What Dispensationalism Provides?

[Ed Edwards]

Gb93433: // At best one could be right and at the worst all can be wrong. All of them are different. //

A more logical approach to Eschatology can be found at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1344632#post1344632

At best all could be right
OR some could be right
OR it might not matter about the 'dispensation' count
OR maybe something else;
at worse.

There has been dispensation Eschatology nay-sayers here as long as I have been (2002) here - I've yet to see such nay-sayers be clear about what they are talking about.

Frankly I think there is a love of illogical logic among

The antidote for poor logic among nay-Sayers is found at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1344632#post1344632

A similar situation is found with Gifts of the Spirit. Everybody has their own list. The several times that Gifts of the Spirit are given the the Bible, the list is different. There are gifts of the Spirit, it just isn't specific in the Bible what the Gifts are.

 

[OldRegular]

Ryrie does not agree with Larkin. McIntosh does not agree with Walvoord. The progressive dispensationalists today do not agree with Walvoord.

At best one could be right and at the worst all can be wrong. All of them are different.

Some believe in 2 dispensations.
Some believe in three dispensations.
Some believe in five dispensations.
Some believe in six dispensations.
Some believe in seven dispensations.
Some believe in eight dispensations.
Some believe in nine dispensations.
Some believe in twleve dispensations.
Some believe in fourteen dispensations.
Some believe in eighteen dispensations.

Source: http://www.theologue.org/DispensationsChart.html

Dispensationalism is a filter by which those who adhere to it interpret scripture.

In your reference above I was struck by the following remark:

Kenneth Gentry commenting on Ryrie's definition says

"this is remarkable in that since a dispensation is a "distinguishable economy" it would seem that it should DISTINGUISHABLE"!

I have always contended that a new Christian reading the Bible could never arrive at anything resembling dispensational doctrine. If he were perceptive he could understand something about covenants but nothing about dispensations. I contend, therefore, that dispensationalism is elitist. It must be ingrained in people. Unfortunately many new Christians, particularly Southern Baptist, were exposed to the Scofield Bible, generally by their pastor, and dispensationalism corrupted many Southern Baptist churches.

 

[Me4Him]

In your reference above I was struck by the following remark:

Kenneth Gentry commenting on Ryrie's definition says

"this is remarkable in that since a dispensation is a "distinguishable economy" it would seem that it should DISTINGUISHABLE"!

I have always contended that a new Christian reading the Bible could never arrive at anything resembling dispensational doctrine. If he were perceptive he could understand something about covenants but nothing about dispensations. I contend, therefore, that dispensationalism is elitist. It must be ingrained in people. Unfortunately many new Christians, particularly Southern Baptist, were exposed to the Scofield Bible, generally by their pastor, and dispensationalism corrupted many Southern Baptist churches.

OT saints never had a "Comforter", God spoke through "prophets".

With the Church rapture, Trib Saints won't have a "Comforter" either.

Even an elementary reading of scripture will "reveal" the "differences" between the "Dispensation" of the OT and the NT, without mentioning the Trib.

The only reason you couldn't see any differences is because you've "closed your eyes", just like Israel.

 

[canadyjd]

OT saints never had a "Comforter", God spoke through "prophets".

With the Church rapture, Trib Saints won't have a "Comforter" either.

Well, no one can come to the Father unless he is drawn by Holy Spirit. How will anyone be saved if Holy Spirit isn't around during the tribulation?

And is the promise of Jesus to never leave us or forsake us fulfilled during the trib?

peace to youraying:

 

[gb93433]

In your reference above I was struck by the following remark:

Kenneth Gentry commenting on Ryrie's definition says

"this is remarkable in that since a dispensation is a "distinguishable economy" it would seem that it should DISTINGUISHABLE"!

I have always contended that a new Christian reading the Bible could never arrive at anything resembling dispensational doctrine. If he were perceptive he could understand something about covenants but nothing about dispensations. I contend, therefore, that dispensationalism is elitist. It must be ingrained in people. Unfortunately many new Christians, particularly Southern Baptist, were exposed to the Scofield Bible, generally by their pastor, and dispensationalism corrupted many Southern Baptist churches.

