Dispensationalism

[Lees]

I am a dispensationalist, and have been for many years. It seems to me that many Christians today have a bad view of dispensationalsim. Some even regulating it to some sort of 'cult status'.

I'm not sure why that is. It is certainly a different theological belief. And I see nothing in it to merit the disdain many people have for it.

So, what is your view of Dispensationalism? And why? I will of course address your view, be it for or against.

Lees

 

[Albion]

I know Dispensationalists who feel that, when they discovered dispensationalism, it made sense of everything that is unclear in the Bible. However, the reason most other Christians have a bad impression of the movement is, I think, because it seems to make the Bible and the Christian faith into some sort of riddle like the "Bible code" stuff that was a big thing a few years back.

When you mentioned "cult status," it made me think of the fact that many cults have their own special codes and theories of history that are similarly unique to their own followers.

 

[Spindle4]

I am a dispensationalist, and have been for many years. It seems to me that many Christians today have a bad view of dispensationalsim. Some even regulating it to some sort of 'cult status'.

I'm not sure why that is. It is certainly a different theological belief. And I see nothing in it to merit the disdain many people have for it.

So, what is your view of Dispensationalism? And why? I will of course address your view, be it for or against.

Lees

Link To & Quote From Interesting Article On Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, & New Covenant Theology

Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives.

First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a “test” of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.

Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium). For example, the promise of the land is interpreted to mean that God will one day fully restore Israel to Palestine. In contrast, non-dispensationalists typically see the land promise as intended by God to prophesy, in shadowy Old-covenant-form, the greater reality that He would one day make the entire church, Jews and Gentiles, heirs of the whole renewed world (cf. Romans 4:13).

In many ways it is thus accurate to say that dispensationalism believes in “two peoples of God.” Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional “earthly” promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus “heavenly.”

 

[Lees]

I know Dispensationalists who feel that, when they discovered dispensationalism, it made sense of everything that is unclear in the Bible. However, the reason most other Christians have a bad impression of the movement is, I think, because it seems to make the Bible and the Christian faith into some sort of riddle like the "Bible code" stuff that was a big thing a few years back.

When you mentioned "cult status," it made me think of the fact that many cults have their own special codes and theories of history that are similarly unique to their own followers.

Dispensationalism is not to be compared to any 'Bible Code'. It does believe that it's understanding of 'dispensations' is part of the progressive understanding of Scripture. Just like the Trinity is. Just like the Church is. In other words, it is not a 'code'. It is the Church moving forward and growing in the knowledge of the Bible.

But, the understanding of Scripture is not going to be given to the casual or slothful. God does indeed hide His Word, just as He hides Himself.

(Is. 45:15) "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

(Pro. 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter."

(Psalm 119:162) "I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil."

And what of all the 'mysteries' listed in the Bible? For example, the 'mystery of the Kingdom'? (Mark 4:11)

Lees

 

[Lees]

Link To & Quote From Interesting Article On Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, & New Covenant Theology

Dispensationalism
It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives.

First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a “test” of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.

Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium). For example, the promise of the land is interpreted to mean that God will one day fully restore Israel to Palestine. In contrast, non-dispensationalists typically see the land promise as intended by God to prophesy, in shadowy Old-covenant-form, the greater reality that He would one day make the entire church, Jews and Gentiles, heirs of the whole renewed world (cf. Romans 4:13).

In many ways it is thus accurate to say that dispensationalism believes in “two peoples of God.” Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional “earthly” promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus “heavenly.”

And what is your view, and why?

Lees

 

[Albion]

Dispensationalism is not to be compared to any 'Bible Code'.

I obviously disagree, but of course the two are not identical, just similar in a certain way.

It does believe that it's understanding of 'dispensations' is part of the progressive understanding of Scripture. Just like the Trinity is.

Well, the Trinity isn't and wasn't. The most famous assertion of that doctrine--the Nicene Creed--came along after a few centuries of church history, but the teaching itself is right there in the Bible and always has been.

Just like the Church is. In other words, it is not a 'code'. It is the Church moving forward and growing in the knowledge of the Bible.

So, dispensationalism is an innovation. I think we already knew that.

But, the understanding of Scripture is not going to be given to the casual or slothful. God does indeed hide His Word, just as He hides Himself.

...which sounds very much like an admission that dispensationalism is similar to various cults in that respect.

 

[Lees]

I obviously disagree, but of course the two are not identical, just similar in a certain way.


Well, the Trinity isn't and wasn't. The most famous assertion of that doctrine--the Nicene Creed--came along after a few centuries of church history, but the teaching itself is right there in the Bible and always has been.



So, dispensationalism is an innovation. I think we already knew that.

...which sounds very much like an admission that dispensationalism is similar to various cults in that respect.

Of course they are not idenitical...because dispensationalism is not comparable to any 'bible code'.

The Trinity isn't and wasn't...what? There was no Trinity doctrine in the Old Testament. Or do you not count the Old Testament as revelation? It wouldn't be until the Church age that you had a doctrine of the Trinity. My, my. Maybe the Trinity is some part of some 'bible code'.

And, where is the Church in the Old Testament? My, my. What a new 'bible code' that is. Unless of course you reject the Old Testament as revelaltion from God.

Whose 'we'. You and who else? The mouse in your pocket? Not an 'innovation'. Just progressive understanding of the Word of God.

The verses I gave say just the opposite of your accusation as 'similar to a cult'. Unless you want to call Christianity a cult. Do you? And, I gave you verses that you ignore, other than comparing them to a cult. So just what are you saying?

Lees

 

[atpollard]

There was no Trinity doctrine in the Old Testament.

[Genesis 1:1 NASB95] 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[Genesis 1:26 NASB95] 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

First chapter of the first book of the Old Testament - God is both singular and plural - and eternally existed as such.

 

[atpollard]

So, what is your view of Dispensationalism? And why?

Dispensationalism holds its own until one gets to eschatology where flights of fantasy replace what scripture actually says and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) replaces exegesis (reading meaning out of the text) as the preferred mode of operation. As R.C. Sproul once said, unless you believe that nothing changed when Adam fell, then we are all dispensationalists to some degree. That is not where the arguments arise. Let me ask you to clarify what YOU mean by “Dispensationalism”.

How are people saved?

• from Adam to the Law of Moses.
• from the Law given by Moses to the Birth of Christ.
• from the birth to resurrection of Christ.
• from the resurrection to the death of the last apostle.
• from the death of the last apostle to today.

Are they all saved the same or are they saved differently?
That is an important distinction when discussing “Dispensations”.

How shall we read scripture and determine what is literal and what is not literal?

• Must we hate our parents?
• Must we gouge out our eye?
• Were the letters to actual churches (in Revelation)?
• Is there a literal dragon (in Revelation)? Woman with celestial bodies (in Revelation)?
• Will there be 144,000 literal jewish people (in Revelation)?
• Will there be a literal city (in Revelation)?
• Is there a literal sword coming out of his mouth (in Revelation)?

I am less interested in the detailed answers to these questions than the methodology used to determine when a verse is literal and when it is symbolism … and are you applying that “yardstick” uniformly to all scripture?
THERE is a criticism with ‘Dispensationalists’ as a group … they have a rubber ruler that applies selectively according to a man-made predetermined disposition. This is most keenly observed in eschatology.

 

[Lees]

[Genesis 1:1 NASB95] 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[Genesis 1:26 NASB95] 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

First chapter of the first book of the Old Testament - God is both singular and plural - and eternally existed as such.

That is immaterial. The doctrine of the Trinity was not developed until the Church age.

Point being...progressive understanding of the Scripture.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Dispensationalism holds its own until one gets to eschatology where flights of fantasy replace what scripture actually says and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) replaces exegesis (reading meaning out of the text) as the preferred mode of operation. As R.C. Sproul once said, unless you believe that nothing changed when Adam fell, then we are all dispensationalists to some degree. That is not where the arguments arise. Let me ask you to clarify what YOU mean by “Dispensationalism”.

How are people saved?

• from Adam to the Law of Moses.
• from the Law given by Moses to the Birth of Christ.
• from the birth to resurrection of Christ.
• from the resurrection to the death of the last apostle.
• from the death of the last apostle to today.

Are they all saved the same or are they saved differently?
That is an important distinction when discussing “Dispensations”.

How shall we read scripture and determine what is literal and what is not literal?

• Must we hate our parents?
• Must we gouge out our eye?
• Were the letters to actual churches (in Revelation)?
• Is there a literal dragon (in Revelation)? Woman with celestial bodies (in Revelation)?
• Will there be 144,000 literal jewish people (in Revelation)?
• Will there be a literal city (in Revelation)?
• Is there a literal sword coming out of his mouth (in Revelation)?

I am less interested in the detailed answers to these questions than the methodology used to determine when a verse is literal and when it is symbolism … and are you applying that “yardstick” uniformly to all scripture?
THERE is a criticism with ‘Dispensationalists’ as a group … they have a rubber ruler that applies selectively according to a man-made predetermined disposition. This is most keenly observed in eschatology.

'Flights of fantasy'? I see you are one of those who detest dispensationalism. That's fine. Your quote from R.C. Sproul means nothing. Explain why he said what he said. Explain what he meant.

All are saved by faith. Gee, that was a hard question.

The same question can be asked of you. How do you determine what is literal and what is symbolic?

What 'yardstick' are you asking about?

Ones method of interpreting Scripture will affect all doctrines. That includes eschatology. What do you disagree with in the dispensational view of eschatology?

Lees

 

[Albion]

The Trinity isn't and wasn't...what?

It isn't a Christian doctrine thanks only to some "progressive understanding" of the nature of God.

There was no Trinity doctrine in the Old Testament.

Some of the nature of the Triune God was indeed revealed in the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis. But most Christians consider the New Testament to be part of the Bible as well, and the NT clearly points to the triune nature of God, that there is but one God and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are part of that God although different persona. Jesus taught this himself..

Whose 'we'. You and who else?

Every major branch of Christianity and all orthodox Christians.

The verses I gave say just the opposite of your accusation as 'similar to a cult'. Unless you want to call Christianity a cult. Do you? And, I gave you verses that you ignore, other than comparing them to a cult. So just what are you saying?

The verses do not promote or justify dispensationalism. And I did not accuse dispensationalism of being a cult; I simply said that dispensationalism (actually its devotees) and religious cults do have some similarities.

And by the way, you were the one who asked the rest of us our view of this matter. We gave it to you, and you have no call now to respond with sneers and misrepresentations of what we posted.

 

[Spindle4]

And what is your view, and why?

Lees

My View:

• Dispensationalism is interesting.
• There are many theories associated with it.

 

[Lees]

It isn't a Christian doctrine thanks only to some "progressive understanding" of the nature of God.



Some of the nature of the Triune God was indeed revealed in the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis. But most Christians consider the New Testament to be part of the Bible as well, and the NT clearly points to the triune nature of God, that there is but one God and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are part of that God although different persona. Jesus taught this himself..



Every major branch of Christianity and all orthodox Christians.


The verses do not promote or justify dispensationalism. And I did not accuse dispensationalism of being a cult; I simply said that dispensationalism (actually its devotees) and religious cults do have some similarities.

And by the way, you were the one who asked the rest of us our view of this matter. We gave it to you, and you have no call now to respond with sneers and misrepresentations of what we posted.

It doesn't matter that Christianity has found proof of the Trinity in the Old Testament. The point is, it wasn't revealed to any's understanding until the time of the Church. Revelation from God was progressive. Understanding of the Word of God is the same. Point being, your argument of 'dispensationalism' being a new innovation is null and void.

So, you don't consider those who are 'dispensationalist' as orthodox? Show me where every major branch of Christianity views dispensationalism as unorthodox. Show me why you consider it unorthodox. Scripture would be good.

