# Help with Dispensationalism



## danmpem (Oct 27, 2007)

I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 27, 2007)

danmpem said:


> I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!



Macarthur's not really a full-orbed dispensationalist. Most of the old-guard Dispensationalists are gone, along with their theology. Several very intelligent dispensationalists, Bock and Blaising, revamped the dispensational hermeneutics to allow for more covenantal unity in the Scripture. This is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" and it is quite respectable. 

Here is an excellent symposium by an old-line Dispensational, a progressive Dispensational, an historic premillennialist, and an amillennialist. 
The Henry Institute: Audio


----------



## Greg (Oct 27, 2007)

Hi Dan,

I've come from a Dispensational background myself. A while back when I first join the board here, I asked a similar question and Chris Blum, who is a moderator here, gave me this advice:



> Welcome to the board, Greg! I can certainly relate to your Dispensational background, being raised in the Assemblies of God myself. As Robin implied above, I would say the most important thing you can do coming from a Dispensational background is to start with a study of Covenant Theology in general, rather than beginning with eschatology. That is because, as Robin implied above, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are, at their hearts, entire theological systems on the very nature of God's whole plan of redemption and His outworking of that plan throughout history. Trying to gain a full understanding and appreciation of Reformed eschatology without having a grounded understanding of Covenant Theology is like trying to fully understand and appreciate the significance of Christ's resurrection without already possessing a good understanding of His deity, humanity, perfection and atonement. In like manner, someone's eschatology is simply one outgrowth of the broader view one has on the biblical nature of God's structure and plan of redemption. For that reason, it will be much easier and more rewarding to first study and take to heart the biblical principles of Covenant Theology and then see and appreciate its implications in eschatology, rather than to simply look at Reformed eschatology first and find out its distinctives, and only later discover its true significance and meaning that is rooted in Covenant Theology.
> 
> For a very basic, beginning look at Covenant Theology, I would recommend Matthew McMahon's (our webmaster here) book A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology, which can be found at Puritan Publications. Another popular introductory work on the subject is O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants. One of the most respected larger, thorough works on the subject is Herman Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. The Westminster Standards are very explicit in their description of the fundamentals of the system, a helpful online compilation of which can be found here. Some excellent articles on various tenets of Covenant Theology can also be found here.
> 
> In any case, I would definitely recommend beginning with a general study of Covenant Theology before focusing on the specifics of eschatology, and beginning that study by reading over the Westminster Standards' sections on the covenants, as well as Matt's introductory book on the topic and some of the Monergism articles linked above.



I don't know how much you're familiar with Covenant Theology and how it differs with Dispensationalism, but I definitely agree with Chris's advice above. Another book that I would also recommend is "The Israel of God" by O. Palmer Robertson.


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 27, 2007)

danmpem said:


> I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence.



I went to a Plymouth Brethren assembly for a while and left a few months after I saw the poverty of the dispensational argument (my leaving was not related to this though!). 

The biggest problem with dispensational theology is that it draws a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. 



> The church is distinct from Israel The church does not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to as Israel. According to dispensationalists, the church did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with the church. Evidences often used by dispensationalists to show that the church is distinct from Israel include: (a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18; (b) an essential element of the church—Spirit baptism—did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the “new man” nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel; (f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20); (g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct. On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, “In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.”


 What is Dispensationalism?​
CHANGING PATTERNS IN AMERICAN DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!
> ...



Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?


----------



## elnwood (Oct 27, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?



Because it is a forum for Southern Baptists in particular, and postmillennialism simply isn't represented in the Southern Baptist Convention. Similarly, if there were an eschatology forum presented by Presbyterians, you wouldn't see dispensational premillennialism represented.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 27, 2007)

I agree with the others here -- the key is the Church / Israel distinction. Historic Premillennialism often shares a lot in common with Dispensational Premillennialism in its futurism, but it breaks down when you study the timing of the rapture.

If there is no Church / Israel distinction and the 70th week of Daniel isn't postponed for the nation of Israel, there really is no reason for a pretribulational rapture.


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Jaymin Allen said:
> 
> 
> > Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?
> ...



But A-mill is?


----------



## elnwood (Oct 27, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Jaymin Allen said:
> ...



Not well-represented, but there are a few. Ken Jones from WHI and Jason Robertson from Fide-o comes to mind, and, historically, James P. Boyce, who founded Southern Seminary. I think they brought Gaffin in from Westminster because, as far as I know, there aren't any Southern Baptists at a seminary professor level who are amillennial, and Gaffin would have been the best representative of the position.

In contrast, I've only met one postmillennial Baptist in my life, and he wasn't Southern Baptist, and he was tenuous on that point at best. A. H. Strong is the only postmill Baptist that comes to mind, and that was before World War I and World War II decimated the number of postmillennials.


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Jaymin Allen said:
> 
> 
> > elnwood said:
> ...



Understood, it's just usually where you find any a-mill's you will not have to look too hard to find post-mills because they are so similar in nature.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 27, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> Understood, it's just usually where you find any a-mill's you will not have to look too hard to find post-mills because they are so similar in nature.



I guess that doesn't hold true for Baptist circles. When I was in DC listening to Mark Dever preach, he once commented briefly on eschatology positions (he doesn't hold one publically) in relation to secondary issues not to divide over (Romans 14, I think). He mentioned that he didn't know if there were any postmillennials in attendance.

Capitol Hill Baptist is a Southern Baptist Founders church that's very strong on teaching Covenant Theology, with Amill and Historic Premill positions each well represented and a very small and not-very-vocal dispensational population. That's how rare postmillennialism is in the Southern Baptist world.


----------



## danmpem (Oct 27, 2007)

Woah! I didn't expect this kind of a response. Thank you!



> I agree with the others here -- the key is the Church / Israel distinction. Historic Premillennialism often shares a lot in common with Dispensational Premillennialism in its futurism, but it breaks down when you study the timing of the rapture.



I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 27, 2007)

danmpem said:


> I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?



Recall that the dispensationalist believes that God has two programmes. One for the earthly people (Israel) and another for the spiritual people (Church). So for the dispensationalist the two programmes do not meet hence their take of Daniel's 70 weeks and their rather odd view of the New Covenant. For them the 70 weeks are to do with Israel and so the programme whereby God deals with the Church takes place between week 69 and week 70, a parenthesis caused by Israel's rejection of the Messiah. Therefore in order for week 70 to start the Church must be done with hence the rapture is before the 70th week for that is the Tribulation etc.

Once you see the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that there is one people of God and not two then these ideas fall to pieces. These fanciful Larkin charts are founded upon an Israel-Church distinction, once the foundation is removed then you have a problem.


----------



## danmpem (Oct 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?
> ...



I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:

a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)

b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?


----------



## bookslover (Oct 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Several very intelligent dispensationalists, Bock and Blaising, revamped the dispensational hermeneutics to allow for more covenantal unity in the Scripture. This is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" and it is quite respectable.



Another one of those men is my former systematic theology professor, Robert L. Saucy (pronounced "so-see") (who is now 77), who has been teaching at Talbot School of Theology (formerly Talbot Theological Seminary) since 1961. He still teaches part time. His book, _The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism_ was published in the 1990s and is considered the original volume that got that ball rolling. (He wanted to call it _A Case..._ but the publisher decided the definite article would make it sell better!)

A former Baptist, Saucy was, the last I checked, attending a Presbyterian Church near his home. I still run into him from time to time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 27, 2007)

danmpem said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > danmpem said:
> ...



Historic premill is immune to the critiques AV1611 just gave.

Most church fathers were premil.

Augustine didn't like premil because he didn't like the earthy promises of Scripture.


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 28, 2007)

danmpem said:


> I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:
> 
> a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)
> 
> b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?



I think that we all see a distinction between Israel and the Church in some sense but the radical line of separation as advocated by *dispensational *premillennialism is wrong. Just look at the NT interpretation of OT prophesy!

Concerning you point *a* above - Some Church Fathers held to premillennialism but we know that there were a variety of opinions. What we ought recall is that i. they were not dispensational, ii. it was founded upon the day-age-theory of creation and that as the Church grew in understanding they rejected chillialism.

Concerning *b.* yes you are correct, he did as does the Second Helvetic Confession saying:



> We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.



Some helps:
Evaluating Premillennialism by Cornelis P. Venema - Table of Contents
"The History of Chiliasm" by William Masselink
"What is Meant by Israel" by William Hendriksen
"Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema
A Present or Future Millennium? by Kim Riddlebarger
The Premillennial Deception
Is the Pretribulation Rapture Theory Biblical?


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Historic premill is immune to the critiques AV1611 just gave.



I was criticising dispensational premillennialism


----------



## danmpem (Oct 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:
> ...



I thought day-age-theory of creation was the attempt to reconcile new scientific findings with the Genesis 1 account of creation. In the Augustinian days, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as far as I can tell, that would impact the Church's views on the end times. Or am I missing something along the way?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 28, 2007)

danmpem said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > danmpem said:
> ...



They held to a day-age sort of theory, but not for scientific reasons. Augustine didn't like six days because he didn't like time. It involved getting involved in creation, which made him uncomfortable. 

Augustine's day-age (sort of) view was for philosophical, not scientific reasons.


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 28, 2007)

danmpem said:


> I thought day-age-theory of creation was the attempt to reconcile new scientific findings with the Genesis 1 account of creation. In the Augustinian days, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as far as I can tell, that would impact the Church's views on the end times. Or am I missing something along the way?



