Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 17:30:07 GMT -8
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology
Is something bad simply because it is new? No! So, let's just clear out that matter from the outset. My argument isn't that something new is bad. If that were true then no change in thought, doctrine, or practice would be possible and the fact of history is the Church has been changing since its inception. Were change to be precluded no evolution and no progress would be possible. That is not the problem per se with Dispensationalism.
The problem begins because Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man. I'm gonna repeat that twice with two different emphases. Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man. Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man. Any source on the history of Dispensationalism will cite John Darby as the originator of Dispensationalism. Even the Dispensationalists will attribute the origins of the theology to Darby. This is true of Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, etc. No one disagrees. Some Dispensationalists will appeal to veins of thought in the 1700s leading to or finding fruition in Darby but examination of those sources will readily show those men were NOT thinking as Darby did. Dispensational Premillennialists (DP) also like to appeal to the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) to show the mention of "dispensation" runs from the Bible through the ECFs to Darby but anyone who bothers to read the ECFs readily and easily recognizes Darby's use of "dispensation" was radically different than the New Testament writers or the ECFs. Dispensationalists do the exact same thing with premillennialism. Historic Premillennialism is substantively different than Dispensational Premillennialism. The former does not consider Israel relevant to Christian eschatology. Nothing in the entire history of Christian eschatology considered Israel significant simply because there was no Israel by the end of the first century. Darby invented that. Historical Premillennialism is a post-tribulation view, it holds no significance to temples or the Levitical priesthood, nor does it divide the Second Advent up the way DPism does. Darby literally invented all of this.
John Darby invented a new hermeneutic, a method of reading scripture, that was built on three premises: 1) a literal reading of scripture, 2) a distinction between Israel and the Church, and 3) the existence of dispensations as a means of parsing biblical history. Each of these methods was a radical departure from mainstream, orthodox, and historical Christianity in thought, doctrine, and practice. Darby emphasized the "grammatical-historical" hermeneutic that was rising in prominence during his time, but he did things with it radically different than the rest of Christendom. He emphasized the Old Testament over the New Testament, believing God has TWO, not one purpose in creation: one purpose for the Jews and another entirely different purpose for the Christian. What this means practically speaking is the New Testament use of the Old Testament is neglected or ignored. A discontinuity is asserted. Completely new and different than anything preceding Darby. An example of this would be the promise by God of a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6). Darby would read that as a promise only to Israel, the fulfillment of which must be literal. The New Testament, however, tells us the promise is all already fulfilled by those who obey Jesus and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 2:9)! More on this will be addressed in my op on the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Dispensationalism but for now the point is that the New Testament writers' use of the Old Testament is ignored or neglected in Dispensationalism. The common dissent is that other Christians "spiritualize" or "allegorize" scripture and that is wrong..... even though that is exactly what the New Testament writers did. So the proper hermeneutic - no matter what else it asserts - starts with the handling of scripture in a manner consistent with the writers of scripture themselves! Darby ignored this.
I forget the tile of the thread (I'll try to track it don and link this post to it) but this matter of separation between Israel and the Church was recently asserted to say Christians do not have a covenant with God! This is a radical departure from everything core to Christianity for 20 centuries! Only Dispensationalism asserts this.
The reasons this is important is because if Dispensationalism is true and correct then 20 centuries of mainstream, orthodox, historical Christianity is wrong. Christianity has NOT been orthodox. EVER!
This comes out in other ways I will detail further in other ops on the six significant problems in Dispensationalism but for now I'll simply outline them briefly. If the Jews must be restored to their original covenant promised land with all its promised boundaries, AND they must have another temple, AND they must have a restored priesthood, AND a return to animal sacrifices (and all the other events occurring before the millennial reign asserted by Dispensational Premillennialism) then.... 1) that is a works-based soteriolgoy of works+plus+grace and NOT historical Christian soteriology of salvation by grace through faith for works, and 2) it fundamentally changes the doctrine of imminence (Christ can come at any time).
Darbyism arose during the "restoration movement" of the 1800s. There was a huge movement of diverse sectarianism wherein all those sects emphasized three perspectives: 1) the Church is corrupt and in need of restoration, 2) Jesus is coming back real soon so the time for restoration is now, and 3) that sect is the right sect, the True Church, and they alone know how to the restored Church should look. These sects included (but are not limited to) the Campbellites, Millerites, and subsequently the CoC, SDA, Brethren, JWs, and LDS. Darby was originally Anglican. He was educated at Westminster and Trinity. He became a member of the Plymouth Brethren because of his view the Church was corrupt and he thought the Brethren movement more orthodox but within a brief span of time he judged the Plymouth Brethren apostate and formed his own sect he called, "Exclusive Brethren"! He was right and everyone else corrupt. The reason this is important is because this too is a radical departure from historic Christianity and the view the Church is holy despite its flaws. An honest appraisal of the Church, one firmly rooted in the New Testament example, recognizes the messiness of the Church and acknowledging the precedents of places like Corinth and Ephesus.
