What is dispensationalism

[IFB Mole]

CYouth,

I too have walked that path on dispensationalism and frankly it has its bibicall support, BUT with some presuppositions that are a stretch on Scripture. Furthermore it will get a bit convoluted with "dispensational premillenialism". The whole Chuch / Israel issue is big too. Like you were recommended, look at both sides. You will undoubtedly find (as I did) that it can be as heated as the Arminian / Calvinism "debate", or KJVOnlysim. The "pretribulation rapture" is part of the Darby systemtized dispensational view. Progressive dispensationalism is also a more recent systemitized view. SO be prepared to look at all of it before being dogmatic.

You should look at- side by side - Dispensationalism (Darby, Scofield) progressive Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology to somwhat grasp the compexity of the issue. In a broad sense it really is a theological viewpoint and philosophy of Isreal the Church and God's REVEALED eternal redemptive purpose throughout time.

It can be really heavy stuff indeed. Both sides - all 4 sides really -make for some very compelling Scriptural arguments. Reading books in the matter is a god thing to do as well as discussing the issue with its opponents and supporters one on one. Truly study all sides of the issue and keep in mind they ALL use the Bible for thier position BUT their hermeneutics is faulted so unless you're also a student of hermeneutics you can be swayed with a persuasive agrument.

Finally just don't get side tracked on stuff like this, it is great to learn but don't loose focus on what's most important - seeing the lost converted.

 

[christianyouth]

Thx IFB mole.

This is some very complex stuff. I am very overwhelmed. Well, pray for me, that the Lord would guide me on this issue and bless my inquiries.

Why would God give us His Word and then make it so hard to understand?

 

[EdSutton]

Thank you... you wouldn't happen to have any thing from pre darby history that alludes to the Rapture would you?
(yeah, I know 1 Thess 4... lol... but I am talking about historical interpretations)

Try some of these on for size!

http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=1141

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/Doctrines/rapture_history.htm

http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p095.html

That should give, or at least refer you to a start.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

Why would God give us His Word and then make it so hard to understand?

With the right heart and the right tools, the Spirit will aid your understanding of the truth.

Whether you end up choosing Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, there are some elements of Scripture that are hard to understand: "speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16, NET).

 

[christianyouth]

With the right heart and the right tools, the Spirit will aid your understanding of the truth.

Whether you end up choosing Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, there are some elements of Scripture that are hard to understand: "speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16, NET).

Is there anyway I could see who held to dispensationalism and who held to covenant theology? Like a survey of both doctrines through history, their progressions, etc?

 

[TCGreek]

Is there anyway I could see who held to dispensationalism and who held to covenant theology? Like a survey of both doctrines through history, their progressions, etc?

Try Dispensationalism by Dr. Ryrie. I don't think there is a better treatment on the subject out there. And for Covenant Theology, try Dr. Michael Horton's, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology .

You need to buy some books and read and read and reflect and reflect. Get a handle on the issue. Study the issue for yourself. Put in the effort.

 

[av1611jim]

Thx IFB mole.

This is some very complex stuff. I am very overwhelmed. Well, pray for me, that the Lord would guide me on this issue and bless my inquiries.

Why would God give us His Word and then make it so hard to understand?

In reply to your 'why would God....' question.

The simplest yet profound answer is that God is eternal and spiritual while we are not. To know the infinite is impossible for us. Yet God has given us His Holy Spirit that we may KNOW Him. Not just know about Him but truly know HIM.

If your study of these different systems of theology distracts you from knowing God Himself then I would suggest you toss them in the can and focus on HIM.

1 Cor.2:9-16 comes to my mind. It is good to understand HOW to study God's word so that you don't get off on abberant doctrine. I think the simplest way is to study it historically, literally, grammatically. One must also bear in mind that some things will be a figure of speach while others are literal. Discerning the difference is what systematically studying the Scriptures is all about. And dispensationalism is just one of many. I find it to be most accurate however.

God bless your endeavors.

 

[TCGreek]

Discerning the difference is what systematically studying the Scriptures is all about. And dispensationalism is just one of many. I find it to be most accurate however.

God bless your endeavors.

Wouldn't it be nice for him to discover that own his own, since church history is replete with godly, scholarly men on both sides of the issue? Just a thought.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I am dispensational, but it has bothered me that it took 1800 yrs to systemize it.
I would love to find some historical proof that it was taught before Darby...

