The teaching of Israel and the church remaining two distinct peoples was a little bit too much also as I began to study the Old Testament using reading through Jonathan Edwards the great work of God in the history of redemption and studying the book of Hebrews because it became too strange to try to hold on to those dispensational distinctives
-
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!
What led you to depart from Dispensational teachings?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
I never arrived. I got a Scofield Reference Bible right after I was saved and began to read the dispensational notes and was appalled by Scofield's insistence that (at least some) OT conversions were the result of what he called "pure law."
I was equally appalled by his "3 church theory." The "2 church theory" of Catholicism/Protestantism was bad enough, but he had to add the "true church" theory to the Local Church and Universal Church.
Through many decades of personal study and prayer I came to what I call the "Minimalist" position.
There are 3 "dispensations."
1. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the Old Covenant. We call this the "Old Testament."
2. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the New Covenant. We call this the "New Testament."
3. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the Physical, Universal, Earthly Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. We call this "The End of Days" or "The Consummation of the Ages." It includes but is not limited to the short period of time leading up to the Second Advent, followed by the Millennial Kingdom (the Rule of Christ on Earth), which ends with the New Heavens and New Earth.
You all know me. I'm never one to let someone else do my thinking for me.
I was equally appalled by his "3 church theory." The "2 church theory" of Catholicism/Protestantism was bad enough, but he had to add the "true church" theory to the Local Church and Universal Church.
Through many decades of personal study and prayer I came to what I call the "Minimalist" position.
There are 3 "dispensations."
1. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the Old Covenant. We call this the "Old Testament."
2. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the New Covenant. We call this the "New Testament."
3. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the Physical, Universal, Earthly Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. We call this "The End of Days" or "The Consummation of the Ages." It includes but is not limited to the short period of time leading up to the Second Advent, followed by the Millennial Kingdom (the Rule of Christ on Earth), which ends with the New Heavens and New Earth.
You all know me. I'm never one to let someone else do my thinking for me.
Premil viewpoint still good, but not the rest of dispy!
I never arrived. I got a Scofield Reference Bible right after I was saved and began to read the dispensational notes and was appalled by Scofield's insistence that (at least some) OT conversions were the result of what he called "pure law."
I was equally appalled by his "3 church theory." The "2 church theory" of Catholicism/Protestantism was bad enough, but he had to add the "true church" theory to the Local Church and Universal Church.
Through many decades of personal study and prayer I came to what I call the "Minimalist" position.
There are 3 "dispensations."
1. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the Old Covenant. We call this the "Old Testament."
2. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the New Covenant. We call this the "New Testament."
3. The dispensation of preparing for and living under the Physical, Universal, Earthly Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. We call this "The End of Days" or "The Consummation of the Ages." It includes but is not limited to the short period of time leading up to the Second Advent, followed by the Millennial Kingdom (the Rule of Christ on Earth), which ends with the New Heavens and New Earth.
You all know me. I'm never one to let someone else do my thinking for me.
Where does the "Mediatorial Kingdom" come in that 3D scheme?
Does the New Covenant end with the second advent? Or continue through to the NH&NE?
I get the impression, from both real & fake news, that Dispensationalism. in the form of "Christian Zionism" is the established religion over there.Come over here Brit and see...you will be amazed
I completely rejected premillennialism, & Pentecostalism, when I read in their doctrinal basis - "The Premillennial return of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Yea well that can create a political football. If you do know Sinclair Ferguson you should reach out to him to compare notes.....he will both shock you & make you laugh.
prophecy70
Active Member
I was a Pre Trib Tim Lahaye man, Was taught it all my life. As I got older I questioned things, Questioned the timing of the "rapture" then questioned if there was one because some preacher came into our church and preached on Post tribulation (which he was never allowed back). And finally I heard a Partial preterist preacher online explain the discourse to me in the most simple way I could imagine. No more adding this, having gaps here.
It all clicked. I do still question things much on Revelation and the Antichrist but ever finding this site and the great people here, I am learning more than I could imagine.
It all clicked. I do still question things much on Revelation and the Antichrist but ever finding this site and the great people here, I am learning more than I could imagine.
Last edited:
For me, I guess it was that God had "two peoples," one on earth and one in Heaven. I am presently doing some in depth reading on Covenantal Theology and how the 17th Century Particular Baptists of England departed from the Westminster brethren. Oh well. We get old and learn better I suppose. But I still believe God will do something supernatural with the Jews at the end.
Just my two cents worth.
rd
Just my two cents worth.
rd
Me too. I see a sharp distinction between National Israel and Spiritual Israel. New Testament believers were grafted into the Olive Tree of Spiritual Israel (which explains why so many of the OT prophecies regarding Israel were fulfilled in the NT Church), but National Israel was cursed (as the fig tree) for their unbelief. But I believe God will again deal with National Israel in the future for a final gleaning of the believing remnant from among them.
are reformed thinkers amillenianist?
Some. Though, I've been around more Presbyterians than Baptists, so that may explain it.
Some. Some are postmillennialists. Still others are historic premillennialists (Chiliasts).
I began serious questioning (about several things from my Southern Baptist upbringing, not just Dispensationalism) after I followed the advice of my non-denom Bible teacher to 'Strip away everything you think you know about the Bible and approach it as a child. Begin on page one and read through as quickly as possible in order to capture the ideal of it, praying as David, "Let me behold wondrous things from thy law" '.
Last edited:
Hebrews 11:39-40....does not indicate two distinct people.....who will be eternally distinct.
God has one people from now on.
God has one people from now on.
I was historical premil, but under the mentoring of Dr. Monroe Parker, I was drawn toward dispensationalism because of (a) the fact that the glory of God is the foundational principle for the theology, and (b) its emphasis on grammatical-historical hermeneutics.
SBTS President Albert Mohler declared this on his radio show in 2010:
"I'm not sure that dispensational premillenialists are wrong....I'm certainly not sure they're wrong, and I'll tell you this—one of the good things is, I've never met a liberal dispensationalist, and I'm very thankful for that. Dispensationalists love the Scripture and they are determined to obey and to understand the Scripture"
"I'm not sure that dispensational premillenialists are wrong....I'm certainly not sure they're wrong, and I'll tell you this—one of the good things is, I've never met a liberal dispensationalist, and I'm very thankful for that. Dispensationalists love the Scripture and they are determined to obey and to understand the Scripture"
Hopefully the same eulogy applies to all evangelicals, regardless of our views on eschatology.
I will add that the greatest battles I fought were those who not only rejected dispensational/premillennial thinking, but passionately embraced both preterist or covenant thinking.
It seemed inevitably the endorsement brought some decline either in moral fiber, Bible veracity, and/or puffed up dismissive attitudes. This was not as prevalent in Baptist churches, but standard in Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, and some Presbyterian leaders.
Catholics were the worse!
Not declaring that any scheme automatically brought such decline, for all certainly have the numerous failures, just that which seemed more consistent.
Back in the day, it seemed preachers who were covenant holders where more often found struggleing to read the Scriptures through eyes too long before the cup which was not coffee or Dr. Pepper.
Ever wonder why the worldly media industry never seems to mock covenant and preterist thinkers?
Did some eschatology die?