As a direct consequence of this belief in a corrupt Church Darby espoused a complete separation of all true Christians from secular society. Christians should not hold political or other public office. The two domains are separate and irreconcilable. Not only does this completely contradict the premise of God's people as the light of the world and God's sovereignty in ALL aspects of human existence, but it led to Christians withdrawing from society to the point that a century later Christians had no one to blame but themselves for God being removed from the public schools, and the government being given/taking a messianic role in western society. Keep in mind the restoration movement sects occurred during the same time Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud were growing in influence. The views of these men grew while a large swath of the Church withdrew. The irony! The restoration contributed to the very things they sought to avoid!
And so Jesus was gonna come back any day because the world was going to hell in a handbasket and the Church would be raptured away so as not to suffer the tribulation that would be worse than anything anyone had ever seen before or since. The problem is it never happened! The Adventists almost melted down when when William Miller's prediction Jesus would return in 1844 did not happen. Not a single one of these apocalyptic movements was correct. Not only were their views a radical departure from long held well-established Christian eschatologies, they were all wrong!!!
So why did they grow? The short answer is their departure from creedalism and their emphasis on experientialism, and the fact Christian history and doctrine is no longer taught in much of Christendom. The substance of that change deserves a separate thread because it begins with Wesley's methodism and the ways his teachings were abused in the 1800s. Darbyism, or Dispensationalism, is a new and radically different theology than anything anywhere previously existing in historic, mainstream, orthodox Christendom and it is so radically different that if Dispensationalism is true and correct then much of Christianity is not true and incorrect. The two are irreconcilable in many ways.
(my apologies for the length, but this is only a portion of the many differences between DPism and orthodox Christianity)
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 17:41:16 GMT -8
As an addendum to this opening post: the premise of "restoration" and "corruption" has a long history in Church history. The early Church councils are examples of the existence of corruption within the Church being addressed. The schism between the RCC and the OC is another example of such an attempt. The Reformation is still another example. Restoration is not inherently a problem. At no time in the entire history of Christianity has the Church been perfect. It has always been in need of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and God's Spirit has often worked through men of the Church. God's use of men is the solution, not the problem. The problem occurs when men and women are not grounded in a proper understanding of scripture and act separate from the inspiration or illumination, empowerment, and purpose of God. Such was the case with Darby. I do not personally believe the man set out to be a heretic or to divide the Church. However, at some point during his own lifetime the evidence of his own waywardness was there for him to see, along with anyone and everyone else who bothered to look. Darby was opposed by his contemporaries, some of whom proved to be among the greatest teachers, preachers, and leaders in our history.
|
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 10, 2022 9:37:44 GMT -8
Actually, dispensationalism is not new and it is not radical and it was not an invention of any man. It is a word that is used in the New Testament, particularly as it applies to gentiles. One must remember that when he is reading the Holy Scriptures he is reading a Jewish book. The revelation that God has given to mankind comes through this people. Every word in the scriptures has been written by someone who identifies with this people group. Our saviour himself is a Jew, of the tribe of Judah. The OT ceremonial law, which is full of figures and types and shadows was itself a means of prophesy concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. All the things written about his person and work was to be fulfilled through them. The New Testament church itself has a Jewish foundation and if I do not show that to you in print you will not believe it. So here goes;
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
THE "YE" IN THIS PASSAGE ARE GENTILES
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
This letter was written in AD 60, 30 years after the Jews began to be saved in Acts 2 and 20 years after God began saving gentiles in Acts 10 and still yet they are separate and distinct entities in the same body but they are one. (It is important to know this if you are going to have sound doctrine. see the very next verse for authentication of this truth) I will highlight the word that means "two" in the following verses.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
I remind you that later he is going to use the marriage relationship to bear upon this truth, where a marriage between a man and a woman are two but becomes one without loosing personal identity. See Ep 5 for this application.
This brings me to a meaning of dispensations that might just be the definition you need to see in Ephesians. Here it is;
An exemption from a rule or requirement. In this age of the church the Jews who get saved are exempt from all OT laws and ordinances as they are meshed with gentiles who have never been under any such laws as the Jews. It is important for the reader to understand that when the national Israel is saved and their nation raised from the dead some of the law will be incorporated under the divine dealing of God. But. look at this dispensation;
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Read these two verses. Why did he do it? Do we know? Can we say? The answer is yes, we can because of what he says in the next verse.
