Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

OldRegular,

In replying to DPT, you said he interprets the ‘Olive Tree’ of Romans Chapter 11, and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 the same as you do.

Why don’t you all interpret it the Olive Tree the way Romans Chapter 11 describes it, which is the Olive Tree representing Christ and His plan for the ages in which we gentiles as wild olive branches are grafted in, without excluding the natural branches (ethnic Israel) from being graffed in again. Further Paul goes on to say that blindness has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles is come in. Surely you’re not suggesting that Israel as mentioned here is the Church. Paul then continues that all Israel shall be saved, clearly referring to the ethnic use of the term ‘Israel’. He further says that as touching the gospel (clear reference to the Church or the Church Age) they (the Israelites) are enemies for your (the gentile inclusion into the plan of God, i.e. the Church) sakes. But as touching the election (ethnic Israel’s continuation in the plan of God) they are beloved for the father’s (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)sakes.

 

gb93433,

You wrote: If your claim is that you interpret through the filter of dispensationalism then you must claim to have a perfect system for it to be accurate and true. Otherwise you have a flawed system–dispensationalism and its revisions.

You must always interpret scripture in light of its historical context not some Baptistic modified dispensational theology. That has never changed. The majority of Baptists I meet do not subscribe to what many purist dispensationalists believe. They have modified their approach.


TakeChrist4Life: First, I did not make the claim, that’s something that you’re falsely interpreting from what I said, and then you go on to rebut it. Your statement above is incredibly fallacious. As far as your mention of pastors from various seminaries and colleges, and your description of what they taught as making the entire OT invalid, I’ll only take with a grain of salt; since you took my own statements and totally misapplied them. I have no confidence that you’re accurately describing what they said in context. I have read no Dispensationalist that said the OT is entirely invalid and has no place in Christianity. Still the point you make of two revisions, or the continuing adjustment of Dispensationalism, is grossly overstated, and would lead one to believe that it has altogether changed. This is not the case, and I would urge you to bring up the parts that have changed, and we’ll see if they constitute the momentous change you imply. German Rationalism is a description of the times they were living in, not to how they interpreted the Bible, or is this an attempt at refuting the literal method of interpreting the Bible? Jesus doesn’t need anything or any man-made attempts to understand Him for Him to do a good job. The historical context does not do away, diminish, or dismiss the prophetic texts and their far-reaching scope.

 

I have read these posts and have participated in them for going on four years and have not seen this statement you made quoted by or attributed to Darby anywhere.

In addition, I want to know the publication in which Darby made this statement so I can see it for myself and not hear about it second hand without documentation.

HankD

 

OldRegular,

On this point we’ll have to agree to disagree, and we can see clearly where our views diverge. You think the Olive Tree represents ‘True’ or ‘Spiritual Israel’, while I say the Olive Tree represents Christ. In my opinion, scripture is clear in telling us that we are graffed into Christ. Man in general nor Israel in particular can never be the Tree itself, but can only be branches. Paul’s use of the Olive Tree is remarkably similar to Christ describing Himself as the Vine, of which we are the branches. The coming together of redeemed national Israel, and the saved gentiles into one body is easily reconcilable within Dispensationalism. As I’ve said in previous posts, unity is affirmed without the distinctions being blurred.

 

Larry, you are either wrong about Ryrie, or Ryrie doesn’t begin to understand the use of the word “literal” when used as an adjective to describe literature. One thing for certain, the editorial staff at Merriam-Webster has almost infinitely more education that does Ryrie, and when it comes to knowledge of the use of words in the English language, the editorial staff at Merriam-Webster stands head and shoulders above all the rest. Indeed, in graduate school we studied in depth Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the dictionary upon which Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary is based, paying special attention to the research methods employed by Merriam-Webster. No other group of lexicographers has but a very small fraction of the data available to them that Merriam-Webster has accumulated over the many years that they have been researching the use of the words in the English language.

But, even putting all of that aside, can you quote even one lexicographer that agrees with your use of the word literal? Ryrie is NOT a lexicographer and he is not exactly known for his knowledge of the English language.

Larry, you have NO idea to whom you are writing and you have NO idea how much more thoroughly I have studied dispensational theology than you have. But that is not the issue here, the issue here is the use of the word “literal” in the interpretation of literature, and about that you could not be more wrong!

Larry, this is absolutely false information and you owe everyone on this board an apology for posting this false information!

I am not the one who is confused here! And I certainly have NEVER confused interpretation and translation.

We all know this, although “opposite” is not a good choice of words here.

No, the idea and intention of the author has nothing at all to do with it. The literal interpretation is what the author literally wrote, whether or not what he wrote accurately reflects either his idea or his intention. One very common illustration comes to mind. Careless writers often misuse the expression, “I couldn’t care less” and write instead, “I could care less.” In this illustration, the literal meaning of the author’s words are the exact opposite of the idea and the intent of the author.

Larry, we all have the right to post our ideas on this message board, but to post blatantly false information about the very basics of the interpretation literature is inexcusable, and all the more so when that literature is the Bible.

 

The early church fathers held to pre-millennial views, but their views were not consistent with each other. For example, Justin Martyr (AD 110-165) wrote,

"I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXX).

While Tertullian (AD 150-225) wrote,

"We do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem" (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book III, Chapter XXV).

In the third century we find a pre-millennial view in the writings of

Cyprian
Commodian
Nepos
Coracion
Victorinus
Methodius
Lactantius

But also in the third century we find opposition to a pre-millennial view in the writings of

Gaius
Clement of Alexandria
Origen
Dionysius

In the fourth century, we find that pre-millennial views have been replaced by several other views, and we do not find pre-millennial views to be popular again until the early 19th century when there was a greatly renewed interest in Bible prophesy, the spiritual gift of prophesy, and speaking in other tongues. The very earliest roots of dispensationalism are found in the “prophetic utterances” by Mary Campbell and Margaret MacDonald. Details about these two women can be found in books about the Catholic Apostolic Church, Edward Irving, and the Irvingites, but here is a very brief summary.

Margaret MacDonald’s ecstatic speech and prophecy (spring, 1830) about the second coming of Christ for his bride the Church led to a charismatic renewal in Scotland, attracting the attention of John Nelson Darby. And according to Darby’s own testimony, he personally visited Margaret MacDonald, but did not accept her charismatic beliefs. Darby did, however, from that time on, begin to put together his scheme of dispensationalism. Some historians believe that it was Margaret MacDonald who originated the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church and that Darby learned that doctrine from MacDonald and wove it into his own new theology. Others believe that Margaret MacDonald shared with Darby her “vision” of the second coming and that Darby formulated the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church on the basis of that “vision.”

 

Craig, your ignorance of history is eclipsed only by your refusal to believe truth.

Margaret MacDonald's theology would not be pretrib at all. It would be the partial rapture view, which no serious person holds to.

Darby was writing about dispensationalism before anyone heard ole Maggie.

Classic that you bought that lie as well.

 

Oldreg, your knowledge of Eph 3 is lacking severely.

The church of Christ was a mystery, not known in previous times. The church is said to be Jew and Gentile in one body. That was a mystery. That NEVER happened prior to pentecost.

Stop making the Scripture some little object of fascination and actually believe its words. It will help.

 

OldRegular,

Man, you threw me off for about 10 minutes as I tried in vain to see how Jeremiah 11:6 compared Israel to an Olive Tree, then I noticed in your statement you were referring to Jeremiah 11:16, but you had pasted 11:6 in your reply. For a short while I was wracking my brains trying to see how you got that application from 11:6. Please, don’t traumatize me like that again (lol).

Be that as it may, I wouldn’t argue the point that a tree without branches is not a tree, for the simple reason that any analogy falls apart if you try to get to detailed with the objects the analogy uses. This is true whether you’re reading an analogy in the Bible or whether you read it in some other form of literature. For sure a tree without branches wouldn’t live very long, but in trying to apply this fact with Christ describing Himself as the vine, or Paul using the Olive Tree to represent Christ, ruins the analogy. No one would say that Christ couldn’t live without us, or that He Himself cannot be Christ without us. These analogies were just simple allusions to how intimate Christ is with us, and we are to be with Him. As far as Jeremiah 11:16, and Hosea 14:4-6, I don’t think these are good examples to illustrate your point because the use of ‘Olive Tree’ in these instances was used as just simple metaphors to describe their blessedness, like scripture does with a host of other nouns. Take the verses you mentioned in Hosea for instance, there the prophet used 3 other simple metaphors to describe their blessedness. He uses the terms lily, roots of Lebanon, and smell as Lebanon. If you go down to the next few verses, he uses the terms corn, vine, and wine to describe their blessedness. Further, even when he used the term ‘Olive Tree’, he said their beauty shall be as the ‘Olive Tree’, not that they are an ‘Olive Tree’. The use of it in Jeremiah 11:16 follows the same pattern when he says God called their name “a green Olive Tree, fair, and of goodly fruit. Neither of the prophets used the term as an analogy pointing to some great spiritual truth like Paul did.

You wrote: I will concede in Paul's analogy that the root of the Olive Tree probably represents Jesus Christ. However, for sake of discussion assume that you are correct, that the Olive Tree is Jesus Christ. It appears then that you are saying that Israel of the Old Testament was in Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ is the tree and Israel is the branches. If they were in Jesus Christ they were a part of the body and thus within the Church. Yet classic dispensationalism states that the Church did not exist in the Old Testament.


