Revised Dispensationalism

[evangelist6589]

John C will get back to the book discussion soon. Anyways was reading another book on prophecy and the author was speaking of Revised Dispensationalism and he says this is different than Classical and Progressive. I have Ryries book but I do not believe he addresses this dispensational view or does he? Based on the prophecy book this position seems more attractive to me over Classical Dispensationalism. Classical generally are against using the 10 commandments today as they believe only in Grace and the major issue I have with them. So what of you? What type of Dispensationalist are you?

I did not take the class on the Church nor NT THEOLOGY in seminary so my best view on this comes from prophecy books.

THIS THREAD IS NOT A DEBATE FOR NON DISPENSATIONALISTS BUT A IN HOUSE DEBATE ON DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS VARIOUS FACETS.

 

[Greektim]

John C will get back to the book discussion soon. Anyways was reading another book on prophecy and the author was speaking of Revised Dispensationalism and he says this is different than Classical and Progressive. I have Ryries book but I do not believe he addresses this dispensational view or does he? Based on the prophecy book this position seems more attractive to me over Classical Dispensationalism. Classical generally are against using the 10 commandments today as they believe only in Grace and the major issue I have with them. So what of you? What type of Dispensationalist are you?

I did not take the class on the Church nor NT THEOLOGY in seminary so my best view on this comes from prophecy books.

THIS THREAD IS NOT A DEBATE FOR NON DISPENSATIONALISTS BUT A IN HOUSE DEBATE ON DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS VARIOUS FACETS.

You need to read Blaising's chapter in Dispie history (ch. 1) as well as Bateman's in a different book.

Though I'm not a dispie, I was an uber-dispie at one time having 2 articles published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology. I was an expert at one time. So I know what I am talking about.

 

[JonC]

John C will get back to the book discussion soon. Anyways was reading another book on prophecy and the author was speaking of Revised Dispensationalism and he says this is different than Classical and Progressive. I have Ryries book but I do not believe he addresses this dispensational view or does he? Based on the prophecy book this position seems more attractive to me over Classical Dispensationalism. Classical generally are against using the 10 commandments today as they believe only in Grace and the major issue I have with them. So what of you? What type of Dispensationalist are you?

I did not take the class on the Church nor NT THEOLOGY in seminary so my best view on this comes from prophecy books.

THIS THREAD IS NOT A DEBATE FOR NON DISPENSATIONALISTS BUT A IN HOUSE DEBATE ON DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS VARIOUS FACETS.

:wavey: OK brother. How many books do you read at once? Keep it up and you'll go blind (I can keep up with two at once...max...that's my limit).

I am very lite on my dispensationalism...it is obvious from Scripture that God interacts with mankind in different ways at different times....but the way God relates to us, IMHO, is within covenantal relationships (although I am also not a Covenantal theology guy either). The difference, of course, is not whether dispensations or covenants exist...(the book of Hebrews adequately confirms both) but instead which one is the best system for understanding Scripture.

Anyway, I'll catch you on the other thread. I'm not enough a dispensationalist to contribute here in any meaningful way.

 

[evangelist6589]

:wavey: OK brother. How many books do you read at once? Keep it up and you'll go blind (I can keep up with two at once...max...that's my limit).

I am very lite on my dispensationalism...it is obvious from Scripture that God interacts with mankind in different ways at different times....but the way God relates to us, IMHO, is within covenantal relationships (although I am also not a Covenantal theology guy either). The difference, of course, is not whether dispensations or covenants exist...(the book of Hebrews adequately confirms both) but instead which one is the best system for understanding Scripture.

Anyway, I'll catch you on the other thread. I'm not enough a dispensationalist to contribute here in any meaningful way.

Not as many as I read in seminary at once. When I took systematic theology I read one big book by Erickson and thousands of pages in other systematic theologies. When I took OTI I also read dozens of books.

 

[evangelist6589]

You need to read Blaising's chapter in Dispie history (ch. 1) as well as Bateman's in a different book.

Though I'm not a dispie, I was an uber-dispie at one time having 2 articles published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology. I was an expert at one time. So I know what I am talking about.

No more books I have enough books! Can you tell me if what I ask is in the Charles Ryrie book on Dispensationalism? I have not yet read it.

 

[Revmitchell]

:wavey: OK brother. How many books do you read at once? Keep it up and you'll go blind (I can keep up with two at once...max...that's my limit).

I am very lite on my dispensationalism...it is obvious from Scripture that God interacts with mankind in different ways at different times....but the way God relates to us, IMHO, is within covenantal relationships (although I am also not a Covenantal theology guy either). The difference, of course, is not whether dispensations or covenants exist...(the book of Hebrews adequately confirms both) but instead which one is the best system for understanding Scripture.

I am much like you are except I reject the idea that I should view scripture through the lens of either of those systems. While both are there I do not use them as a lens. Scripture is clear enough without having to use some systematic lens.

 

[Greektim]

No more books I have enough books! Can you tell me if what I ask is in the Charles Ryrie book on Dispensationalism? I have not yet read it.

I would say it is difficult to be any kind of true dispensationalist w/o reading Ryrie's book on the subject. Alas, I do not recall if he addressed it. But those other 2 sources I mentioned do.

 

[evangelist6589]

I would say it is difficult to be any kind of true dispensationalist w/o reading Ryrie's book on the subject. Alas, I do not recall if he addressed it. But those other 2 sources I mentioned do.