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
What is this church anyway? Well according to Paul in Ephesians 1, it is the WISDOM OF GOD that could not be known until the thing began to be formed with both Jews, who were foreknown of God and had promises of the Holy Ghost and salvation from long before this age, the remnant according to the election of grace, with gentiles who did not ever have a single promise of salvation made to them. You need to see this in print; Be prepared to give God all the praise when you see this wonderful truth; Follow the logic.
Ep 3:For this cause (the cause is the formation of the body and bride of Christ from two entities, Jews and addition of gentiles - see V 6) I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Here it is - the wisdom of God proclaimed.
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (before the foundation of the world):
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
The purpose of God is the formation of this church with Jews and gentiles during this age when Israel, his covenant people are judicially blinded. WOW!
The church of Jesus Christ then is marked with the trinitarian signature. Jew, gentile, the Holy Spirit dwelling in each of them. All things of God are marked with this trinitarian image. I will prove this later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2022 9:54:07 GMT -8
Actually, dispensationalism is not new and it is not radical and it was not anm invention of any man. It is a word that is used in the New Testament, particularly as it applies to gentiles. One must remember that when he is read the Holy Scriptures he is reading a Jewish book. Fail. No one is disputing the use of the term "dispensation." Dispensation alism is something completely different from the mere mention of dispensation. Taking the term "dispensation" and creating an entire theology around that word is, in fact, and entirely new and different theology that was, in fact, literally invented by one man, John Darby. Dispensation is not new. Dispensation alism is new. Dispensationalism emphasizes ecclesiology and eschatology over other doctrines. That is new and different. No one has forgotten the Old Testament is a Jewish book. You must remember 1) the New Testament is NOT a Jewish book, it's a Christian book written by former Jews who'd been converted to Christ, and they all repudiated the Judaization of Christianity. |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 11, 2022 3:59:20 GMT -8
Actually, dispensationalism is not new and it is not radical and it was not anm invention of any man. It is a word that is used in the New Testament, particularly as it applies to gentiles. One must remember that when he is read the Holy Scriptures he is reading a Jewish book. Fail. No one is disputing the use of the term "dispensation." Dispensation alism is something completely different from the mere mention of dispensation. Taking the term "dispensation" and creating an entire theology around that word is, in fact, and entirely new and different theology that was, in fact, literally invented by one man, John Darby. Dispensation is not new. Dispensation alism is new. Dispensationalism emphasizes ecclesiology and eschatology over other doctrines. That is new and different. Dispensationalism is proven by your very life and God has set the family up that way. When you were born in the flesh you were completely innocent, not knowing good or evil or anything. As you matured you became self aware and started to be conscious of your surroundings. You began to understand the difference between right and wrong and that your parents were the law over you in your family. Then you reached maturity and was on your own but under the higher laws of government and God, and of course you did not keep those laws perfectly, and you were a law breaker. Then you learned there was pardon for breaking the law without punishment for someone else had graciously paid your penalties and that made you righteous before the law and you died justified. So, there you go. You were governed differently from the cradle to the grave and you may call these the dispensations of your life. God cannot be mocked. He gives us evidences of his truths all around us but most cannot see. That is what God calls blindness. You have eyes to see but you will not see. This is a great error of logic and theology and it is an unreasonable position. The New Testament is indeed a Jewish book. It was written by Jews, who were eye witnesses of Jesus Christ and his works, including his death burial and resurrection. In Romans 3, Paul asks the question and answers it; "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Jesus Christ himself said to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, "salvation is of the Jews." Since salvation is wrought through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we can definitely say that salvation is to be understood in a New Testament context, but not apart from the Jews. It was to Jews first that God's salvation was given and they are the foundation of what he is accomplishing in this church age. See Ep 2:20-23 now. God gave the Holy Spirit (who is life and salvation) to the Jew first because he had promised to give the Holy Spirit to them, but when only a small remnant would come to him, he invited the gentiles in so that his house (family) might be full. For this reason it is said that the gentiles are made partakers of the spiritual (only) blessings of the Jewish New Covenant that gives life to those who are exercised by it. Take a brief look here: Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.( His people are the Jews) Rom 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. 26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. 27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. Josheb, I am trying to be a blessing and to help you but you must change the way you are thinking about the scriptures. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2022 7:19:49 GMT -8