The Scriptures I gave in post #(4) prove that God hides Himself and His Word. And that there are mysteries of God that He reveals in His time. You say it sounds like an admission of a cult. So, do believing these verses make Christianity a cult? (Ps. 119:162), (Is. 45:15), (Pro. 25:2), (Mark 4:11) In other words, these verses were not given you to prove 'dispensationalism'. They were given to show that there is definitely an element of mystery and progressive understanding of God in His Word. Of course you can always tell me that you or some 'orthodox' believers have already learned everything in the Bible. Have you?


Well, you can say the same thing about all Christianity for that matter. Christianity and it's devotees have the same similarities. In other words, the argument is empty. You can say the same for Calvinist's or Armenianist's. Just because there are those who identify with dispensationalsim, doesn't mean they are part of some cult. If they were, there should be Scripture to justify that. And, naturally, you present none.

Yes, I asked your views. You want to identify 'dispensationalism' as a cult and/or unorthodox. Thus I respond in showing you how ridiculous that argument is. I also asked, 'and why'? So far you haven't given any answers. You only have said what is the general view of some Christians. And as I have said, those arguments are empty, unless you want to apply them to all of Christianity also.

Christianity was considered a cult at the beginning. The Roman Church is considered a cult by many. The Roman Church considers Protestantism a heresy. But, what says the Scripture?

Lees

 

[Lees]

My View:

• Dispensationalism is interesting.
• There are many theories associated with it.

Yes, I agree, it is interesting.

And all Christians everywhere should recognize that they are dispensational to a certain degree. If you admit to an Old and New Testament, you are dispensational.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Yes, I asked your views. You want to identify 'dispensationalism' as a cult

Lees

You destroy any defense of dispensationalism when you resort to making such a claim.

And all Christians everywhere should recognize that they are dispensational to a certain degree. If you admit to an Old and New Testament, you are dispensational.

So now your defense of dispensationalism has switched to simply claiming that it is what everyone else believes anyway? That's hardly credible after you've laid out for us the unique theological innovation that is dispensationalism.

 

[Lees]

You destroy any defense of dispensationalism when you resort to making such a claim.


So now your defense of dispensationalism has switched to simply claiming that it is what everyone else believes anyway? That's hardly credible after you've laid out for us the unique theological innovation that is dispensationalism.

I really haven't had to give much of a defense. You haven't really offered anything to defend. Which is proven by your ignoring most all of what I said, and instead, choosing a certain sentence here and there whereby you think you have a 'foothold'. You don't.

Why isn't it credible? Just because you say so? As I said, if you acknowledge an Old and New Testament, you are, to a certain degree, a dispensationalist.

Is the Old and New Testament an inovation? Do you acknowlege the Old and New Testament as the Word of God?

Now this is amazing to me. Do you really know what dispensationalism is?

Lees

 

[Albion]

I really haven't had to give much of a defense. You haven't really offered anything to defend.

This is the way it works....you proposed the discussion, so the obligation is on you to show some good reason why almost all of Christianity for the past 2000 years has been wrong about the issue and a relative handful of people with a new theory are correct. You haven't done that yet.

 

[Lees]

This is the way it works....you proposed the discussion, so the obligation is on you to show some good reason why almost all of Christianity for the past 2000 years has been wrong about the issue and a relative handful of people with a new theory are correct. You haven't done that yet.

Really? So the way it works is you put words in my mouth and try to argue from there. Sorry, but that is not how it works.

Did I say 'almost all of Christianity for the past 2000 years has been wrong'?

Why don't you address what I say? Why don't you answer my quesitons? Go back to post #(14), and (17) and answer every question presented to you.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Really? So the way it works is you put words in my mouth and try to argue from there. Sorry, but that is not how it works.

Did I say 'almost all of Christianity for the past 2000 years has been wrong'?

No. Read the post again. Almost the whole of Christian history is on one side of this issue, and then there's the theory you advocate.