Dispensationalism

[Lees]

Which is it? Are you "speculating" or is it in Scripture (and no one - not one Christian - in 1900 years noticed)?



.

Ah, yes. You ask questions of me yet refuse to answer my questions to you. See post #(35).

Instead, you go to a post of mine to another and want to ask questions concerning what I said to them. See post #(38).

And you ignore my questions to all in post #(39), which you can legitimately respond to.

So, don't ask me 'which is it'. Just answer the questions I presented to you, or to all.

The fact that no one has responded to my question in post #(39) is very telling. In what way? In that it shows that yall are more willing to belive what you believe irregardless of the truth.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

Lees. You said you were "speculating" but also that Scripture states it. Which is it? Are you speculating or does Scripture say it? IF Scripture states it (and not one Christian - or even nonChristian - noticed it for 1900 years) then quote the verse. IF you are speculating, then obviously others can do the same (or in humility, refuse to speculate)



.

 

[Lees]

Which is it? Are you "speculating" or is it in Scripture (and no one - not one Christian - in 1900 years noticed)?



.

Lees. You said you were "speculating" but also that Scripture states it. Which is it? Are you speculating or does Scripture say it? IF Scripture states it (and not one Christian - or even nonChristian - noticed it for 1900 years) then quote the verse. IF you are speculating, then obviously others can do the same (or in humility, refuse to speculate)



.

No, that is not what I said. Go back to post #(38) and quote what I said.

But first. answer my questions to you in post (35). Answer my questions to all in post #(39).

In other words, you are avoiding my questions to you. You hop around my posts that are directed at others and seek to divert attention away from your ignorance which is revealed in my questions.

I have no problem with your questions. I have a problem with your avoidence of my questions.

Read again, you and others, my post #(41).

Lees

 

[atpollard]

It has been said up to this time, that the core belief of dispensationalism is that God relates to man differently at different times called 'ages' or 'dispensations'. And I agree with that. post #(30)

Yes, that is the definition of “dispensationalism”. However, defining something does not make it true.
“Universalism” is the belief that every person without exception will be saved and NOBODY will go to hell. That is the correct definition of the term, but clearly Universalism is false according to Scripture.

I also said that everyone is dispensational to a degree if you have both the Old and New Testaments in your Bible. post #(15)

You did say that, but I do not agree.

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

Yes.
I believe that everyone that has ever been and will ever be saved will, like Abraham, be saved by faith. Therefore how God related to Abraham is identical to how God related to the children of Israel under the Law of Moses, which is identical to how God relates to Christians in the New Testament. They and we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

Are all willing to say, 'yes, God in the Old Testament related to man differently then He does in the New Testament'?

No.
“I am the Lord, I do not change”. [Malachi 3:6]
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” [Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:15]

 

[Albion]

One more time...If there are dispensations fouind in the Bible, then there is Biblical support for speculating the timing of certain events such as the Rapture.

Again, the fact that some events in the Bible are related to a certain time frame does not support a particular theory of all of human history which is commonly called "Dispensationalism." Not any more than a reference to baptize in Scripture is a reference to the local Baptist Church or the word presbyter means that the Presbyterian Church is God's preference among Christian denominations.

 

[Lees]

Yes, that is the definition of “dispensationalism”. However, defining something does not make it true.
“Universalism” is the belief that every person without exception will be saved and NOBODY will go to hell. That is the correct definition of the term, but clearly Universalism is false according to Scripture.


You did say that, but I do not agree.


Yes.
I believe that everyone that has ever been and will ever be saved will, like Abraham, be saved by faith. Therefore how God related to Abraham is identical to how God related to the children of Israel under the Law of Moses, which is identical to how God relates to Christians in the New Testament. They and we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.


No.
“I am the Lord, I do not change”. [Malachi 3:6]
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” [Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:15]

That God does not change is immaterial. But God's method of relating to man does change. Your statement that God related to Abraham as He did Israel under law is amazing and unbelieveable to me. To say that is to reject Scripture.

Just because God is love, and mericiful, and vengeful, in all that He does, does not remove the laws and covenants which He established that base His relationship to man.

That all are saved by grace through faith does not remove the law over Israel, which means Israel was under a different relationship to God under law. (John 1:17) "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".

Was God still loving and merciful and vengeful under the law? Yes. But that didn't change His demands to Israel under the law. It didn't change how God responded to Israel and the world.

(Romans 5:13) "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." God did not change, but God's relationship to man definitely changed. Before the law, sin was not imputed to man. After the law, it was. And the Gentiles, though they didn't have the law of Moses, related to God blindly, seeking Him through idols, which God overlooked due to their ignorance. But now He does not. (Acts 17:29-30) "...And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent."

"but grace and truth", until the law", "but now", Yet you blatanly reject this truth. Why? Because to admit it is to prove that you would be dispensational. And you and others would rather deny Scripture then admit to that. And these are just a few Scriptures.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Again, the fact that some events in the Bible are related to a certain time frame does not support a particular theory of all of human history which is commonly called "Dispensationalism." Not any more than a reference to baptize in Scripture is a reference to the local Baptist Church or the word presbyter means that the Presbyterian Church is God's preference among Christian denominations.

Do you hear yourself. 'The fact that there are time frames doesn't mean there are time frames.' Unbelieveable.

Lees

 

[atpollard]

Before the law, sin was not imputed to man.

So Adam was free to sin, but did not suffer the consequences because the Law had not been given?
Is that really your claim?

I beg to differ. Adam sinned and received the wages of his sin … immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death. His only hope was the Grace of God (just like Abraham and Moses and David and Paul and you and me).

 

[Lees]

So Adam was free to sin, but did not suffer the consequences because the Law had not been given?
Is that really your claim?

