"When the plain sense make common sense, seek no other sense."

[Ed Edwards]

OldRegular: "The seven dispensations [Ryrie, [i[Dispensationalism[/i], page 51ff]
and the period of time associated with each are listed below. ..."

In Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996) The self-same
Charles C. Ryrie has written the article on 'Dispensationalism (pages 93-99)
The whole seven pages Ryrie doesn't bother to mention the 'seven dispensations'.
The idea of seven or twelve or how ever many time periods/different economies,
is MINIMAL to dispensation.

Of the various types of dispensational theology discussed by Ryrie
the most like the dispensation described by Brother OldRegualar
is the 'Ultradispensationalism' for which Charles C. Ryrie says (page 98):
"The biblical evidence does not support ultradispensationalism."

"The weakness of ultradispensationalism is that it fails to
recognize that the nature of a dispensation is based on what
God does, not on human understanding of His purpose."

I consider dispensationalism much like Calvinism - both try to give human insight
into the functioing of the mind and will of God. There is nothing practical about
doing this, nothing useful. Even if a Dispensationalist is right (or a Calvinist
for that matter) - there is no practical appliction to their correctness.

Demolishing hyperdispensationalist strawmen
is a useless task. But boy!, did you ever
see that straw a flyin'

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I find it hard to understand how anyone would believe much of what Darby wrote. I know there are many who would not agree with him who call themselves dispensationalists. But the roots of dispensationalism is in Darbyism and the writings of Darby.

Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 67 writes: "There is no question that the Plymouth Brethern, of which John Nelson Darby [1800-1882] was a leader, had much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism."

 

[Michael Hobbs]

I think God, in His infinite wisdom, gives us scripture that works on several "levels" at the same time.
An example would be Psalm 69. The literal interpretation is David hiding from Saul and fearing for his life. But some of the phrases are prophetically referring to Christ on the cross (vss. 3, 21 and especially the last part of vs 4).

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Another example is the 7 churches mentioned in Rev. 2 & 3.
1. Were there 7 literal churches? Yes
2. Were they representative of 7 church "ages"? I would say yes.
3. Can we see examples of each of the churches today? I think so.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
Another example is the 7 churches mentioned in Rev. 2 & 3.
1. Were there 7 literal churches? Yes
2. Were they representative of 7 church "ages"? I would say yes.
3. Can we see examples of each of the churches today? I think so.

Regarding your point #2: Can you relate the seven churches to the seven church ages? I would be interested in seeing the result.

 

[rjprince]

All very interesting.

Pastor Larry, very well said.

Re riding the clouds, somewhere back there... Jesus ascended in the clouds, He will return in the clouds. This is clearly stated. The fact that "riding the clouds" may be symbolic of God's victory over the enemies in one or two places does not justify making every reference to clouds symbolic, especially when stated in such clear and understandable language (whether the English tranlations or the Greek apographs).

Re the "historical" part of "contextual, literal, grammatical, historical" -- This DOES NOT MEAN THE MOST POPULAR POSITION HELD BY THOSE CLAIMING TO INTERPRET THE WORD OF GOD!!! That was one of the main points of the reformation!!! It does not matter what men have said, what does the BIBLE say!!! How can we redefine the principle of SOLA SCRIPTURA to include popular historical views?

RE REV 2-3. ALL SCRIPTURE HAS ONE PRIMARY MEANING, OR INTERPRETATION, albeit literal, poetical, allegorical or otherwise. If I say it means one thing and you say it means something different, we cannot both be right!!! We can take the primary meaning and then make different applications, but these must coincide and relate at least somewhat to the MEANING of the text. An application that is contrary to the clear words of the text is faulty.

PL.

Thanks for the clarification of the sine qua non (from Ryrie) of dispensationalism.

Any one who does not still offer animal sacrifices recognizes that God's manner of dealing with men and their sins has changed since Abraham and Moses.

How someone can fail to grasp the clear words of both Jesus and Paul regarding Israel, is beyond my comprehension...

Luke 21:21-24
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Rom 11:25-29
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.
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:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

If the simple reading of the texts is not sufficient, no amount of commentary or elaboration will suffice either.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I am going to have to go out and find a good book on The history of Dispensationalism.Every time the word dispensation or dispensationalism comes up we hear the names of Darby and Larkins.Truthfully I have never read one word that Darby wrote.I would also say that my exposure to Larkin is less than significant.I think this may be true of many other dispensationalist regardless of which end pf the dispensational spectrum they are on.

 

[rjprince]

PO Bill,

I would suggest Ryrie's "Dispensationalism". It is a revision of his earlier "Dispensationalism Today" and is an excellent and balanced (IMHO) presentation of the issue. He deals somewhat with Covenant Theology, Preterism, Historicism, Progressive Dispensationalism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, et al.

He also gives a brief history of Dispensationalism. If you want a little more history (from the Dispensational viewpoint) I would suggest Ryrie's "The Basis of the Premillennial Faith".

I would not suggest you read non-dispensationalist if you want to really find out what they believe. Many of those who attack dispensationalism evidence an incomplete understanding of the issues by the gross misstatement and misrepresentation of the position.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I've read Ryrie and like him especially his writing style.I also am familiar dispensationalism. My comment was based on these guys pulling out the old Darby card .I've never read anything by Darby but I plan to just so I can be guilty as charged.

 

[rjprince]

Here is my position summary on dispensationalism. Maybe it will help someone understand us dispies a little better...

No matter how many dispensations are preferred, it is clear that God has dealt differently with mankind at various points in the history of the earth. Adam was told to eat only fruits, nuts, and vegetables. After the flood, Noah was told to eat meat (“every living thing that moveth” - Gen 9:3). Under the Mosaic Law, certain kinds of animals were defined as unclean and the Jews were forbidden to eat them. The Jews were told to approach God with an animal sacrifice. Believers today approach God on the basis of the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. All of these distinctions clearly indicate that God’s manner of dealing with mankind, and mankind’s responsibilities toward God have undergone some significant transitions throughout history. Dispensationalism is basically a recognition of the fact that God’s requirements and man’s responsibilities have changed through the ages. Conservative dispensationalists would argue that salvation has been by grace through faith in all ages and that the shedding of blood has always been required for salvation. While faith has always been required, the content of the faith has varied at different points throughout Scripture. The Old Testament saints did not understand the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ and to suggest that they were saved on the basis of their faith in His coming death is to clearly go beyond the written Word of God. Even the eleven disciples failed to understand the significance of the crucifixion till some time afterward. It has been suggested that anyone who trusts in the death of the Lord Jesus rather than an animal sacrifice and who fails to observe Old Testament distinctions between clean and unclean animals is, in reality, a dispensationalist.