-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions for dispensationalists
- Thread starter easternstar
- Start date
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!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.
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.
Me too!I know and believe that too. So I'm wondering what this whole hulabaloo is.
In what way?
No. Your statement would not be dispensationalism, which has a doxological basis with Christological emphasis, not an Israelology basis.
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).
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
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.
For easternstar and anyone else who wishes to criticize dispensationalism knowledgeably: https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Charles-C-Ryrie/dp/080242189X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2PVRBW85E4RXB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sCvpERu5nojsEpcp08icBKy0-b7aCzBffBiLrDpPs8hKoK8IaLJIKknpKbLCM2dgGl_Iq4uZYLJ4ecOZdhbi2BAw0Jb8aaOSxfvZ2QushlGqX6_LKKRkxz-g85j29_YSCymoIl6dZPsMVdgVx36LkpgJm_4zjYjim522D7ed-x8LgUtL5Nz8p1LOgKUP9f6X85LanWvmZy7yMOrgjDqk-9ynT_BFMoYZNYZJDccN2dQ.R24G2q2aEo75xqBClXUNPkAw1urZVVNn42O_BjN1swo&dib_tag=se&keywords=dispensationalism+ryrie&qid=1776689077&s=books&sprefix=dispensationalism+ryrie,stripbooks,138&sr=1-1
This is the textbook I require in my "Dispensational Theology" class, a college junior level class. Read this and you can actually criticize dispensationalism with authority, rather than with shots in the dark that don't come near the actual theology.
For those who wish for a cheaper yet still informative book, there is: Michael Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths: https://www.amazon.com/Dispensation...refix=dispensationalism,stripbooks,143&sr=1-6
This is the textbook I require in my "Dispensational Theology" class, a college junior level class. Read this and you can actually criticize dispensationalism with authority, rather than with shots in the dark that don't come near the actual theology.
For those who wish for a cheaper yet still informative book, there is: Michael Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths: https://www.amazon.com/Dispensation...refix=dispensationalism,stripbooks,143&sr=1-6
Last edited:
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
You can display much shorter links. For example, I copied the first link in your post, up to but excluding ” /ref= “ and the rest of it, which is just unnecessary code indicating things internal to Amazon tracking.
https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Charles-C-Ryrie/dp/080242189X/
Your second link can be shortened the same way.
https://www.amazon.com/Dispensationalism-Essential-Beliefs-Common-Myths/dp/0979853923/
Aha. Thank you!
Armchair Apologist
New Member
So, you are admitting here that your intention is to pick a fight with dispensationists? Was it your intention to tip your hand so quickly?
I am not a dispensationalist BTW. I consider myself more of a "Historic Premillennialist" with maybe some vestiges of progressive dispensationalism. I am not a Presby or other reformed type who would regard dispensationalsm as a "cuss word."
But with all that said, I do not believe there is any prophetical or doctrinal requirement for the temple to be rebuilt or for sacrificial offerings to resume. I do believe this is of great importance for certain Jewish groups though and that such is their end-goal. How this plays out in the future is anyone's guess. I do believe that God will once again visit the "House of Israel" based upon my understanding of Rom 11:25. I am non-commital in regards to what this will look like though.
So what is the difference between a "regular" D and a progressive D?
Armchair Apologist
New Member
Mainstream (non-hyper) dispensationalism runs the spectrum between Classic, Revised, and Progressive.
Classic Dispensationalism is the most rigid stating that Israel and the Church are completely separate entities with two different people having separate destinies. Those more on the extreme side would cite differing "plans of salvation" for differing dispensations and not all NT scripture is specifically for the Church. I am guessing that the OP was targeting mostly those from this group? Classic Dispensationalists stick with the "Old Scofield Bible."
Revised Dispensationalism softens this distinction somewhat acknowledging more of an overlap between Israel and the Church. Their views are more associated with the "New Scofield Bible" and I would say that most who claim the "Dispensationalist" moniker these days would fall in this category.
Progressive Dispensationalism is the most "Loosey Goosey" of the three where one simply acknowledges a future role for the nation of Israel but sees greater continuity between Old and New Testament theology and actually reads and studies their entire Bible perhaps even without Scofield's notes or Larkin's charts to help them along!
"Regular" nowadays is Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, etc.
"Progressive" is a product of the "Dispensational Study Group" at the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), and is a purposeful compromise between dispensationalism and covenant theology. It was first delineated for the public in the 1993 book by Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminar), Progressive Dispensationalism. I teach that it is actually a new theology born of compromise. It has 3 (or 4 depending on where you are in the book) dispensations, none of which match the traditional ones.
In fact, it is so different from the regular Disp. model that I consider it a brand new theology, not simply a version of standard dispensationalism.
Last edited:
Armchair Apologist
New Member
A "Mashup" of covenant and dispensational theology likely describes my personal position. I appreciate the theological consistency that Covenant Theology brings while dispensationalism makes sense of certain prophetic passages. I see dispensations in light of "Progressive Revelation" rather than the "Dice it, Slice it, and Stack in neat stacks" approach that traditional dispensationalists often take.
You say that you teach it as a new theology born of "compromise." How so? Do you mean compromise in a good sense or in the pejorative (like a "cuss word")? I don't think I ever heard about progressive dispensationalism having only 3 or 4 dispensations as opposed to the standard 7 of the traditional dispensationalists. I wrote a paper on dispensationalism for one of my Systematic Theology classes but I guess this is something I failed to catch. Could you elaborate?
Thanks for the post. Good questions. Tell you what, I'll attach the lecture notes on the subject from my class, "Dispensational Theology," then if you want to interact on some of that I'd be glad to do so.
To get the full scope of PD, you have to read the Bock and Blasing book. I don't think the theology has changed much since then. As for the "compromise" label, that is according to their own history, and my notes will tell you. It was invented as a "rapprochement" between dispensationalism and CT.
Last edited: