although there is occasional figurative language and symbolism in Scripture, those things are quite evident in the places they are employed. The first thing the careful interpreter looks for is the literal meaning, not some mystical, deeper, hidden, secret, or spiritualized interpretation.

Some of the apocalyptic passages, such as those in Zechariah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, or Revelation, contain obvious figures and symbols that must be studied carefully to see the literal truth they are conveying. That kind of symbolic language, however, is not the norm in Scripture and it is conspicuous where employed. Sometimes the symbolism is hard to interpret, but by studying the historical setting, one can usually discern a clear meaning. Even the figurative language conveys clear, literal truth. Scripture is not the kind of puzzle some people seem to want to make it. Parables are another form of figurative language sometimes used in Scripture. Parables are stories that illustrate a spiritual truth but whose details may not be actually historical. The details--people, events, times, and places--may be hypothetical, metaphorical, or simply unidentified. But the spiritual truths illustrated by parables are always literal and real.”

Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

av1611jim New Member

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

carlaimpinge New Member

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

TakeChrist4Life New Member

TakeChrist4Life New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

DeafPosttrib New Member

Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

carlaimpinge New Member

Daniel David New Member

Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

Daniel David New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

av1611jim New Member

gb93433 Active Member Site Supporter

carlaimpinge New Member

gb93433 Active Member Site Supporter

TakeChrist4Life New Member

TakeChrist4Life New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

DeafPosttrib New Member

Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

gb93433 Active Member Site Supporter

gb93433 Active Member Site Supporter

carlaimpinge New Member

Daniel David New Member

Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

Daniel David New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter

gb93433 Active Member
Site Supporter