Tim the links that Ed gave are great and if I recall in my Moody hand book I had years ago had note about people from Church History who held all are part of the view, if I recall correctly. I would think that book is still in print or go to your church and look it up. Keep in mind it took around 1500 years to rediscover the Biblical truth of justification by faith, the supreme authority of the Bible and the priesthood of every believer.

 

[christianyouth]

Try Dispensationalism by Dr. Ryrie. I don't think there is a better treatment on the subject out there. And for Covenant Theology, try Dr. Michael Horton's, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology .

You need to buy some books and read and read and reflect and reflect. Get a handle on the issue. Study the issue for yourself. Put in the effort.

Thanks, These will go down on my list.

 

[Grasshopper]

Actually, we are not "under the New Covenant" since we are not of teh "house of Israel and the house of Judah."

If this doesn't send up red flags, nothing will.

 

[DQuixote]

Why would God give us His Word and then make it so hard to understand?

CY:
1 Corinthians 2:1-16
Dispensationalism, by Ryrie

Ryrie discusses all aspects of theology in his book, including Covenant Theology. He certainly isn't going to brainwash you with his views of dispensationalism. He is very patient in describing other points of view. In the final analysis, you compare scripture with scripture. With the scripture reference, above, you rightly divide scripture.

No one who follows dispensational theology believes that those who follow covenant theology are lost, unsaved, or whatever. That's not the issue. Some folks confuse salvation with either or both of those theologies. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, not of works, lest any of us should boast. We are all ONE in Christ. I do not know one single dispensationalist who believes that "the gospels are not for our use."

:thumbs:

 

[Bill Brown]

I was thinking of the idea of the church being just a "blip" in the history of God's dealings with national Israel, rather than the body of Christ made up of saved Jews and saved gentiles. I think some of the other verses quoted by DeafPostrib were probably better ones, and that his wording was much clearer than mine. Apologies for that!

David - interesting. I always believed the church was a New Covenant organism created by Christ. I developed this view by accepting dispensationalism whole and without question. Over the past few years my opinion has changed. Staring with the Abrahamic Covenant:

Genesis 17:7 7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

and continuing with the grafting in of the Gentiles:

Romans 11:17-18 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

I have come to the understanding that God has always had one called out people of faith. All of Israel was not in eternal covenant with God, only believing Israel:

Romans 9:6 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

In the same way those who trust in Jesus Christ by faith alone are made partakers with them.

Ephesians 3:6 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

Dispensationalsim, by necessity, has separated Israel and the church. I find that view to be inconsistent with scripture.

 

[David Lamb]

David.
I have come to the understanding that God has always had one called out people of faith. All of Israel was not in eternal covenant with God, only believing Israel: In the same way those who trust in Jesus Christ by faith alone are made partakers with them.

Dispensationalsim, by necessity, has separated Israel and the church. I find that view to be inconsistent with scripture.

I agree, Bill. I hope my previous post didn't cause you to think otherwise.

 

[Bill Brown]

I agree, Bill. I hope my previous post didn't cause you to think otherwise.

David - my apologies. I misread your post and came out with a wrong conclusion.

 

[David Lamb]

David - my apologies. I misread your post and came out with a wrong conclusion.

Thanks, Bill, but please don't worry about it. It was probably my fault for not being clear enough before.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If this doesn't send up red flags, nothing will.

Why should it send up red flags? All I did was quote the Scripture and "give the sense."

I have come to the understanding that God has always had one called out people of faith. All of Israel was not in eternal covenant with God, only believing Israel:

The "one called out people of faith" is problemmatic, but the covenant with Israel is with believing Israel. That is a dispensational thing and it is why we look forward to the future restoration of the nation. God promises that Israel will again believe and be restored.

Dispensationalsim, by necessity, has separated Israel and the church. I find that view to be inconsistent with scripture.

By what necessity? I do it because Scripture demands it. That's the only necessity I find. But I have yet to see a cogent reason why a fundamental distinction between Isreal and the church is inconsistent with Scripture. The Bible distinguishes between Isreal and the church in the NT, and explicitly states the the promise of the land, a seed, and the blessing have not been annulled. The NC was a restatement of those promises, and they still stand. Therefore, on the exegetical basis of Scripture, there must be a future for national Israel. In the church age, believing Jews are a part of the church (Gal 3:26); but after the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, then all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26).

