Bernard Pyron
New Member
R.C. Sproul On Regeneration In Dispensationalsm
While Francis Schaeffer's books are a source for understanding and teaching for what Protestant Christianity is, he tends not to get into an explicit criticism of dispensationalism. But R.C. Sproul has been explicit in his criticism of dispensatonalism - https://www.theaquilareport.com/r-c-sproul-dispensationalism-brought-us-the-carnal-christian-the-sinners-prayer-and-more-antinomianism/ -
“They asked me, ‘R.C., what’s your problem with dispensationalism? And I said, You know, my biggest problem with dispensationalism is your historic doctrine of regeneration.’ And that was met with bewilderment. These professors said, ‘What are you talking about? What’s our problem with regeneration?’”
I said, “Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever. "
When I first found this Forum today I looked over some comments on what is dispensationalism. Dispensationalists may have their own definitions of dispensationalism, and defenders of the New Testament may have in part some definitions of dispensationalism that dispensationalists want to avoid. For example, those defending the New Testament may point out that the Founders of dispensationalisnm taught that God now has two different groups of the elect, Israel and the Church, and Israel and the Church always remain separated one from another.
The Church is made up of many races. But Israel, or "all Israel," as in Romans 11: 26, the Multitude, is implied by the Founders to be the physical descendants of Abraham.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323.."
What do Chafer and other Founders of dispensationalism, like Ryrie and Pentecost,. mean by Israel? The question is whether one enters Israel, becomes an Israelite, by physical birth or by faith in Jesus Christ? In the Old Testament entry into Israel was by physical birth; but in the New Testament entry into the elect of God, the Body of Christ, is by faith. I suspect that here is a point that dispensationalists want to avoid, and will try to shift any argument, discussion or definition of dispensationalism away into some other focus.
The dispensationalists need to shift the issue or definition of dispensationalism away from entry into Israel by physical birth and entry into the Body of Christ by faith - because the New Testament does not support the dispensationalist claim that now, God has two different peoples and two different programs. Over and over Paul teaches that Jewish Believers and Gentile Believers are united in one new group. In Ephesians 2: 15 Paul says that of the two, Jews and Gentiles, the blood of Christ creates One New Man, so making peace between the two, Jews and Gentiles.
Then, the New Testament in II Corinthians 3: 7-11, in Hebrews 8: 13, and in Hebrews 10: 9 says that the Old Covenant was done away with. How can there be Old Covenant Israel as one group of the elect in the New Covenant time? If a defender of the New Testament doctrines defines dispensationalism as being a theology which postulates that the Old Covenant was not done away with, dispensationalists have to find a way to argue against this or shift the argument over to something else.
While Francis Schaeffer's books are a source for understanding and teaching for what Protestant Christianity is, he tends not to get into an explicit criticism of dispensationalism. But R.C. Sproul has been explicit in his criticism of dispensatonalism - https://www.theaquilareport.com/r-c-sproul-dispensationalism-brought-us-the-carnal-christian-the-sinners-prayer-and-more-antinomianism/ -
“They asked me, ‘R.C., what’s your problem with dispensationalism? And I said, You know, my biggest problem with dispensationalism is your historic doctrine of regeneration.’ And that was met with bewilderment. These professors said, ‘What are you talking about? What’s our problem with regeneration?’”
I said, “Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever. "
When I first found this Forum today I looked over some comments on what is dispensationalism. Dispensationalists may have their own definitions of dispensationalism, and defenders of the New Testament may have in part some definitions of dispensationalism that dispensationalists want to avoid. For example, those defending the New Testament may point out that the Founders of dispensationalisnm taught that God now has two different groups of the elect, Israel and the Church, and Israel and the Church always remain separated one from another.
The Church is made up of many races. But Israel, or "all Israel," as in Romans 11: 26, the Multitude, is implied by the Founders to be the physical descendants of Abraham.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323.."
What do Chafer and other Founders of dispensationalism, like Ryrie and Pentecost,. mean by Israel? The question is whether one enters Israel, becomes an Israelite, by physical birth or by faith in Jesus Christ? In the Old Testament entry into Israel was by physical birth; but in the New Testament entry into the elect of God, the Body of Christ, is by faith. I suspect that here is a point that dispensationalists want to avoid, and will try to shift any argument, discussion or definition of dispensationalism away into some other focus.
The dispensationalists need to shift the issue or definition of dispensationalism away from entry into Israel by physical birth and entry into the Body of Christ by faith - because the New Testament does not support the dispensationalist claim that now, God has two different peoples and two different programs. Over and over Paul teaches that Jewish Believers and Gentile Believers are united in one new group. In Ephesians 2: 15 Paul says that of the two, Jews and Gentiles, the blood of Christ creates One New Man, so making peace between the two, Jews and Gentiles.
Then, the New Testament in II Corinthians 3: 7-11, in Hebrews 8: 13, and in Hebrews 10: 9 says that the Old Covenant was done away with. How can there be Old Covenant Israel as one group of the elect in the New Covenant time? If a defender of the New Testament doctrines defines dispensationalism as being a theology which postulates that the Old Covenant was not done away with, dispensationalists have to find a way to argue against this or shift the argument over to something else.
Last edited:
