The Essentials of Dispensationalism

[rlvaughn]

Before I get to my question, I want to discuss my purpose. What I hope to do here is get informed input on what constitutes the essentials of dispensational theology. I do not want to have an extended debate on the validity of dispensationalism. If someone wants that, perhaps we can start another thread.

What are the most important and essential beliefs that constitute dispensational theology? In other words, what you must hold to be a dispensationalist. What if you lacked you would not be considered a dispensationalist. For example, Charles Ryrie listed three things as essential parts of dispensational theology (Dispensationalism Today, 1965).

• a clear distinction between Israel and the church
• a literal hermeneutic for biblical interpretation
• the underlying plan of God in history is his glory

John Feinberg gives six, expanding on Ryrie’s list (Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 1988).

• multiple senses of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham
• a hermeneutic in which the New Testament reaffirms and does not reinterpret the Old Testament
• unconditional promises to national Israel in the Old Testament must be fulfilled with national Israel
• a distinctive future for Israel
• the church as a distinctive organism
• a philosophy of history in which history is the gradual implementation and outworking of the kingdom of God

Michael Vlach feels the essential beliefs shared by dispensationalists are three, but worded somewhat differently than Ryrie (Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, 2017).

• the rejection of replacement theology, and understanding the distinction between the church and Israel
• the belief in a future salvation and restoration for national Israel
• the importance of literal interpretation, especially applying to Old Testament prophecy (i.e., which is often not interpreted literally, or futuristically, in other systems, rlv)

Now your turn. What are the essentials of dispensational theology, without which you do not have dispensationalism?

 

[thomas15]

An understanding that God can be trusted and will keep His promises to the smallest detail.

An understanding that all men, from Adam to the last human born that is saved, is saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of the risen Savior and nothing else.

An understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, the sole source of information and is to be trusted fully by those who are interested in knowing the truth.

 

[AustinC]

God works with humans in different ways in different dispensations/ages.

God's relationship with humanity depends on the time in history and God's revelation to that time.

Using different methods at different times, God progressively reveals the fullness of his work with mankind.

 

[Aaron]

There is only one. A distinction between Israel and the Church.

 

[Stratton7]

Here’s a few that can’t be without and is essential according to another dispensationalist and I happen to agree.

The belief that the Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context.

The distinction between the Church and Israel.

The belief that there is a future for ethnic Israel. (Linked with the previous two.)

The belief that the promises made to ethnic Israel will have a literal, future fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom.

 

[37818]

The church is of the New Covenant which was only given to Israel, Jeremiah 31:31-34. The church as a whole is not Israel. The church is made up of only the saved who are both Israel and Gentiles, Ephesians 2:12. This is the correct dispensational view. Romans 11:1-32. John 4:22.

 

[Van]

The "clear distinction between Israel and the Church" applies to Traditional Dispensationalism, not Progressive Dispensationalism.

A literal hermeneutic is used by both Traditional and Progressive dispensationalists.

Both Dispensationalists and other viewpoints say they are presenting more accurately God's plan for His glory.

The NT does not reaffirm everything instituted under the Old Covenant.

The earthly kingdom where Jesus reigns for 1000 years is a distinctive.

 

[Reformed]

Before I get to my question, I want to discuss my purpose. What I hope to do here is get informed input on what constitutes the essentials of dispensational theology. I do not want to have an extended debate on the validity of dispensationalism. If someone wants that, perhaps we can start another thread.

What are the most important and essential beliefs that constitute dispensational theology? In other words, what you must hold to be a dispensationalist. What if you lacked you would not be considered a dispensationalist. For example, Charles Ryrie listed three things as essential parts of dispensational theology (Dispensationalism Today, 1965).

• a clear distinction between Israel and the church
• a literal hermeneutic for biblical interpretation
• the underlying plan of God in history is his glory

John Feinberg gives six, expanding on Ryrie’s list (Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 1988).

• multiple senses of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham
• a hermeneutic in which the New Testament reaffirms and does not reinterpret the Old Testament
• unconditional promises to national Israel in the Old Testament must be fulfilled with national Israel
• a distinctive future for Israel
• the church as a distinctive organism
• a philosophy of history in which history is the gradual implementation and outworking of the kingdom of God

Michael Vlach feels the essential beliefs shared by dispensationalists are three, but worded somewhat differently than Ryrie (Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, 2017).

• the rejection of replacement theology, and understanding the distinction between the church and Israel
• the belief in a future salvation and restoration for national Israel
• the importance of literal interpretation, especially applying to Old Testament prophecy (i.e., which is often not interpreted literally, or futuristically, in other systems, rlv)

Now your turn. What are the essentials of dispensational theology, without which you do not have dispensationalism?

