saturneptune
New Member
I would appreciate a post from two types of people. It would be good to hear from a covenant-Arminian and a dispensational-Calvinist.
-
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!
The Parenthesis Church
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
- Status
OLDR
This has been the experience of many...I like how he explains it here!
I did not find my way out of Dispensationalism easily. It took time and tears and cost me fellowship with some genuine, committed Christian friends. Some of them thought that I was departing from the faith or going liberal. The inward heart struggle to embrace the historic Christian faith involved not only intellectual conflict but also emotional struggle. The many changes were not made in haste, anger, passion, or ecstasy. It did not happen on a weekend. I spent the first ten years of my Christian life immersed in Dispensationalism. I wore out three Scofield Bibles and the fourth was falling apart. I heard Lewis Sperry Chafer in person. The only systematic theology I studied was Dr. Chafer's eight-volume set.
My theological change resulted from a serious, exhaustive search to know three things: What saith the scriptures; what do they mean; and how do I apply them to my belief and practice?
I pray that this little history of my own journey will be kept in mind as I attempt the rather difficult task of dealing with principles of Dispensationalism without being disrespectful or unchristian to the many genuine Christians who sincerely hold this view that I now consider erroneous, unbiblical, dangerous and outside the historic stream of Christianity.
Although I strongly differ from my dispensational brethren in their interpretation of scripture, I would defend their right to adhere to their view. I do not wish to separate from their fellowship. However, I strongly believe Dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith of our fathers. No Christian wishes to be argumentative, but it is impossible to address this controversial issue without being polemic and somewhat censorious of the system. I must be very candid in saying that I cannot approach this contemporary issue in an unbiased manner.
This unbiblical and unhistorical theology has spawned many serious errors, and we are now reaping some of its fruit--especially in the areas of evangelism and teachings on the Christian life (justification and sanctification).
This has been the experience of many...I like how he explains it here!
I did not find my way out of Dispensationalism easily. It took time and tears and cost me fellowship with some genuine, committed Christian friends. Some of them thought that I was departing from the faith or going liberal. The inward heart struggle to embrace the historic Christian faith involved not only intellectual conflict but also emotional struggle. The many changes were not made in haste, anger, passion, or ecstasy. It did not happen on a weekend. I spent the first ten years of my Christian life immersed in Dispensationalism. I wore out three Scofield Bibles and the fourth was falling apart. I heard Lewis Sperry Chafer in person. The only systematic theology I studied was Dr. Chafer's eight-volume set.
My theological change resulted from a serious, exhaustive search to know three things: What saith the scriptures; what do they mean; and how do I apply them to my belief and practice?
I pray that this little history of my own journey will be kept in mind as I attempt the rather difficult task of dealing with principles of Dispensationalism without being disrespectful or unchristian to the many genuine Christians who sincerely hold this view that I now consider erroneous, unbiblical, dangerous and outside the historic stream of Christianity.
Although I strongly differ from my dispensational brethren in their interpretation of scripture, I would defend their right to adhere to their view. I do not wish to separate from their fellowship. However, I strongly believe Dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith of our fathers. No Christian wishes to be argumentative, but it is impossible to address this controversial issue without being polemic and somewhat censorious of the system. I must be very candid in saying that I cannot approach this contemporary issue in an unbiased manner.
This unbiblical and unhistorical theology has spawned many serious errors, and we are now reaping some of its fruit--especially in the areas of evangelism and teachings on the Christian life (justification and sanctification).
The church was a mystery to old testament saints.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
God blinded the Jews (a sovereign act), the gospel went to the Gentiles, and when the "fulness" of the Gentiles has come, He will unblind the Jews.
The church is NOT an afterthought of God, but part of His eternal plan. Yet at the same time, He has not forgotten Israel, nor the promises He made to it.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The church has NEVER been referred to as Jacob! That is clearly Israel.
The Jews are still blinded and still in rebellion, so this has NOT happened yet.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
God blinded the Jews (a sovereign act), the gospel went to the Gentiles, and when the "fulness" of the Gentiles has come, He will unblind the Jews.
The church is NOT an afterthought of God, but part of His eternal plan. Yet at the same time, He has not forgotten Israel, nor the promises He made to it.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The church has NEVER been referred to as Jacob! That is clearly Israel.
The Jews are still blinded and still in rebellion, so this has NOT happened yet.
saturneptune
New Member
I assume you are aware that Dispensation and Calvinism do not always go together in someone's belief.