I don't think your view is supported by exegesis.

 

[skypair]

David - interesting. I always believed the church was a New Covenant organism created by Christ.

Partly right. The church is under the new covenant but not fully under it as Israel will be in the Millennial Kingdom. The NC to Israel calls for the return of Messiah, the resurrection of OT Isreal, their return to their land/inheritance, and God putting His Spirit in their hearts, Ezek 37:12-14.

Here's a way to understand it, too: The church had a Pentecost -- but not the same Pentecost as Israel will have in the tribulation (Joel 2:28-31). Remember, Peter left out 2:30-31 because only part of the prophetic event was complete. Likewise, they are going to have their own Passover where Elijah takes up his cup, their own day of "looking unto" Christ, Zech 12:10, etc.

I have come to the understanding that God has always had one called out people of faith.

Very dangerous! Jesus said "another fold have I that I must bring in." speaking of the Gentiles (John 10:16). Two folds -- (at least) two dispensations. What you are thinking of is the "one true vine." (John 15:1) But consider, there are also the fig tree (Mt 21:19. 29, 24:32 -- national privileges that are Israel's alone - the dressers didn't dig and dung it, the tree withered, but the tree will bloom again) and the olive tree (Rom 11:15 -- religious privileges which Israel is cut out of and Gentiles grafted into for a time).

Dispensationalsim, by necessity, has separated Israel and the church. I find that view to be inconsistent with scripture.

Not inconsistent -- just a new understanding. The Mt 13 parables confirm it --- I believe the dispensations are seen in the 7 eyes and 7 horns of Rev 5:6. In each of 7 dispensations, God has seen us and we Him through a different "eye" AND God gave 7 authorities over our lives in each (innocence, conscience, human gov't, etc. -- The seals of Rev 6 rereveal them one by one.

The significance is that each was a 'test.' Man failed, God intervened with a new revelation and test whereupon He put another seal on the title deed to the earth that He would one day return and claim.

Finding it in so many places, I can't help but think it part of God's plan. However, it's true that it wasn't always seen. The most the early church likely saw was 2 dispensations that y'all can see too --- Old Covenant and New Covenant. But Paul, in Hebrews, tells us that the old is ready to die away which is what happened in 70 AD. We are not under the law because that would mean obligation to the whole law -- moral and ritual. Does anyone observe that besides the Jews?

skypair

 

[Bill Brown]

posted by Pastor Larry:

The "one called out people of faith" is problemmatic,

Larry - why is it problematic? Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The economies of both covenants did not negate this fact. This is the essence of Hebrews 11:

Hebrews 11:39-40 39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

If God called His elect on the basis of national origin, that would be problematic. If that were the case the Pharisees would have something to boast about. John the Baptist said:

Luke 3:8 8 "Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

Now I do believe that the New Testament church was changed at the inauguration of the New Covenant. Whereas those who came to faith in Yahweh under the Old Covenant were not necessarily under the umbrella of Israel (c.f. those who believed in Nineveh, Jonah 3:5-10), believers under the New Covenant are not superseded by a covenant made to a nation. Believers in the New Covenant have become Israel, or rather they have been grafted into the spiritual seed of Abraham - what Israel should have been.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry - why is it problematic? Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The economies of both covenants did not negate this fact. This is the essence of Hebrews 11:

It's not the faith part, but the "one people" part. The Bible makes it clear that the church is distinct from Israel, not a continuation of it, or a replacement of it. Ethnic Israel has a future as ethnic Israel.

If God called His elect on the basis of national origin, that would be problematic.

That's true with respect to salvation.

Now I do believe that the New Testament church was changed at the inauguration of the New Covenant.

How so? The church did not even start until Pentecost when Spirit baptism came on the crowd assembled in the upper room. That doesn't qualify as a "change" but rather as a beginning.

believers under the New Covenant are not superseded by a covenant made to a nation. Believers in the New Covenant have become Israel, or rather they have been grafted into the spiritual seed of Abraham - what Israel should have been.

You are conflating some things here. It is true that church age believers are not superceded by a covenant made to a nation, but neither do they make the covenant void. The covenant still stands. Church age believers do not become Israel. They are the spiritual seed of Abraham because of faith, but that does not make them part of Israel the nation.

The exegesis of of these passages in question mitigate against your view.