# conclusions needed for Dispensationalism



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

understand, Im not trying to slam Dispensationalists, even though they are wrong 
however, as a simple starting definition of dispensationalim. They beileve essentially that since creation God has communed with man in 
(1) Paradisaical state to the Flood
(2) Noah 
(3) Abraham 
(4) Israel
(5) Gentiles 
(6) The Spirit
(7) The Millennium.

Now, the question would be. Why would the Almighty need 7? i dont know if im stretching to far, but it seems to me one possible mindset that may be needed is

"God tried this method, realized it wasn't working, so tried a different method"


----------



## mshingler (Apr 30, 2008)

Although it may sound that way, and some dispensationalists probably have that mindset, in fairness I think that most do not really see it as, "God tried this and it didn't work." It would probably be more accurate to say that dispensationalists believe God put man under various administrations of His rule, each of which demonstrated man's failure to please God, or something to that effect. Also, many Dispensationalists today do not subscribe to the view of 7 dispensations. I've heard 4 from some.


----------



## KMK (Apr 30, 2008)

The idea of different 'dispensations' is not limited to Dispensationalists.

WCF 7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. *There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations*.

The dispensational distinctive, as I understand it, is that there are HUGE discontinuities between the dispensations. Church/Israel for example.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

mshingler said:


> It would probably be more accurate to say that dispensationalists believe God put man under various administrations of His rule, each of which demonstrated man's failure to please God, or something to that effect.



okay, I could see that


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

KMK said:


> The idea of different 'dispensations' is not limited to Dispensationalists.
> 
> WCF 7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. *There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations*.
> 
> The dispensational distinctive, as I understand it, is that there are HUGE discontinuities between the dispensations. Church/Israel for example.


That's probably the root of it; discontinuity vs. continuity. It always falls back on one's hermeneutic. You might check out Dispensational vs Reformed Hermeneutic to understand the gears behind Deut. It links to other threads where it was discussed as well.


----------



## KMK (Apr 30, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of different 'dispensations' is not limited to Dispensationalists.
> ...



That looks like a juicy thread. Thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

KMK said:


> The idea of different 'dispensations' is not limited to Dispensationalists.
> 
> WCF 7:6 Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. *There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations*.
> 
> The dispensational distinctive, as I understand it, is that there are HUGE discontinuities between the dispensations. Church/Israel for example.



intresting


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

thanks wannabe, Ill read through that slowly......


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

This can be really hard to pin down Jeff. Dispensationalism has different dispensations within it's own lifetime. You have classic, Scoffield, Darby, Ryrie, MacArthur, etc. None of them would agree in regard to their theological understanding. MacArthur might agree in regard to what the others thought, but he's disagree with their position. And, he really doesn't call himself a dispensationalist any longer because of the difficulty in nailing it down. His hermeneutic is dispensational though (taught by same profs I was).
There are some Dispensationalists who break God's revelation up, as has been mentioned. Some of these break it into many separate dispensations. However, many see more continuity than that, simply seeing progressive revelation and time periods in between. CT does much the same, yet with covenants. What many covenantalists call covenants, many Dispensationalists would call dispensations. 
But, due to a dispensational understanding of the church and Israel, there is a definite change that took place with the institution of the church. This is the one area that apparently remains constant. And I don't see how that will change. 
Unfortunately, there are many dispensationalists that have a "God had to try another method" mentality. Be patient. Frankly, the teaching they're receiving stinks. Men proclaim Christ, but have no understanding of God's sovereignty nor of the implications of such ignorance. Such understanding is not due to careful exegesis, but from men simply proclaiming what they've been taught to think without being taught how to think. That's one major difference between a good seminary and all the others. Do they tell you what to think, or teach you how to think?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 30, 2008)

I heard one dispensational pastor explain it this way:

"God changed the way in which He has dealt with man so that He Himself may remain changeless."


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 30, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> I heard one dispensational pastor explain it this way:
> 
> "God changed the way in which He has dealt with man so that He Himself may remain changeless."



 I don't get it. Is this one of those things that sounds so deep because it doesn't make sense?


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I heard one dispensational pastor explain it this way:
> ...



yea- sounds like the pastor is trying to dodge it. IT seems to me that what is implied is

"God changed so He can remain changeless"
or "God changed the way he dealt so that man need not conform?"

either way, the statement sounds fishy


----------



## mshingler (May 1, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> This can be really hard to pin down Jeff. Dispensationalism has different dispensations within it's own lifetime. You have classic, Scoffield, Darby, Ryrie, MacArthur, etc. None of them would agree in regard to their theological understanding. MacArthur might agree in regard to what the others thought, but he's disagree with their position. And, he really doesn't call himself a dispensationalist any longer because of the difficulty in nailing it down. His hermeneutic is dispensational though (taught by same profs I was).
> There are some Dispensationalists who break God's revelation up, as has been mentioned. Some of these break it into many separate dispensations. However, many see more continuity than that, simply seeing progressive revelation and time periods in between. CT does much the same, yet with covenants. What many covenantalists call covenants, many Dispensationalists would call dispensations.
> But, due to a dispensational understanding of the church and Israel, there is a definite change that took place with the institution of the church. This is the one area that apparently remains constant. And I don't see how that will change.
> Unfortunately, there are many dispensationalists that have a "God had to try another method" mentality. Be patient. Frankly, the teaching they're receiving stinks. Men proclaim Christ, but have no understanding of God's sovereignty nor of the implications of such ignorance. Such understanding is not due to careful exegesis, but from men simply proclaiming what they've been taught to think without being taught how to think. That's one major difference between a good seminary and all the others. Do they tell you what to think, or teach you how to think?