I know dispensational Calvinists, dispensational Arminians, convenant Calvinists, and covenant Arminians.
Hello AmyG,
You are stating the premill dispensational view accurately.Many of us have held that view in times past.
Romans 11 does indicate a future for some in Israel, yes.
What some of us have now seen is not that the church itself was a mystery, as much as the fact that the gentiles coming into the covenant on equal footing was the mystery:thumbs: eph 2:11-3:11:thumbs:
Amyg...as for Jacob...isa49:1-8
Well we agree on that. Even though I'm not as smart as you.
AWWW cut it out....you handed it to me on a platter...what was I to do??? :laugh: Yours is a perfectly erudite mind.:thumbs:
It's unbelievably crazy....I had never even HEARD of someone who thinks like this. :tonofbricks: I am curious if it is somewhat geographic....In Central Fla. where I am, there are 5 million churches per square mile...and I have attended or visited MANY of them....and they are almost Universally "dispy" in the sense that I would say that I am, and I have never even run across such a being.
Yes, and that is the mystery of the "church".
Those verses clearly are speaking of the restoration of Israel, not the restoration of the church.
I feel like John the Baptist.
I'm glad you noticed! :tongue3:
I've run across plenty of people who are confused about the end times, but nothing to equate with Ares' description.
The biggest error people make is to confuse/combine Israel with the church. There are three groups of people, Israel, the church, and Gentiles. These three groups still exist on the earth and will until God finishes history. When we are able to rightly divide them in the Word, then we can understand eschatology in the proper way.
Something I've learned: All scripture is written "for" me, but not all scripture is written "to" me. Good advice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Normally I avoid threads of this volatile nature not because I can’t defend a position but because I don’t like the heat and therefore stay out of the kitchen.
Sowing and reaping. We will reap what is sown when we attack each other in this manner.
So, I’ll give it a try but might retreat depending on the level of emotion.
I’m known as a dispensationalist but I don’t like the phrase, however for expediency’s sake I reluctantly accept it.
And that for the very reason to which OR has alluded. There is a lot of what I (and others) consider error in “dispensationalism” so-called because like calvinism there is an abundance of variations of this platform.
First issue: The origin of dispensationalism;
Though the phrase “dispensationalism” and the modern organization and codification of the elements therein are new the underlying dogma is not.
Some time ago I did research to that end and posted many excerpts from the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) concerning the Chiliad (millennium), Daniel’s 70th week, Jacob’s Troubles, the antichrist and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, etc.
I’m not going to go through that again, presumably it can be found in the archives.
Modern Dispensationalism is a dogmatic development of the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church and not solely the brain child of John Nelson Darby.
http://stgeorgepa.net/2011/05/origin-of-rapture-idea/
Francisco Ribera wrote a book In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli & Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari a commentary on the Book of Revelation concerning the Rapture, Rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, Mystery Babylon and the antichrist.
An acceptable summary biography of Francisco Ribera can be found in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ribera
Continuing:
These ideas later were adopted by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and CI Scofield (1843-1921).
So, admittedly “dispensationalism” has a checkered past as to it modern codification, keep in mind however that Francisco Ribera used the writings of the ECF and the Latin Vulgate as his sources.
That is why the “rapture” is called what it is because the “caught up” or “snatching away” (Koine harpazo) of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord) is of the stem rapturo in the Latin Vulgate.
So, I pick and choose among the variations for my own view which more align with scripture as per the ECF.
More later if anyone is genuinely interested in knowing the more acceptable views, learning about each others points of view and not just looking for ammunition to blow each other up.
Thanks
HankD
Sowing and reaping. We will reap what is sown when we attack each other in this manner.
So, I’ll give it a try but might retreat depending on the level of emotion.
I’m known as a dispensationalist but I don’t like the phrase, however for expediency’s sake I reluctantly accept it.
And that for the very reason to which OR has alluded. There is a lot of what I (and others) consider error in “dispensationalism” so-called because like calvinism there is an abundance of variations of this platform.
First issue: The origin of dispensationalism;
Though the phrase “dispensationalism” and the modern organization and codification of the elements therein are new the underlying dogma is not.
Some time ago I did research to that end and posted many excerpts from the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) concerning the Chiliad (millennium), Daniel’s 70th week, Jacob’s Troubles, the antichrist and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, etc.
I’m not going to go through that again, presumably it can be found in the archives.