Fail. No one is disputing the use of the term "dispensation." Dispensation alism is something completely different from the mere mention of dispensation. Taking the term "dispensation" and creating an entire theology around that word is, in fact, and entirely new and different theology that was, in fact, literally invented by one man, John Darby. Dispensation is not new. Dispensation alism is new. Dispensationalism emphasizes ecclesiology and eschatology over other doctrines. That is new and different. Dispensationalism is proven by your very life and God has set the family up that way.............. Not, it is not. I will repeat what I said: A dispensation is not the same thing as Dispensationalism. The word " dispensation" is stated in scripture. Dispensationalism is not. Dispensationalism is a theology that openly seeks to render scripture by Dispensationalism's view of dispensations. It invents dispensations where none are stated in scripture AND it does so in neglect of what is plainly stated in the scriptures (covenants). It is a theology that was in fact literally invented in the 1800s by John Darby. I appreciate this because this is an excellent example of how Dispensationalism teaches its adherents to read scripture incorrectly. I believe you claimed to be a literalist. Dispensationalism teaches a literal reading of scripture as one of its three core hermeneutical principles. Notice the text YOU cited does not actually state the New Testament is a Jewish book. What it actually states, is that being a Jew is of no advantage or profit. That is the Christian stance according to the Jewish convert to Christ who wrote those words under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. You are going to find I read scripture more literally and with greater consistency that most Dispensationalists. Let's not lose track of the point being discussed. This op says Dispensationalism is a new and radically different Theology. Here's what Wikipedia says about the origins od Dispensationalism. Here's what the Dispensationalist website GotQuestions says, Here's what leading contemporary Dispensationalist, Michael Vlach wrote, Here's an article at Christianity Today also citing Darby as the originator of Dispensationalism, Here is what Theopedia says, I have to go shortly, but when I have time I will provide quotes from leading Dispensationalists ALL attributing Dispensational Premillennialism to John Darby and the hermeneutic he invented. This is not a matter that is in dispute. No, you are not. Ideologically defending an indefensible theology, and it is not helpful. EVERY Dispensationalist should know what Dispensationalism teaches, where it originated, how it became so prominent, and what it means in relationship to historical, orthodox Christianity. That is helpful. Repeating Dispensationalist ideology is not. And for the record, JDS, I used to be Dispensationalist and I have read Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Pentecost, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, Feinberg, Watson, and many others and I read those men's own writings, not second-hand or third-hand critiques. I've read 200 years of Dispensationalist theology first-hand. I doubt there is anything new you can teach me about Dispensationalism. Dispensational Premillennialism is a New and Radically different theology and I have just quoted a series of diverse sources (Dispensationalist and non-dispensationalists) ALL acknowledging the roots of DPism lay in Darby and Darby's way of handling scripture. Neither you nor any other reader should be disputing its newness. If you're going to believe it then acknowledge its newness. Literally  . Don't try to defend something Dispensationalism does not teach about itself. The word "dispensation" is something stated in the Bible. Dispensationalism is nowhere stated in the Bible. Dispensationalism was invented in the 1800s by John Darby. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2022 7:45:43 GMT -8
It's been disputed Dispensationalism (Darby Dispensationalism, or Dispensational Premillennialism) is very old and not new, and not an invention of John Darby. Here's what leading Dispensationalists have to say about this. Lewis Sperry Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, THE leading Dispensationalist seminary in the world. It was established specifically for the purpose of educating Church leaders in Darby's Dispensational Premillennialist theology.He wrote a book titled simply, " Dispensationalism," and it is easily one of the best books anyone could read for understanding Dispensationalism. In the chapter titled, "The origins of Dispensationalism," he wrote about what he called the " prejudicial statement," " Dispensationalism was formulated by one of the nineteenth-century separatist movements, the Plymouth Brethren," and he proceeds to survey earlier mentions of dispensation(s) throughout Christian history. However, there are two problems with his defense. The first is that the earlier Christians ALWAYS wrote about " dispensation" in the context of covenant. I will evidence that in a separate post to illustrate how Darby departed from eighteen centuries worth of Christian history, thought, doctrine, and practice. The second problem is that Chafer himself states, " There is no question that the Plymouth Brethren, of which John Nelson Darby was a leader, had much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism. But neither Darby nor the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system..." Can you see the red herring and the bait and switch in that statement? No one argued the " concepts" weren't previously existing. The criticism is specifically about the system formalized by Darby. Darby took elements of the faith and combined them in a completely new and different way, one that had never previously existed and one that was completely separated from the precedent established by the long history of those who came before him. Chafer's statement is ironic because Chafer then continues on to elaborate on Darby's views repeatedly pointing out how and where Darby saw things differently. Chafer attempts to argue Scofield used Isac Watt's view of dispensation and not Darby's but this too is a red herring because Chafer is defending Darby, and Chafer is teaching Darby. Dwight Pentecost, another early Dispensationalist writes about Darby's views and seminal changes in the way Christians approached the Bible, introducing a new hermeneutic and means of exegesis in his book, " Things to Come." He opens the book with chapters on " Method of Interpretation," " The History of Interpretation," and " General Considerations in Interpretation," before introducing Darby's Dispensationalist