I will get to it eventually. I have lots of books to read. I will also check the Moody Handbook of Theology as I have that book.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You need to read Blaising's chapter in Dispie history (ch. 1) as well as Bateman's in a different book.

Though I'm not a dispie, I was an uber-dispie at one time having 2 articles published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology. I was an expert at one time. So I know what I am talking about.

And now out of my own sense of curiosity, what convinced you in the other direction? PM me if you prefer.

 

[OldRegular]

I would say it is difficult to be any kind of true dispensationalist w/o reading Ryrie's book on the subject. Alas, I do not recall if he addressed it. But those other 2 sources I mentioned do.

Ryrie does not talk about revised dispensationalism in his book Dispensationalism but he, Walvoord, and MacArthur have been called revised dispensationalist. Apparently that term came in to usage after publication of the New Scofield Bible, perhaps the one where they eliminated Scofield's reference to the Song of Solomon as a picture of the love of Jesus Christ for His Church. Can't have the Church in the Old Testament. The source can be found on the web.

Ryrie does discuss progressive dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism along with his own brand, whatever that is..

 

[Greektim]

And now out of my own sense of curiosity, what convinced you in the other direction? PM me if you prefer.

PM is not necessary... but I don't want to hijack this thread. This blog post by an Amill had a similar experience to me. Like most, you can't put your finger on 1 thing but a multitude of things that made it a journey.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ryrie does not talk about revised dispensationalism in his book Dispensationalism but he, Walvoord, and MacArthur have been called revised dispensationalist. Apparently that term came in to usage after publication of the New Scofield Bible, perhaps the one where they eliminated Scofield's reference to the Song of Solomon as a picture of the love of Jesus Christ for His Church. Can't have the Church in the Old Testament. The source can be found on the web.

Ryrie does discuss progressive dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism along with his own brand, whatever that is..

Hyper Dispys basically see the Church started later on, not at pentacost, and basically see only the Pauline Epistles as the books for us to study and live by now


Progressives ones seem to be getting close to new Covenant theology, as they blur distinction between isreal and the church, and seem to be heading to historical pre mil views!

 

[Yeshua1]

John C will get back to the book discussion soon. Anyways was reading another book on prophecy and the author was speaking of Revised Dispensationalism and he says this is different than Classical and Progressive. I have Ryries book but I do not believe he addresses this dispensational view or does he? Based on the prophecy book this position seems more attractive to me over Classical Dispensationalism. Classical generally are against using the 10 commandments today as they believe only in Grace and the major issue I have with them. So what of you? What type of Dispensationalist are you?

I did not take the class on the Church nor NT THEOLOGY in seminary so my best view on this comes from prophecy books.

THIS THREAD IS NOT A DEBATE FOR NON DISPENSATIONALISTS BUT A IN HOUSE DEBATE ON DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS VARIOUS FACETS.

One thing real classic Dispt seemed to affirm was that isreal was under the law for salvation, the church now under grace, but don't see that there were ver 2 different ways God saved sinners!

 

[JonC]

One thing real classic Dispt seemed to affirm was that isreal was under the law for salvation, the church now under grace, but don't see that there were ver 2 different ways God saved sinners!

The Law was not for salvation (its purpose was never to save).

 

[Greektim]

The Law was not for salvation (its purpose was never to save).

Which I think Y1 is pointing out the major error of Classical Dispos and the great need for revision.

 

[JonC]

Which I think Y1 is pointing out the major error of Classical Dispos and the great need for revision.

:thumbsup: My bad. I didn't realize the position viewed the Law as a means of salvation. Sorry Y1 for the misunderstanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which I think Y1 is pointing out the major error of Classical Dispos and the great need for revision.

Yes, as even I noticed that seemed to be what the 1917 Scofield edition was affirming, that jews were saved by God under the Law, and the Church saved now by grace!

 

[OldRegular]

PM is not necessary... but I don't want to hijack this thread. This blog post by an Amill had a similar experience to me. Like most, you can't put your finger on 1 thing but a multitude of things that made it a journey.

The blog was an excellent read. Following is an excerpt:

Scriptural Challenges for Premillenialists

If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming.

• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.

• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

One objection I have to premillennialism which the writer did not mention is:

Jesus Christ returns in the full Glory of the Godhead yet premillennialists must believe that mortal man can observe that Glory and live. I believe Scripture teaches otherwise.

 

[Yeshua1]

The blog was an excellent read. Following is an excerpt:



One objection I have to premillennialism which the writer did not mention is:

Jesus Christ returns in the full Glory of the Godhead yet premillennialists must believe that mortal man can observe that Glory and live. I believe Scripture teaches otherwise.

How about answering how is satan bound today, and that we are under the messianic Age, and yet this Worlsd is not running as it will when Messiah is really reigning over it?

 

[Greektim]

How about answering how is satan bound today, and that we are under the messianic Age, and yet this Worlsd is not running as it will when Messiah is really reigning over it?

What if the picture of Satan bound is just another symbol of defeat?

And if the Messianic Age or the Kingdom of God has begun... Jesus as the firstfruits of new creation that is... started but the old age continued.

Think of it this way. The Jews pictured the present evil age to end at the appearing of Messiah who would usher in the age to come or the age of life (which is what "eternal life" in the NT actually translates to). But Jesus presented a different scenario. The age to come has begun at his resurrection, but the present evil age continues until he returns. Thus we live in the time between the times.