Questions for dispensationalists

[OLD SARGE]

The Church is a parenthesis between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. God will fulfill all of His promises to Israel and I believe that God can do anything He wants in any dispensation because He is God, not the dispensation.

 

[John of Japan]

You might as well be concerned that we stop baptizing so that we don’t detract from the work of Christ at the cross. People might start thinking that we are saved by baptism and start dipping everybody regardless of age or belief just to save them.

Valid point! I always thought if I believed in baptismal regeneration like the Church of Christ/Christian Church and others did, I'd build a baptistry of the back of a truck and cruise around looking for folks to dunk and save!

On the road to Smyrna, Tennessee there used to be a Ch. of Christ that had half, just half, of a baptistry on their church wall out facing the street.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I know and believe that too. So I'm wondering what this whole hulabaloo is.

Me too!

 

[John of Japan]

Dispensationalists who answer my questions in the affirmative trample Jesus's work.

In what way?

 

[John of Japan]

Do you believe Israel is the focal point of history, and not the church?

No. Your statement would not be dispensationalism, which has a doxological basis with Christological emphasis, not an Israelology basis.

Do you believe the church is a 'parenthesis' in history, to be removed and then God can deal with his primary concern, Israel?

The primary concern of God is His glory. The church and Israel are two ways God accomplishes that. To be fair, some dispensationalists have called the church age a "parenthesis," but I do not. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Eph. 3:21).

Do you believe it is God's will that Israel rebuild the temple and reinstitute animal sacrifices? Do you believe a red heifer is being readied or looked for, for that purpose?

I believe that God will allow unconverted Israel to build their temple during the tribulation period, but it will not be to glorify God, and thus will not be God's central will. Just because something is prophesied does not make it God's will. And I've made myself clear about the "red heifer," which isn't even a prophecy, much less a dispensational doctrine.

So then, your statements represent a profound misunderstanding of what dispensationalism is, and reveal your tendency to major on minor and unimportant matters. If you want to oppose dispensationalism in an intelligent manner, you should understand it first. I recommend Charles Ryrie's book Dispensationalism. Get the 2nd edition, not the first, which had the title Dispensationalism Today.

 

[John of Japan]

Dispensationalists who answer my questions in the affirmative trample Jesus's work.

Again, your questions reveal a profound misunderstanding of not only dispensationalism but other theology. You don't even appear to know the actual Scripture that speaks of this particular doctrine: "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29). Dispensationalists absolutely do not count "the blood of the covenant" as an "unholy thing."

Please stop your false attacks on dispensational theology.

 

[Ascetic X]

Again, your questions reveal a profound misunderstanding of not only dispensationalism but other theology. You don't even appear to know the actual Scripture that speaks of this particular doctrine: "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29). Dispensationalists absolutely do not count "the blood of the covenant" as an "unholy thing."

Please stop your false attacks on dispensational theology.

It is poor debating when a person is obviously angry at a theology or feels smarter than those who hold it, and asks gotcha questions that betray a lack of understanding of it.

Like thinking that all dispensationalists make predictions about when Christ will return or all continuationists approve of slaying in the spirit.

 

[John of Japan]

It is poor debating when a person is obviously angry at a theology or feels smarter than those who hold it, and asks gotcha questions that betray a lack of understanding of it.

Like thinking that all dispensationalists make predictions about when Christ will return or all continuationists approve of slaying in the spirit.

I completely agree.