I think one of the relevant questions in this whole discussion today should be, "When is a dispensationalist no longer a dispensationalists?" No doubt, Ryrie and others would deny the name to progressives like Bock and Blaising. I believe I read an MTS article a few years back where R. Thomas, in so many words, also said that the progressives have abandoned what is fundamental to dispensationalism (if I have time later I will look for the article). The church/Israel distinction is certainly a key. On the other hand, I think there are dispensationalists (maybe MacArthur but I'm not sure) who would see some kind of continuity between Israel and church while a lot (maybe most) CT's also recognize that there is discontinuity there. 
I, personally, think that Bock and others like him are so far from traditional dispensationalism that it's questionable whether they ought to hold to the label. It seems like they're on the border of something like historic premill.


----------



## Wannabee (May 1, 2008)

Those are good observations Mike. 
If you find Dr. Thomas' article please let me know. I'm sure I have it here, and seem to remember something about it. But I wouldn't know where to start looking. 
It's been too long since I've read Bock and Blaising that I really can't comment on them. And, personally, I find that I don't fit any mold. I'm not CT, that's apparent. But I obvously am not caught up in the whole Dispensational framework that is probably best referred to as classic dispensationalism. Since most who are CT view me as dispensational, I perceive a need for clarity when dispensationalism is painted with broad strokes.


----------



## mshingler (May 1, 2008)

I was wrong, the article was by Stephen J. Nichols and is in the Fall 1996 edition. Thomas's article was on the hermeneutics of PD and appears in Spring 1995. 



Wannabee said:


> Since most who are CT view me as dispensational, I perceive a need for clarity when dispensationalism is painted with broad strokes.




I gathered this from a number of your posts on this board.


----------



## R Harris (May 1, 2008)

While dispensationalism has indeed morphed substantially over the past 100 years, I think the initial controversy over the "7 dispensations" is how was man saved during these times.

The one holding to the covenantal view and the "covenant of grace," which overarched the so-called 7 dispensations, is that faith in the coming Redeemer (Christ) has always been the only way that anyone in any age has been saved. 

Some dispensationalists (such as Hitchcock currerntly, and of course Scofield) struggle with this in that Christ was not fully revealed in the OT (why, you don't even find the name "Jesus Christ" there!)

Of course, Christ himself answered this in John 8 (Abraham looked forward to HIS day, and rejoiced), and in Matthew 22:41-45 (David called Jesus 'my Lord' 900 years before the incarnation). He also said Moses wrote of Him, and that Isaiah saw His glory. (In fact, Isaiah has often been called the "Gospel of Isaiah", because one could easily read much of Isaiah (especially chapter 53) and find the way of salvation. The Ethiopian Eunuch had it in Acts 8, he just needed Philip to help him put 2+2 together.

Why some dispensationalists have struggled with this is understandable to some extent, but with full revelation having been given, it should not be so baffling.


----------



## Calvin'scuz (May 1, 2008)

What's interesting to me is that most of the Dispensationalists I know (which are most of the Christians I know) have no idea why they believe what they believe. If you try to discuss any other viewpoint (like CT) they accuse you of spiritualizing the Scriptures. Most of the Dispensationalists I know come from a Calvary Chapel background (which prides itself on "clear Bible teaching"). If their teaching is so clear, why is it most of their attendees are unable (and unwilling) to debate on the hermeneutic to which they so fervently cling? It drives me crazy, because it seems that most of the Christians that the unbelieving world encounters today are dispensationalists who cannot logically debate their position. No wonder unbelievers think Christians are a bunch of kooks - that's what they see.


----------



## Wannabee (May 1, 2008)

How'd you notice Mike? I thought I was being covert and inconspicuous in my responses.  



Calvin'scuz said:


> What's interesting to me is that most of the Dispensationalists I know (which are most of the Christians I know) have no idea why they believe what they believe.


BINGO! The nail is driven home. Thank you. And that, my friends, is perhaps the main problem with dispensationalism. The people are not taught how to think. How can we minister to one another when we're just robots repeating what we've been told? Well... I better turn aside, cuz I'm approaching another one of those soap boxes.



Calvin'scuz said:


> It drives me crazy, because it seems that most of the Christians that the unbelieving world encounters today are dispensationalists who cannot logically debate their position. No wonder unbelievers think Christians are a bunch of kooks - that's what they see.


Preach it!


----------