Modern Dispensationalism is a dogmatic development of the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church and not solely the brain child of John Nelson Darby.
http://stgeorgepa.net/2011/05/origin-of-rapture-idea/
Francisco Ribera wrote a book In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli & Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari a commentary on the Book of Revelation concerning the Rapture, Rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, Mystery Babylon and the antichrist.
An acceptable summary biography of Francisco Ribera can be found in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ribera
Continuing:
ibid first URL.
These ideas later were adopted by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and CI Scofield (1843-1921).
So, admittedly “dispensationalism” has a checkered past as to it modern codification, keep in mind however that Francisco Ribera used the writings of the ECF and the Latin Vulgate as his sources.
That is why the “rapture” is called what it is because the “caught up” or “snatching away” (Koine harpazo) of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord) is of the stem rapturo in the Latin Vulgate.
So, I pick and choose among the variations for my own view which more align with scripture as per the ECF.
More later if anyone is genuinely interested in knowing the more acceptable views, learning about each others points of view and not just looking for ammunition to blow each other up.
Thanks
HankD
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Amy G.
I know for a fact that not all Jews are now blinded. Actually I believe the blinding was temporary.
I have told the story on this Forum of the Jewish girl my nephew was dating, how she announced her conversion ad a family reunion, her long battle with Melanoma, and her steadfastness of faith until God took her home. I believe that her experience of Grace is a wonderful demonstration of God bringing His elect to Salvation.
In my opinion the nation Israel was chosen for the primary purpose of the Incarnation. Once that happened the people of Israel have the same status as all people.
Amyg....notice in verse 6
the preserved of Israel= the elect remnant of romans 11...plus
a light to the gentiles= christian Israel....
Paul quotes isa 49 in acts 13;
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
and 2 cor6
(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
here is rom 15:
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
King James Version (KJV)
54 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
4 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
6 For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.
9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.
The gentiles were spoken of as coming in..... this is the all men,or world that is in view
Isa54
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
They are on this Forum!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
HankD
Interesting information above. I had not read of the Roman Catholic connection although I had read of Irving and MacDonald. I don't believe I have mentioned either on this Board but it is possible.
I have said on many occasions that I disagree with dispensational eschatology. I have and will continue to debate with them. That being said the question of eschatology, though important, is subject to differing understandings.
The real problem I have with dispensationalism is their doctrine of the Church, as I indicated in the OP. It appears from most responses that many who claim to be dispensationalists were not aware of this doctrine but are just Rapture Ready.
I believe that the progressive dispensational movement is actually a move toward covenant premillennialism, particularly regarding the church, and is a welcome move.
Interesting information above. I had not read of the Roman Catholic connection although I had read of Irving and MacDonald. I don't believe I have mentioned either on this Board but it is possible.
I have said on many occasions that I disagree with dispensational eschatology. I have and will continue to debate with them. That being said the question of eschatology, though important, is subject to differing understandings.
The real problem I have with dispensationalism is their doctrine of the Church, as I indicated in the OP. It appears from most responses that many who claim to be dispensationalists were not aware of this doctrine but are just Rapture Ready.
I believe that the progressive dispensational movement is actually a move toward covenant premillennialism, particularly regarding the church, and is a welcome move.
As a believer in the DoG, you know that God will open the eyes of whomever He chooses.
Yes, God did use Israel to bring the Messiah to earth, but He made specific promises that are for Israel only. Israel is not more important than the church, only different, with different promises. The Jews were never promised that during the OT they would receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Would you agree? Likewise, the church was never promised a physical land, but a heavenly one. Agree?
:thumbs:
Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
"The newer form of dispensationalism is much more theologically astute than the naive sensationalism of its predecessor. It represents a giant step forward in theological discussion, making huge concessions to covenantal theology. In addition, its theologians are of much greater competence, men who are making serious contributions to evangelicalism in a wide range of theological fields......
....Progressive dispensationalism is clearly not your father’s dispensationalism (nor your favorite televangelist’s). Radical changes distinguishing it from its antiquated forbears include:
(1) A rejection of simplistic literalism in hermeneutics. Progressive dispensationalists pretty much adopt a genuine grammatical-historical-theological theory of interpretation — like the rest of the evangelical world.
(2) A revision of the Israel-Church distinction, allowing that Israel and the Church are two phases of the one people of God. Classic dispensationalism argued for a radical distinction between Israel and the Church that would even continue into eternity; revised dispensationalism maintained that distinction only in terms of the earthly outworking of redemption.