views. Of Darby's views he writes, " The first view is that of Darby. He presented his view that there was one and only one covenant in Scripture, made with the houses of Israel and Judah and to be realized at a future time, to which the church bears no relationship whatsoever," and then he quotes Darby's argument, " The covenant of the letter is made with Israel, not with us, but we get the benefit of it...." Aside from the fact this completely contradicts scripture which tells us in no uncertain terms the covenant made with Abraham preceded the existence of Israel and Judah by hundreds of years, this is a new and different theology. Remember: there was no Israel when Darby wrote those words! After 70 AD there was no nation Israel and as a consequence Christian theology did not consider Israel germane. Anywhere. Not even the Historic Premillennialists (which preceded the Dispensational Premillennialists but 1800 years) held Israel relevant to Christian ecclesiology or eschatology. Pentecost later reports, " It would seem to Darby's view that, in all its New Testament references, the new covenant is to be equated with the covenant of Jeremiah 31. In the New Testament it has no reference whatever to the church in this age, although the blessing of that covenant comes to others beside Israel now, since the blood was 'shed for many.'" and after repeating Darby's position quoted above, Chafer adds of Darby, "All the blessings which come to the church today are based upon the blood of Christ, which was necessarily shed to make possible the new covenant." Again, not only does this completely ignore the scriptural fact that Christianity (the Church) was originally a sect of Judaism known as " The Way" ( Acts 24:14), it is a completely new and different theology. My regrets, but I have to go and this post is already lengthy. When I have time I will return with other evidence the Dispensationalists themselves acknowledge Darby as the originator of Dispensational Premillennialism, and their treatment of "dispensations" is much different than earlier sources to which they appeal for justification, even as they argue otherwise. One of the reasons this is important is because alarms should ring in everyone's mind when they read someone claiming to correct misconceptions and then proceeding to prove those conceptions and not misconceptions. |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 12, 2022 11:22:53 GMT -8
Not, it is not. I will repeat what I said: A dispensation is not the same thing as Dispensationalism. The word " dispensation" is stated in scripture. Dispensationalism is not. Dispensationalism is a theology that openly seeks to render scripture by Dispensationalism's view of dispensations. It invents dispensations where none are stated in scripture AND it does so in neglect of what is plainly stated in the scriptures (covenants). It is a theology that was in fact literally invented in the 1800s by John Darby. Let's not allow Wikipedia to be our teacher of the Christian faith. They are not as trustworthy as the scriptures. The thing for us to do is to ask the scriptures if there are different principles of divine dealing with men through history and then we need to be willing to accept the answer the scriptures gives us. Now you have not asked the scriptures anything in your rant. You have asked people who are as much in the dark as you are. Therefore, you are not wise to ask these people. They are the wrong people to ask. You have asked nothing of the scriptures themselves. But, I like to ask my questions of the scriptures because they have divine answers. They are the most accurate. So, with that in mind, I am going to ask Jesus if he knows of different ages in the economy of God. Here is his answer. Matt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. The word "world" here in verse 30 is "aion." Aion means "age" So, Jesus thinks he is living in one age and there is one to come later. When is Jesus saying that and to whom? He said it to the Pharisees, the rulers of the Jews. 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, Blah, blah, blah..... When did he say it? It was at the end of the growing season. It was harvest time. It was the end of the age he was living in. 37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; 38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest. Harvest time is at the end of the season. God had been dealing with his people Israel for 1500 years under the principle of Mosaic Law. It was an age. Watch what is said about this age of Law coming to an end. Try not to miss this. Ga 4:4 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. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Fulness of the time. Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Here is what we are given in the scriptures about the creation and the creator of the ages. He 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (aions = ages); Now we are told Jesus the Son of God personally spoke to the Hebrews in the last days of the age he was living in. That was 2000 years ago and it was the last days of the age, a time period as I have indicated with underling the text. Take a look at this. Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. See underlined "world" above in V 26. The first word world is Kosmos, the planet, and the second word world is Aion, age. The key word in V 26 is "now." Now was the age that was ending with his appearing and death on the cross. The age of Law. Many new Bibles totally wreck the sense of this passage by making it say this event was the culmination of the ages. It aught not to be so, but it is. Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Jesus said at supper time, the end of the day. Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: 17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. 18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. 19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. 20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. 21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. 22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper You have quoted everybody but God. Some of these fellows don't know any more about it than you. I am trying to help you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2022 5:14:12 GMT -8
JDS, get a handle on the quote boxes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2022 5:47:53 GMT -8