For about six years I read my Bible and prayed for about one hour each day. I did not own any other Christian book. (Later I bought a copncordance). During that time I learned that if I read enough I could become quite familiar with where things were found and could refute some of the nonsense I heard. After awhile someone told me about dispensationalism and how it would help to answer some of my questions. Because of that I thought that if I would just memorize dispensationalism that all of my questions would be answered. It caused me a lot more problems and answered none. Eventually God answered my prayers about my confusion. I finally got straightened around when I began to study scripture in light of its historical context instead of through the dispensationalist filter. I have never been the same since and my confusion abruptly ended.

 

[gb93433]

Unfortunately many new Christians, particularly Southern Baptist, were exposed to the Scofield Bible, generally by their pastor, and dispensationalism corrupted many Southern Baptist churches.

While I do not agree with dispensationalism I do not think we can tag that onto the overall problems in the SBC because there is arrogance in all camps. I think it runs far deeper. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

 

[Pastor Larry]

After awhile someone told me about dispensationalism and how it would help to answer some of my questions. Because of that I thought that if I would just memorize dispensationalism that all of my questions would be answered. It caused me a lot more problems and answered none.

Sounds to me like the problem was with your methodology/expectations (and whoever taught you), not with dispensationalism.

Eventually God answered my prayers about my confusion.

So you are saying that those who are dispensationalists have not had their prayers answered by God? You see, this kind of statement means absolutely nothing. I can say, "I prayed and God showed me the error of amillennialism/historic premill/Jehovah's Witnesses/whatever else" and how can you argue? Playing the "prayed to God" card doesn't solve any issues. Many people believe error because they "prayed to God" and he told them.

I finally got straightened around when I began to study scripture in light of its historical context instead of through the dispensationalist filter.

Studying Scripture in its historical context is what made me a dispensationalist. I realized by that that God hasn't always worked with people the same way, but he has always said what he meant and intended what he said to be lived by. That, in a nutshell, is what dispensationalism is about. It is not a filter.

BTW, as a dispensationalist, I want to distance myself from some of the things being said by others here. Again, one must distinguish between what dispensationalism holds as necessary and what some dispensationalists believe.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have never seen any systematic theology explain God's character in light of found in Is. 45:7, Lam. 3:38, and Amos 3:6.

I asked you previously about this and you neglected to answer I think, or perhaps I missed it. What is your question here?

Ryrie does not agree with Larkin. McIntosh does not agree with Walvoord. The progressive dispensationalists today do not agree with Walvoord.

You disagree with me. OR disagrees with me. You disagree with OR at some points I am sure. So what? Amillennialists don't agree with themselves. In fact, there are many many differences among those who are not dispensationalists. So the fact that people disagree means very little other than that they are not both right.

Your contention here about differences has been pretty clearly answered. Dispensationalism does not hang on how many dispensations or on some of these differences. If you look at dispensationalism, there are some key features that all dispensationalists hold to, and that other do not hold to. Ryrie listed three of them that are pretty widely accepted: 1) Glory of God as the focal point; 2) consistent use of a normal hermeneutic; 3) fundamental distinction between Israel and the church.

Alternatively, most non-dispensationalists see a redemptive-historical motif as the focal point; they do not consistently use a normal hermeneutic; and they do not see a fundamental distinction between Israel and the church.

I am convinced that at the end, it all boils down to hermeneutics ... what we do with language.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

I am convinced that at the end, it all boils down to hermeneutics ... what we do with language.

amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=54854&page=5

Post #44 there is my post about 'ages' (and what they mean) in the Bible

Over there also starting on page 5, I have already started a series of 5 understandings of 'and' (now increased to 7) which vary the understanding of Eschatology according to which of the 18 meanings of 'and' that you apply there. Other words that vary Eschatology are 'day', 'first', and 'last'. Some people don't know the first thing about 'first' nor the last thing about 'last' and would not recognize a 'day' if it bit them on the ... never mind.

And those are the easy words, what about the hard ones like 'hermeneutics', 'Eschatology', Rapture' and 'Second Advent'.

But hey, if I know what I am talking about :type:, some folks will complain that I'm being confusing. Sigh :saint:

 

[Me4Him]

Well, no one can come to the Father unless he is drawn by Holy Spirit. How will anyone be saved if Holy Spirit isn't around during the tribulation?

And is the promise of Jesus to never leave us or forsake us fulfilled during the trib?

peace to youraying:

Why don't you ask that same question about the OT, they didn't have a "comforter" either???

The AC can't have power over "ALL" kindren, tongues and nation, as long as the "Comforter" is "In the world".

You're right, If the comforter never leaves us, and it leaves the planet, we go with it, Rapture.

 

[Marcia]

Well, no one can come to the Father unless he is drawn by Holy Spirit. How will anyone be saved if Holy Spirit isn't around during the tribulation?

And is the promise of Jesus to never leave us or forsake us fulfilled during the trib?

peace to youraying:

Here's how I understand it: The Holy Spirit is omnipresent but indewelling only in believers. So if the church (believers) is removed before the Tribulation, the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit through believers is removed, but of course, the Holy Spirit is not "gone," just as God is not ever "gone."

I've thought more about how things would be if suddenly all believers were gone. It does make room for the Tribulation to go to its extremes. After all, all I have to do is look around at the unsaved world (and at myself before I was saved) and I see what the lack of the indwelling Holy Spirit can mean.

 

[Marcia]

I contend, therefore, that dispensationalism is elitist. It must be ingrained in people.

Well, it was not ingrained in me. I became a believer as a middle-years adult and did not even know what dispensationalism was, nor the "rapture," "tribulation," or any of that stuff. I had gone to a Baptist church as an unsaved teen, but do not recall anything about these topics at all. When I first heard about a "pre-trib rapture" I had to ask someone what it meant. So I came to it with a very open mind.

Unfortunately many new Christians, particularly Southern Baptist, were exposed to the Scofield Bible, generally by their pastor, and dispensationalism corrupted many Southern Baptist churches

(emphasis added)

This is why one needs to have fairly thick skin in certain discussions on the BB. It does sound smug.

 

[gb93433]

I asked you previously about this and you neglected to answer I think, or perhaps I missed it. What is your question here?

It is impossible for any systematic theology to be equivalent to scripture. Scripture is inspired by God and does quite a good job of declaring what God wanted to reveal.

Now that we are on the point of those three verses. How would you interpret the verses Is. 45:7, Lam. 3:38, and Amos 3:6 in light of dispensationalism?

Sounds to me like the problem was with your methodology/expectations (and whoever taught you), not with dispensationalism.

Some of them studied under Chafer at DTS. Do you call that wrong? Some of them learned under Larkin. Do you call that wrong? Some of them graduated from DTS. Do you call that wrong? Some of them graduated from BIOLA. Do you call that wrong? All I know is what I read and heard taught by a number of dispensationalists from the same era.

You disagree with me. OR disagrees with me. You disagree with OR at some points I am sure. So what? Amillennialists don't agree with themselves. In fact, there are many many differences among those who are not dispensationalists. So the fact that people disagree means very little other than that they are not both right.

If two people do not agree, both of them can be wrong, one of them can be right and the other wrong, and both of them cannot be right.

My point is also that it is never a permissible hermeneutic to interpret scripture through any systematic theology. That is always eisegesis.

I am convinced that at the end, it all boils down to hermeneutics ... what we do with language.

In my opinion it boils down to interpreting scripture in light of its historical context and letting scripture say what it will versus interpreting scripture through a filter.

Whenever any theology changes it cannot be true. Scripture has never changed, but systematic theologies are constantly changing. Dispensationalism has been one that has been in a state of change. Even if one claims it is being perfected, then that is an open declaration that it is not true. God's word is true. It does not change and has never changed. That is not true of any systematic theology.

 

[Me4Him]

Here's how I understand it: The Holy Spirit is omnipresent but indewelling only in believers. So if the church (believers) is removed before the Tribulation, the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit through believers is removed, but of course, the Holy Spirit is not "gone," just as God is not ever "gone."

I've thought more about how things would be if suddenly all believers were gone. It does make room for the Tribulation to go to its extremes. After all, all I have to do is look around at the unsaved world (and at myself before I was saved) and I see what the lack of the indwelling Holy Spirit can mean.

"God" led Israel in the OT using "PROPHETS" ,

"Jesus" (Comforter/Holy "GHOST OF JESUS") leads the Church in the NT.

The "TRINITY" concept explains scripture as well as "GOD'.

Both types of "leadership", (law and prophets/Comforter) can't function at the same time, same time frame.

The "Law and prophets" system stopped with John/Jesus.

Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, (by Jesus/Comforter)

After the rapture, Israel/world will go back under the law and prophets system. (Two witnesses, Moses/Elijah)

The church is not under the law (and prophets) but under Grace, if the woman caught in adultery had been under the law, she would have been stoned to death.

The Church "Spiritually" crucifies the "body of sin" to be saved,

During the Trib, back under the law, a "literal death" of the body of sin will be required, save a remnant.

This is "Chastisement/Stripes" in their flesh for rejecting Jesus,

but Jesus has already suffer the "chastisement/Stripes" with "HIS BODY" for "HIS BODY", the Church,

This is one reason the church doesn't enter the trib.

Like the Trinity, Father/Son, you can tell who is leading/dealing with who by the type of leadership, since both doesn't function at the same time.

1. God/law and prophets/Israel
2. Jesus/Comforter/church

 

[OldRegular]

Well, it was not ingrained in me. I became a believer as a middle-years adult and did not even know what dispensationalism was, nor the "rapture," "tribulation," or any of that stuff. I had gone to a Baptist church as an unsaved teen, but do not recall anything about these topics at all. When I first heard about a "pre-trib rapture" I had to ask someone what it meant. So I came to it with a very open mind.

(emphasis added)

This is why one needs to have fairly thick skin in certain discussions on the BB. It does sound smug.

Yes! But did you embrace the pre trib rapture on the basis of Scripture or the basis of someone "teaching" you, like a Scofield bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is impossible for any systematic theology to be equivalent to scripture. Scripture is inspired by God and does quite a good job of declaring what God wanted to reveal.

Well of course. But systematic theology doesn’t pretend to be equivalent to Scripture. Systematic theology is a “systematizing” of what God has revealed. In other words, it take a topic, called a doctrine, and assembles everything the Bible says about that topic together and correlates it. Anytime you tell how two verse relate to each other you are doing systematic theology.

How would you interpret the verses Is. 45:7, Lam. 3:38, and Amos 3:6 in light of dispensationalism?

There’s nothing in those verses that has anything to do with dispensationalism. The verses teach that God is responsible for everything, both good and bad. That is true whether one is a dispensationalist or not. Dispensationalism really only affects ecclesiology, eschatology, and to a small degree, pneumatology.

Some of them studied under Chafer at DTS. Do you call that wrong? Some of them learned under Larkin. Do you call that wrong? Some of them graduated from DTS. Do you call that wrong? Some of them graduated from BIOLA. Do you call that wrong? All I know is what I read and heard taught by a number of dispensationalists from the same era.

I don’t call any of that wrong. They studied where they studied. Again, the problem was not dispensationalism, but someone teaching you that if you memorized dispensationalism all your questions would be answered.

If two people do not agree, both of them can be wrong, one of them can be right and the other wrong, and both of them cannot be right.

Obviously, but that’s not a problem of dispensationalism.

My point is also that it is never a permissible hermeneutic to interpret scripture through any systematic theology. That is always eisegesis.

I agree. But that’s off topic here. The truth is, however, that we all bring information to the text. We interpret obscure verses in light of clear verses, and that is by definition systematic theology. So you can’t escape systematic theology.

In my opinion it boils down to interpreting scripture in light of its historical context and letting scripture say what it will versus interpreting scripture through a filter.

I agree, but that comes after the question of how you treat language. Dispensationalism interprets Scripture in its historical context. That is why we insist that the OT is still relevant and that it means what it says.

Whenever any theology changes it cannot be true.

Sure it can. It can change from false to true.

Scripture has never changed, but systematic theologies are constantly changing.

That’s because we are always learning. You have likely changed your position on some things. That means your personal systematic theology has changed. Before you claim you don’t have a systematic theology, remember what systematic theology is—it is the correlation of Scripture.

Dispensationalism has been one that has been in a state of change.

This is not true only about dispensationalism. It’s alternatives have at least as much change as dispensationalism does.

Even if one claims it is being perfected, then that is an open declaration that it is not true.

Not at all. It is a declaration that it is not final, and that we continue to study God’s word. As I say, your own views on Scripture and doctrine have probably changed over the years, so it should not surprise you that other peoples’ have changed as well. You seem to think that no one should ever change what they believe. But I am quite sure you don't believe that. So it doesn't make much sense what you are saying here.

I think you suffer from a misunderstanding of what a systematic theology is. You have one … We all do.

 

[Marcia]

Yes! But did you embrace the pre trib rapture on the basis of Scripture or the basis of someone "teaching" you, like a Scofield bible.

I didn't learn any of this from a Scofield Bible! Why do you say that? You have false assumptions about me. I didn't even know what a Scofield Bible was until the late 90s.

I've come to accept the pre-trib view based on a number of scriptures, some of which have been explained on this thread and the other thread by more articulate people than I (in this area).

 

[Marcia]

"God" led Israel in the OT using "PROPHETS" ,

"Jesus" (Comforter/Holy "GHOST OF JESUS") leads the Church in the NT.

The "TRINITY" concept explains scripture as well as "GOD'.

Both types of "leadership", (law and prophets/Comforter) can't function at the same time, same time frame.

The "Law and prophets" system stopped with John/Jesus.

Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, (by Jesus/Comforter)

After the rapture, Israel/world will go back under the law and prophets system. (Two witnesses, Moses/Elijah)

The church is not under the law (and prophets) but under Grace, if the woman caught in adultery had been under the law, she would have been stoned to death.

The Church "Spiritually" crucifies the "body of sin" to be saved,

During the Trib, back under the law, a "literal death" of the body of sin will be required, save a remnant.

This is "Chastisement/Stripes" in their flesh for rejecting Jesus,

but Jesus has already suffer the "chastisement/Stripes" with "HIS BODY" for "HIS BODY", the Church,

This is one reason the church doesn't enter the trib.

Like the Trinity, Father/Son, you can tell who is leading/dealing with who by the type of leadership, since both doesn't function at the same time.

1. God/law and prophets/Israel
2. Jesus/Comforter/church

I appreciate all this (although not sure why you posted all this for me), but disagree with one point.

I have to say that the woman who committed adultery could not have been stoned because the Jews were unable to stone people when they were under Roman law at that time. I think we should not spiritualize this - this is just an incident showing Jesus' power to forgive and his knowledge of men (knowing some of the men there had probably committed adultery, too).

 

[Jim1999]

The woman was about to be stoned!!!! The men had assembled, with stones, ready to stone her. Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Jesus completed the law on the cross. The church becomes the Israel of God and continues under the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The next event will be the second advent of Jesus the Christ. The rapture s0-called does not exist. It is a myth to support that system known as dispensationalism and the parenthetical church age.

Cheers,

Jim

There are other legitimate systems.

 

[Marcia]

The woman was about to be stoned!!!! The men had assembled, with stones, ready to stone her. Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Jesus completed the law on the cross. The church becomes the Israel of God and continues under the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The next event will be the second advent of Jesus the Christ. The rapture s0-called does not exist. It is a myth to support that system known as dispensationalism and the parenthetical church age.

Cheers,

Jim

Are are other legitimate systems.

As I understand it, they were waiting for Jesus to say something. I read somewhere that they could not stone people at that time since they under Roman law. They had to have Jesus tried under Roman law. They were unable to execute him.

Does someone know if the Jews were allowed to stone people while under Roman law?