At its bare minimum, Dispensationalism is as Ryrie posited.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the comments, all. Those are helpful in seeing how others view the consistent features much the same.

There is only one. A distinction between Israel and the Church.

I understand that you are saying that the hardline distinction between Israel and the church is the distinguishing feature that runs through any type of dispensational theology. Am I taking that correctly? Thanks.

 

[xlsdraw]

Ezekiel chapters 36 through 48 are specific to what God is going to do with the Tribes of Israel.

God said it and God will do it.

The stage is setting up perfectly for this to commence soon.

God's plan is in dispensations, similar to acts of a play.

 

[Aaron]

Thanks for the comments, all. Those are helpful in seeing how others view the consistent features much the same.
I understand that you are saying that the hardline distinction between Israel and the church is the distinguishing feature that runs through any type of dispensational theology. Am I taking that correctly? Thanks.

Yes, you are.

 

[Yeshua1]

Before I get to my question, I want to discuss my purpose. What I hope to do here is get informed input on what constitutes the essentials of dispensational theology. I do not want to have an extended debate on the validity of dispensationalism. If someone wants that, perhaps we can start another thread.

What are the most important and essential beliefs that constitute dispensational theology? In other words, what you must hold to be a dispensationalist. What if you lacked you would not be considered a dispensationalist. For example, Charles Ryrie listed three things as essential parts of dispensational theology (Dispensationalism Today, 1965).

• a clear distinction between Israel and the church
• a literal hermeneutic for biblical interpretation
• the underlying plan of God in history is his glory

John Feinberg gives six, expanding on Ryrie’s list (Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 1988).

• multiple senses of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham
• a hermeneutic in which the New Testament reaffirms and does not reinterpret the Old Testament
• unconditional promises to national Israel in the Old Testament must be fulfilled with national Israel
• a distinctive future for Israel
• the church as a distinctive organism
• a philosophy of history in which history is the gradual implementation and outworking of the kingdom of God

Michael Vlach feels the essential beliefs shared by dispensationalists are three, but worded somewhat differently than Ryrie (Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, 2017).

• the rejection of replacement theology, and understanding the distinction between the church and Israel
• the belief in a future salvation and restoration for national Israel
• the importance of literal interpretation, especially applying to Old Testament prophecy (i.e., which is often not interpreted literally, or futuristically, in other systems, rlv)

Now your turn. What are the essentials of dispensational theology, without which you do not have dispensationalism?

Would say Israel and CVhurch not the same in Bible, literal view of prophecy, and strongly pre trib premil eschatology!

 

[Yeshua1]

An understanding that God can be trusted and will keep His promises to the smallest detail.

An understanding that all men, from Adam to the last human born that is saved, is saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of the risen Savior and nothing else.

An understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, the sole source of information and is to be trusted fully by those who are interested in knowing the truth.

BOTH we holding to Covenant theology and Dispy agree on the Bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

At its bare minimum, Dispensationalism is as Ryrie posited.

Progressive Dispy might disagree here though!

 

[rlvaughn]

With the hardline distinction between Israel and the church being a primary feature of dispensationalism, here are two other observations:

• One might question just how dispensational Progressive Dispensationalism really is (since it mollifies this distinction)
• Whatever else one might find wrong with Classic Pauline Dispensationalism (often called hyper-dispensationalism), they are securely in the dispensational camp on this point.

 

[Yeshua1]

With the hardline distinction between Israel and the church being a primary feature of dispensationalism, here are two other observations:

• One might question just how dispensational Progressive Dispensationalism really is (since it mollifies this distinction)
• Whatever else one might find wrong with Classic Pauline Dispensationalism (often called hyper-dispensationalism), they are securely in the dispensational camp on this point.

What is primary difference then between Covenant premil theology and Progressive Dispy?

 

[rlvaughn]

What is primary difference then between Covenant premil theology and Progressive Dispy?

I do not know enough about Progressive Dispensationalism to want to comment on such a distinction. Maybe someone else will comment on it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not know enough about Progressive Dispensationalism to want to comment on such a distinction. Maybe someone else will comment on it.

That would be nice, and do appreciate that you manage to keep a civil tone even while the board is getting "heated up"

 

[AustinC]

I just listened to a 1.5 hour long lecture entitled "Amillenialism 101" which actually shed some light on dispensationalism.

The speaker, like myself, grew up in dispensational teaching.

Here it is. Listen as you wish.

http://links.christreformed.org/realaudio/A20080215-Amillenialism.mp3

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not know enough about Progressive Dispensationalism to want to comment on such a distinction. Maybe someone else will comment on it.

The so called Classic View as ikn the 1909/17 Scofield seems to be really waning , as the more progressive seems to be ascending!