JDS said: You have quoted everybody but God. Some of these fellows don't know any more about it than you. LOL! I have quoted leading Dispensationalists teaching Dispensationalism. On any occasion where you disagree with them it simply means you're not Dispensationalist, not that they are wrong, or I am wrong. The whole point of this op is to look at one aspect of Dispensationalism, namely it's new and different substance. Something being new does not make it good or bad. Sliced bread was once a new (and different ) thing but that was an amazing improvement on our having to slice bread ourselves if we wanted uniformity in our doing so. Splitting the atom? Amazing discovered that turned out to have the potential for serious abuse. Being new is not inherently a problem. Neither is something being different. The Reformation of the 16th century, much like the restoration movement of the 19th century, led to a lot of new and different doctrines and practices, most but not all of which were enormous improvements. The problem with Dispensational Premillennialism is that it is new, different and if it is true, then 18 centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice is wrong! DPism is so different that it teaches things thoughts, doctrines, and practices irreconcilable with the entire history of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. Either all of Christendom prior to the 19th century was not Christian, or Dispensationalism is not. Can't be both ways. I have six OPs on Dispensational Premillennialism planned for BAM. I outlined them in advance HERE. I do not expect Dispensationalists to approach the criticism of their theology unbiased but despite that lack of expectation that is my hope. DPism has serious problems. One of them is the inability of the Dispensationalist to stay on topic and reason through the systemic problems. This was undeniably, observably demonstrated by every single Dispensationalist in the op on whether Dispensationalists take things too far. No a single BAM member from that orientation proved capable of addressing the substance of that op. That is a problem. There are reasons that problem exists within Dispensationalism. One of those reasons is that Dispensationalism is a new and radically different theology based on a new hermeneutic. Or, to put it on proper order, Dispensational Premillennialism grew out of a newly developed hermeneutic that in turn begat a radically different theology than anything that had preceded in eighteen centuries of Christian history. Christians growing "up" in Dispensationalist congregations get taught these techniques and doctrines believing it is orthodox, mainstream, historical Christianity when it is not. You disputed the newness of Dispensationalism. Good for you. The problem was the conflation of dispensation with Dispensationalism. I have evidence my claim. I quoted a variety of source both inside and outside of Dispensationalism proving what I said true. Your response is a red herring. The comment, " You have quoted everybody but God. Some of these fellows don't know any more about it than you," does not in any way address the point being made. You've got a pair of ops going in which you and I are trading posts and I have asked you to do what I've done here: provide evidence and prove the claims! I provide evidenced proof and it gets dismissed. That is a problem. There is a reason that problem exists. Dispensational Premillennialists themselves say Dispensationalism is not new because they too conflate the mention of "dispensation" in scripture with John Darby's theology of Dispensationalism. Just because the scriptures mention the word, " dispensation" does NOT mean the Bible is asserting an entire theology with that one word. I will provide evidence of other differences within Dispensationalism. For now, this question of whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is new has been established. It has been evidenced by the leading Dispensationalists themselves and thereby proven. I will provide more evidence. Because I can. At this point your response should be, " Okay, Josh, you're correct; the theology of Dispensationalism is new. The word, 'dispensational,' is as old as scripture but the theology built on that one word is new." Why? Because you've said you like truth and it is true Dispensational Premillennialism is a new theology. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2022 5:59:35 GMT -8
JDS said: You have quoted everybody but God. Some of these fellows don't know any more about it than you. LOL! JD, try giving a moment of thought to your posts before you post them. Ask yourself, "How will that nut Josh reply?" Try to anticipate the challenges. Why? Because when you say things like, " You have quoted everybody but God," that FACT is God never said Dispensationalism was a theology!!!! Nowhere in the Bible did God explicitly mark the dispensations as dispensations, much less the dispensations Dispensationalism cites. No one can quote God stating the Dispensationalism is very old because God never said any such thing. God did label the dispensations, but He did not explicitly use the word " dispensation". God used the word, " covenant"  . One of the few things Darby got correct, imo, is that there is only one covenant in the Bible. It is not, however, a covenant with Israel. That is one of the base places where Darby erred. As I said in my previous posts, if you do not agree with what Dispensationalists teach about Dispensationalism, then maybe you're not Dispensationalist . You disagreeing with those I have quoted does not mean I am wrong. It means you're not wholly Dispensationalist . I think that's a good thing  . There is a lot of good and correct in the Brethren history. Dispensational Premillennialism is not one of them. |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 14, 2022 4:54:43 GMT -8
The reasoning of Calvinists, who are rarely dispensationalists, is driven by their own traditions. One must understand that Calvinism, or I like the term "Reformed" better, is a relatively new theological system of religion and it can be proven from the scriptures that it is a false and anti biblical system on every point. This religion has it's roots in Roman Catholicism. It was an attempt to reform this very false expression of Christianity, and I think it did reform it. There are some differences but there are many similarities, especially in methods. The priesthood has been redefined in Reformed circles and the scholars and heroes with the name recognition has taken their place as the authority for their teachings. The problem is that God does not call on Christians to reform false churches, he calls on Christians to mark them and avoid them. It calls upon Christians to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. The Reformed has much more in common with their parent religion than they do with biblical Christianity. All the Reformers were Catholics. They all followed the Pope. The reformation was successful in installing their own pope and he wrote the Institutes and the confessions are based on what he wrote. His mentor, according to quotes I have read in the past that were attributed to him, was Augustine, a heretic in his own right, and according to many was the father of the Roman Catholic Church. This causes me to ask the obvious question; "what chance, given these things, does this religion have in arriving at sound doctrine." My answer is none. The devil is a busy adversary, subtle and cunning, and dangerously deceptive. We learn his ways in the scriptures. We are warned about him. Here is some Bible on that. 2 Cor 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. The immediate context here referenced are these false apostles who believe in Jesus but follow Paul around adding and taking away from what he, a true apostle, says and even claiming that Paul is a false apostle and is not speaking for God. The Corinthians were being deceived for these smooth talkers. Their Jesus was similar to the real Jesus, but was a false Jesus and their gospel was false. Then he says this, and we today should take heed. 2 Cor 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. WOW! Satan is a preacher and he has his own preachers he sends out. Simplicity of the gospel. Whosoever will may come to God through Jesus Christ and have their sins forgiven, whether many or few, and he will give them eternal life, who is defined in the scriptures as the Spirit of God and Christ, who will dwell with him forever. How often have I been told that I cannot understand the doctrines of grace, the T.U.L.I.P. which is the gospel of the Reformed. The red flags are up for me because this is not simple and it might just help us to understand why we need priests. Here is another scripture that we must take into account when we are dealing with the teaching of this religion that spiritualizes the entire Old testament scriptures and most on the New Testament. Re 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. Many dispensationalists believe that the Roman Church is being described in this symbolism and she is pictured as "mother" of offspring who share the same characteristics of herself. Namely as being harlots. The one thing that is true about this woman and that is that she has a universal presence that is in the same area as the nations, who are under the control of Satan. Proof; Matt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. The devil is the god of this world. The nations function under his satanic principles. 2 Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. There is a reason that the Reformed religion will not accept all the prophesies of the righteous kingdom of Jesus Christ over all the world through God's people the Jews, which is a sure fact in prophecy of both the Old and New Testament scriptures, if it can be believed. One is not permitted to spiritualize the prophecy of God. It must come to pass as it is given. God's character depends on it. Psalm 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. Consider these things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2022 11:02:37 GMT -8
The reasoning of Calvinists, who are rarely dispensationalists, is driven by their own traditions. One must understand This op is about Dispensationalism, and specifically about the newness and radical difference existent within Dispensationalism. This op is NOT about Calvinism, their traditions, your traditions or anyone else's traditions beside those of the Dispensationalist. Nothing presented by this op is even remotely specific to Calvinism. Please stay on topic. Please stop trying t change the topic. Let's say that is true. If my six criticisms of Dispensationalism prove correct, then any and all congregations teaching Dispensational Premillennialism should be avoided. So, once again, I will ask you not to hijack this op, to stay on-topic and specific to the specific concerns of this op, and not attempt to change the topic away from Dispensationalism. When you do that as a Dispensationalist one of the problems to be solved is demonstrated = the inability to the Dispensationalist to stay on topic and discuss his own theology! The evidence has been provided showing Dispensational Premillennialism is a new and different theology. The newness was disputed so evidence from diverse source, both within and external to Dispensationalism was provided. |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 14, 2022 11:56:48 GMT -8
Here is something to consider concerning the divisions of the scriptures. It has always been the purpose of God to make men the stewards of the earth and in the very beginning he gave dominion over the whole earth to Adam only to have Satan to quickly usurp his dominion. Here is something to read;
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God = Elohim. A plural name. This is important because God is a trinity, three in one and one in three and each one of his persons can accomplish different functions withou there being any conflict, because of his oneness. This is his image and it is in this image that he created Adam. Adam was body, soul, and one with God because he had his Holy Spirit tabernacling in his body with his soul.The scriptures says that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a "living" soul.There can be little doubt that Adam had a glorious body like the body of Jesus after he was glorified at his resurrection. God restored all that Adam lost by sinning, and he did it in Jesus Christ. He is declared to be the express image of God while he is on the earth and in his body. How was he different from other men because the scriptures declare this about him. Read it.
Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
So, okay, if he was ordinary looking in the flesh, how was he different? The answer is that he was the Son of God and was a partaker of the divine nature as well as the human nature. No one had been like this since Adam before his fall. Yet Adam is the only other man on that side of the cross who was called the son of God. He is called the son of God in Luke 3:38. Here is an interesting and vital fact. All believers on this side of the cross are called the sons of God. What is common for sons of God? It is the trinitarian nature and image of God which is given to us by God the Father and it is called by Peter as the "divine" nature. However, there is a difference that must be noted.
1) Adam was the son of God by creation
2) Jesus Christ was son of God by natural birth, (made of a woman)
3) All believers in Jesus are sons of God by a new birth or a second birth.
The commonality of all is the indwelling Spirit in the body. The difference is how he got there. Even the angelic Spirits are called the sons of God in the scriptures and those before their fall were called sons of God (see Gen 6 and Job 1)
Now, `it is important for you to see that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God from his conception. He has always been God but he has not always been man. He is the only begotten Son of God.
Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
John the Baptist testified under inspiration of God these words;
John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God:
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
We Christians in these weak bodies have an earnest of the Spirit with the admonition to be filled with the Spirit to accomplish the tasks God desires of us, but we cannot maintain his fullness.
When we are glorified at the rapture, an event for the heavenly people of God, the church, the body and bride of Christ, that is being formed in this age and that which is denied by most people in the world of religion today, we will have a body like unto the glorious body of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fullness of the Spirit as he has always had.
The purpose of God between the eternities is to renew the trinitarian image of all his creation and God will be in all his creation and his creation will be in him. This is the wonderful plan of God but few will be renewed because of false doctrine and unbelief. We will all stand at the end of days in our lot.
He has not changed his mind about giving man the dominion over the earth and that dominion will be restored in the kingdom of Jesus Christ in righteousness. In his eternal kingdom there will be no one who does not have the Spirit and is a trinity after the image of God.
I have more to say about this later.
1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Dispensationalism is the only way to understand these great truths. It is totally logical and reasonable.
|
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8
My response to this line;
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology
Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed. This does not mean that God has changed the principle of his salvation. Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith. For example, God justified those during the days after the fall by their willingness to bring a blood sacrifice to God. The doing of the thing God required was a demonstration and evidence of their faith that God would save them, although the salvation was wrought in the heart. Just because the sinners under that economy of God in those days brought a sacrifice did not mean they were justified. It is all about the attitude of the heart. Certainly, no one who refused to bring the required blood sacrifice was justified. It would be easy to rule them out.
Now watch what God says about Abel, and by extension, all who lived under this same economy.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds (AIONS = AGES) were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
STOP: On what principle and by what action did God testify that Abel was righteous, according to the text? The offering of the blood sacrifices was that by which he obtain witness that he was righteous. God testified of his gifts (more than once) and his blood somehow spoke from the ground.
Now, let me ask a very important question or two. If Abel had not offered the blood sacrifice would he have obtained witness that he was righteous? Would God have testified of his gifts? The answer is NO! There is an obedience that is always attached to faith.
Here is another question for you. If a Baptist church were having Sunday services and some poor sinner had read the story of Abel in his bible and had decided he needed to be righteous and had brought a lamb to sacrifice to be made righteous, would the Baptist church agree to help him in his sacrifice or no? The sinner might argue that it worked for Abel and ask the question why will it not work for me?
Do you not see that righteousness is imputed by the faith that God will do what he says, that is to justify the believer in what he says to do and the witness before God is that he does it. Faith from the heart is the first reaction to God and obedience to the will of God follows.
Jesus would later put the question to those who did not have the right heart in this way.
Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Time would move on and God will call on Noah to build an ark to recue the believers from that age because he will bring judgement for their actions, which do not include bringing a blood sacrice before God.
Noah was justified by believing God would deliver him from the flood if he built the boat like he told him. There is an obedience to faith and I will be back later to further prove it and to prove that justification is always by faith, but it is faith in what God says for each person to do. Had Noah not built the boat his family would not be saved but the very fact he built it showed that he believed God would save him by it. He trusted God to do what he said he would do.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Anti dispensationalists not only greatly err, but they stand in opposition to the teaching of rightly dividing the wonderful and faithful scriptures of God. I call on all men who are anti dispensational to reason and apply biblical logic to your arguments.
|
|
.
.
. There is a lot of good and correct in the Brethren history. Dispensational Premillennialism is not one of them.