TakeChrist4Life: No, that’s not what I’m saying, although I can see how you can interpret that from it. In this analogy that Paul used in Romans 11, he’s talking in general terms of God’s plan and purposes of the ages, and how it’s all centered and focused around Christ. He is not in this analogy focusing around the Church and contrasting it with national Israel, thus making anyone who is graffed into the Olive Tree a part of the Church. Why do we know this? Because in the Church there is neither Jew nor Greek. This is a basic fact of what the Church is. A basic reality if you will. However this fact is not the only reality of which scripture concerns itself with, and it is this other reality that Paul is here discussing. He’s drawing attention to the fact that it was all about Christ all along, even for those who lived in the O.T. times. From the analogy you see they were already graffed into Christ, but then broken off. They were not a part of the Church, yet they had already been graffed into Christ, but through unbelief they have been ungraffed or broken off. Now we gentiles have been graffed in, but we come by a different and better way, via a better covenant. We haven’t been graffed into the Church, we’ve been graffed into Christ. The Church is not Christ, and neither is Christ the Church. Christ is in the Church, and the Church is in Christ. At some point in the future, redeemed national Israel shall be in Christ as well, but they won’t be in the Church Just like they were graffed into Christ before the Church existed, they shall be graffed in again despite the Church’s existence. And we shall all be one in Christ. Unity within Diversity.


You wrote: Since there is only one Gospel and that Gospel was preached to Abraham then he and all "true believers" of the Old Testament were a part of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 3:28 that in the Church: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. He makes this same point

TakeChrist4Life: No, he and all believers are a part of Christ, or rather are joined into Jesus Christ, not the Church of Jesus Christ. Yes in the Church there is no distinction, but before the Church existed there always was Christ. Jesus said that before Abraham was I Am, not the Church Am. Those who were saved in O.T. times are in Christ not in Church. Again, Christ is not the Church, and the Church is not Christ. Christ is in the Church, and the Church is in Christ.

In Ephesians 2:11-22, note how Paul said in verse 12 “that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, etc, etc. Here he clearly connects Israel at that time as being in Christ and contrasts that fact against the gentiles who at that time were without Christ, not because they were not in the Church, but because they were not a part of the commonwealth of Israel and all that entails. This supports the point I made earlier about Israel being graffed into Christ not the Church In verse 14 he says God has made both one. That’s two distinctive peoples are made one. Unity within Diversity. Being one does not abolish distinction. The Church is one with Jesus, but that does not make the Church Jesus. In verse 15 he says again of two, God makes one new man. He does not replace one man with the other as some on this board seem to imply. He takes both men(Israel & Gentiles: Israel through their commonwealth and all that it entails, and the Gentiles through the Church) and forms them into one man. Verse 16, Jesus reconciles both Israel and the gentiles-via the Church, in one body (His own by going to the cross). Thus in verse 18 the gentiles are now fellowcitizens with the saints and household of God. To paraphrase, gentile or Church saints are now fellowcitizens with the saints that had gone on before them. The fact that Paul says that the gentiles are fellowcitizens with the saints, is clearly implies distinction and unity at the same time.

 

I did not claim the Margaret MacDonald’s “theology” would be pre-trib. However, in her vision she describes a “secret” appearing of Christ in which He raptures the Church BEFORE His physical return to the earth. Margaret MacDonald is the first person in recorded history to make that claim, and after visiting the MacDonald home, Darby began teaching the pre-trib rapture, the first man in recorded history to do so.

This statement could not be any more false. Darby “claimed” that dispensationalism was “revealed” to him in 1827, but he did not publish any dispensational views until after 1830. Please remember that this is a Baptist message board and that Baptists are supposed to tell the truth when they post.

 

Here is an excerpt from an article written by my pastor on the subject of the demonic origin of the pre-trib rapture. The whole article is in two parts and is available at the following links:

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article584.cfm

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article585.cfm

 

WARNING!!! The pastor who wrote this article teaches many false doctrines, including KJO extremism and that born-again Baptists who sin will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ. This pastor is also known for taking quotes out of context and deliberately distorting them to make them appear to teach something very different from what they do teach.

 

WARNING!!! The pastor who wrote this article teaches many false doctrines, including KJO extremism and that born-again Baptists who sin will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ. This pastor is also known for taking quotes out of context and deliberately distorting them to make them appear to teach something very different from what they do teach.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

WARNING!!! The pastor who wrote this article teaches many false doctrines, including KJO extremism and that born-again Baptists who sin will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ. This pastor is also known for taking quotes out of context and deliberately distorting them to make them appear to teach something very different from what they do teach.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yep, the Bible is not good enough for them so they have their own interpretation and additions.

 

Am 5:10
They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.

Craig can't refute any of it, he can only call names and shout heresy. He is the one teaching conditional security, where is the outcry? The article refutes the idea that MM invented the pre-trib rapture.