(3) A breaking down of the walls of separation between the dispensations. Their dispensations are not discrete, unmixed time frames, but rather evolving stages of historical development. Contained within any particular dispensation are the seeds of the next dispensation so that the dispensations gradually progress (hence the name). This allows that Christ is now enthroned as king — in anticipation of his coming earthly-millennial rule.
Numerous additional issues could be highlighted. But these three are sufficient to establish a radical (and welcome) transformation within dispensationalism."
See a BB poll:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1708799&highlight=Gentry#post1708799
[edit to add] The real issue with the progressive's is their [mis]application of Gen 12:3:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=67203
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I would agree.
As a "parenthesis" (prounounce paran-thesis, or a 'thesis brought alongside') is more appropriately applied to the designation of "the law" (of Moses) rather than the church of our great God and savior Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Therefore the Church is a full return (or the institution of fulfillment) to the Abrahamic Promise to all nations on the basis of faith in that seed (Jesus Christ) apart from the law.
HankD
Last edited:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Hank: That is a very profound thought, worth thinking about!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
My opinion is that progressive dispensationalism is a very welcome development.
I agreed with you my last post.
The Progressive's politics have yet to 'progress'; jmho.
Last edited by a moderator:
What I described is basically a developed form of "Mid-Acts dispensationalism." It is a development of what Cornelius Stam, Charles Baker, and J.C. O'Hair introduced in the early to mid twentieth century. Mid-Acts dispensationalism has more of a stronghold in the U.S. midwestern states.I have been a "dispensationalist" all my life...I have never even run across a creature like you describe here...Perhaps where I am from things are radically different. Maybe it is the type you describe here which makes some people appear to utterly cringe in horror at the very term "dispensationalist". Which always seemed rather humorous to me. This "hyper-dispensationalism" sounds utterly insane. Is it somewhat Geographic do you think? I think this milder form is all I have ever really been exposed to. You are dealing with some crazy creatures indeed.
The "parenthesis" theory is a highly emphasized point in classical dispensationalism, the original version developed by Darby and later by Scofield. The fact that many here are shocked by it or have never heard of it demonstrates how "dispensationalism" has evolved since its inception and has "softened." What seems extreme concerning the accusations about dispensationalism IS true of classical and hyper-dispensationalism, I assure you. The fact that most "dispensationalists" on this board do not believe this stuff does not mean that the OP is dishonest or inaccurate; it is just that most "dispensationalists" today are more like the "progressive" dispensationalists, such as Blaising and Block, and the hardcore classical has diminished.
Darby was an "Acts 2" dispensationalist (classical) with hints of "Mid-Acts."
Scofield developed a strict "Acts 2" (classical) version through his Scofield Reference Bible.
E. W. Bullinger developed "Acts 28" (ultra) dispensationalism, declaring that "the Body of Christ" (the "mystery" Church of today) began in Acts 28:28 when Paul announced that he was turning to the Gentiles. God had supposedly put Israel aside at that point. According to "Acts 28" dispensationalism (Bullinger, Sellers, Welch), Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and (to some) 1 Timothy were written to "Israel"--more specifically Gentiles "grafted into" Israel. Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon alone are written to "the Body of Christ" to which we are members. Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper both have nothing to do with us, as they are part of Israel's "program."
Stam, Baker, and O'Hair scaled back the ultra dispensationalism mentioned above and developed "Mid-Acts" dispensationalism. It is often called the "Grace Movement" in America. Mid-Acts keeps the Pauline distinction, but believes that the "Body of Christ" began sometime between the stoning of Stephen (or Paul's conversion) and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The period between when "the Body" started and Acts 28:28 is a "transition period" when Israel's "program" was being phased out and "the dispensation of grace" was becoming prominent. Consequently, during this "transition," there were two legitimate, bona fide "gospels" from God side-by-side: (1) the "kingdom" gospel of law/works (no eternal security) to Israel taught by "The Twelve," and (2) the "mystery" "gospel of grace" by faith alone (with eternal security) to the "Gentile" "Body of Christ" taught by Paul. In Mid-Acts dispensationalism, all of Paul's epistles (and, of course, only those epistles) present soteriological doctrine for the Body of Christ. Accordingly, water baptism is not for the Body of Christ, but the Lord's Supper is (yet it seems like our "til he comes" remembrance must be totally different from that for Israel).
I posted several in-depth arguments against Mid-Acts dispensationalism in the Mid Acts Dispensationalists thread.
- Status