I beg to differ. Adam sinned and received the wages of his sin … immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death. His only hope was the Grace of God (just like Abraham and Moses and David and Paul and you and me).

That is not the point.

The point is that God's relationship to man changes. Which you disagreed with in post #(44).

You can beg all you like, but Scripture is clear. (Rom. 5:13) "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." That shows a difference in God's realtion to man based upon the covenants He gave that established that relationship.

In other words, in post #(44), I gave you Scripture that proves that God's realtionship with man changes. Dispensations. You react, not with Scripture, but just your own general opinion.

So again, go begging somewhere else.

Lees

 

[atpollard]

Galatians 5:12

 

[Lees]

Galatians 5:12

This Scripture proves nothing concerning what you have been saying.

Go back to post #(39). There I acknowledged that the core belief in dispensationalism is that God relates to man differently at different times called ages or dispensations.

I said there also, that everyone is dispensational to a degree if your Bible contains both Old and New Testaments.

I then asked the question, does anyone disagree with that? You said you do disagree with that. See post #(44) You give as proof the fact that salvation is always by faith. And, that God does not change.

And those things are true. But, salvation always being by faith, and that God does not change, doesn't mean God's relationship to man at various times does not change. It most certainly does.

The very fact that we recognize an Old and New Covenant proves God's relation to man changes at times. And I gave Scripture in post #(46) that proves that. (John 1:17) (Rom. 5:13) (Acts17:29-30)

You attempt to respond in post #(48) to (Rom 5:13), which says, "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." But in this attempt you do not address this time period prior to the giving of the law. Instead you go to the fall of Adam and all of man's hope is in God's mercy and grace. Which is again a true statement, but it doesn't address the fact of the change in God's relationship with man.

(Rom. 5:13) deals with sinful man prior to the law. Your use of the fall of Adam, deals with Adam in innocence living in a pristine and perfect world in the garden and then falling. Which in reality, is itself more proof of the different change in God's relationship to man. Was God's relationship to man in the Garden of Eden the same after the fall of Adam? (Gen. 2:15-3:24)

Is there any here that would disagree that the time between Adam and Eves creation and their fall, was a distinct period unlike any other in mans history? And, that their relationship to God was unlike any other in man's history?

Lees

 

[atpollard]

So again, go begging somewhere else.

Galatians 5:12 was my way of saying “goodbye” to your rude and personally abusive responses like the one quoted above.

This Scripture proves nothing concerning what you have been saying.

It “proves” that I have reached the limit of my patience with you.

 

[Lees]

For any who want to continue discussing Dispensationalism, here is the thread I started in April.

Feel free to add your opinion. Hopefully it will be Scripturally supported.

Before you do reply, I would suggest that you read through the three pages already written.

Lees

 

[brightfame52]

Dispensationalism if Im not mistaken looks for a future deliverance, redemption of national israel, but they were and are blind to the fact, that Israel has been redeemed at the first coming of Christ. Lk 1:67-68

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Gal 3:13

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Gal 4:1-5

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

 

[brightfame52]

The carnal jews didn't realize that the redemption of Israel was spiritual and not carnal and material from their physical enemies Luke 24:21

Luke 24:21

"But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel; and besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done

But the Spiritual remnant Israel like Zacharias understood the nature of the redemption, and was he not full of the Holy Spirit of God

Lk 1:67-68

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

 

[Lees]

@brightflame52

Dispensationalism does recognize a future redeemed national Israel where 'all Israel shall be saved'. (Rom. 11:26)

But that day will not come until the 'fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Rom. 11:25)

Though redemption has been provided, all of Israel have yet to experience it. 'All of Israel' being all Jews as a nation.

Dispensationalism does recognize the Church and Israel as separate bodies of believers, which we have been discussing in the other thread 'who or what is the Church'.

Dispensationalism recognizes distinct periods of time where man is under a responsibility or stewardship to God. And the time and stewardship are usually defined by certain covenants between God and man.

For example, as given in post #(51), from Adam to the fall. Or, your old and new covenant, better known as your Old Testament and New Testament.

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

@brightflame52

Dispensationalism does recognize a future redeemed national Israel where 'all Israel shall be saved'. (Rom. 11:26)

. . .

Lees

Explain Romans 9:6: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:”

 

[Lees]

Explain Romans 9:6: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:”

This means not every one born an Israelite is a true Israelite of God. And as (Rom. 9:7) goes on to say, just because you are of the seed of Abraham doesn't make you a child of God.

The true Israelite is one born an Israelite and who is a child of promise. (Rom. 9:8)

And Paul goes on to give an example. Jacob and Esau. Both are born of Abraham. But only one is a child of God. That is Jacob. And God hated Esau. (Rom. 9:13)

So, just like you can be born of Abraham's line and still not be a child of promise or a child of God, so can one be born an Israelite and still not be a child of God. In other words, 'they are not all Israel, which are of Israel'. (Rom. 9:6)

But...those born an Israelite and who are a child of promise, make up the true Israel. Except in our day, they become part of the Church, the new Body of believers.

That doesn't mean that those born who are children of promise in the Church age become an Israelite. They become part of the new Body of Christ, the Church. (Eph. 3:3-6)

Lees

 

[Nazareth]

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

As a point of reference for those new to the hermeneutics of our faith:

What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? What are the key aspects of dispensational theology?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Albion]

I don't think it can be considered a "cult" by any of the usual uses of that word, but it is certainly one of the many creative twists on historic Christian theology that proliferated during the 18th and 19th centuries when many of the best-known cults did arise.

So, how to classify Dispensationalism? Probably as a subsection of Fundamentalism as we commonly think of that movement. In other words, a view that takes super-literally passages in Scripture that were not meant to be understood that way and then builds a purely speculative framework around that view and fits the whole of the Bible into it.