Justin Martyr:

*Chapter 80. The opinion of Justin with regard to the reign of a thousand years. Several Catholics reject it.*
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

*Chapter 81. He endeavours to prove this opinion from Isaiah and the Apocalypse.*
"For Isaiah spoke thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, says the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' Luke 20:35f.​
Iraeneus:

*3.* For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." Genesis 2:2 This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; 2 Peter 3:8 and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.​


----------



## mshingler (Nov 13, 2007)

I am from a dispensational background and have spent several years (at least) wrestling with some of the issues involved. I've never been able to accept some of the distinctives of "classic dispensationalism" such as the church being a parenthesis in God's program. I have, more recently, been leaning toward more of a covenantal premill. view. One thing that influenced my thinking was simply realizing that I need to turn to Scripture to find an authoritative guide to hermeneutics. I realize that I have, for years, carried what I would call a scientific, rationalistic hermeneutic to the Bible. Now, as I look to the New Testament for guidance in interpretation of the Old, I find more evidence for a continuity in the one people of God and for a "reinterpretation" of certain features of Old Testament prophecies. I tend to think that both classic covenantalists and classic dispensationalists have over-systematized their eschatological systems. We should, perhaps, recognize elements of continuity between the testaments as well as elements of discontinuity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Most church fathers were premil.




This is news to me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Most church fathers were premil.
> ...



I need to qualify that. Many of the leading fathers held to what we would call historic premillennialism regarding the timing and nature of the millennium. Origen, reacting to the crassness of OT prophecies, spiritualized the millennium. 

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus argue for a chiliasm while noting that there are godly men who disagree.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2007)

Here is an excellent message by Dr. mark Allison on hwo he came out of dispensationalism. This is part one of a two part series.
PROPHETIC PRESUPPOSITIONS


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



But from what I have read Chiliasm was not the majority view. And Justin Martyr's writing has been drawn into questioning.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



That's because "chiliasm" has different levels of meaning. Fringe radicals used it, too. It is well-established what Martyr believed. We can bring it into questioning, but he said things that are historic premillennial, precisely in areas that define millennial positions. 

Augustine crystallized what would later be known as amillennialism (although that is an anachronism). Augustine didn't like concepts like time, mountains bringing sweet wine, feasting banquets, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...




Augustine was after Martyr. Iwill have to go look up my references for you. Augustine is beside the point. And Amil wasn't really a term used until much much later if I am not mistaken..... Postmil was the Amil position albeit took many different forms also.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2007)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



I know Augustine was after Martyr. That is precisely my point, btw. Augustine's monumental work is what crystallized Western and Catholic theology.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 13, 2007)

Was an Old style Dispensational and Landmarkist for some years. I agree with others on this thread that see the major problem with dispensational theology as the Church/Israel distinction. One must bend alot of Scripture to split the two in my opinion. The idea of the Church as being a sort of "God's plan B" seems ludicrious to me now but when I was under the sway of that doctrine I couldn't see the forest for the trees when it came to eschatalogical matters. I was convinced that if one was of another stripe that they must be antisemitic.

Since I've been covenantal, I've even been accused of antisemitism simply because I view God's Church as Israel.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 14, 2007)

I would suggest going back to this article.


AV1611 said:


> What is Dispensationalism?


Dispensationalists who see the church as plan B are mostly relics now.


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 14, 2007)

mshingler said:


> I am from a dispensational background and have spent several years (at least) wrestling with some of the issues involved. I've never been able to accept some of the distinctives of "classic dispensationalism" such as the church being a parenthesis in God's program. I have, more recently, been leaning toward more of a covenantal premill. view. One thing that influenced my thinking was simply realizing that I need to turn to Scripture to find an authoritative guide to hermeneutics. I realize that I have, for years, carried what I would call a scientific, rationalistic hermeneutic to the Bible. Now, as I look to the New Testament for guidance in interpretation of the Old, I find more evidence for a continuity in the one people of God and for a "reinterpretation" of certain features of Old Testament prophecies. I tend to think that both classic covenantalists and classic dispensationalists have over-systematized their eschatological systems. We should, perhaps, recognize elements of continuity between the testaments as well as elements of discontinuity.



Pastor Mike,

Welcome to the board. I first learned the dispensational premillennial idea of understanding scripture as a new christian,and did not even realize for awhile that there were other views of any consequence. I had enough to do to listen to tapes from Believer's chapel,and read the notes in my Scofield bible.
The Lord providentially brought an amillennial Lutheran brother into a bible study I was attending. He was a solid christian, but I would get frustrated with how he was explaining verses on eschatology.
I travelled upstate to a Pastor who ran a bible and book ministry out of His church. This ministry has since evolved into Cumberland Valley book service. Anyway, I wound up with some Thompson chain bibles,some commentary's
on Hebrews,and a couple of small books that he recommended dealing with end-times. ie, Amillenialism Today, The Bible and the future, The works of Jonathan Edwards. 
About the same time I came across Chapel Library and their tracts. There was a tract called the 70th week of Daniel 9. I had alot of trouble trying to maintain my Premill ideas ,and reconcile the teaching of some of the Amill,and Post mill writers I was beginning to read.
It took me over two years to initially study through Hebrews, using the commentaries. Between the tracts, books , magazines, [ banner of truth, reformation today, sword and trowel] I came away with mixed feelings.
All the christian men tried to exalt The Lord Jesus Christ. But biblically the level of teaching was much more consistent among the Amill, and Postmill brethren. Currently you could say I am " Postalmillenial" 
I like how the postmill writers stress the reign and rule of Christ on earth, that we are to occupy until He comes.
I am currently not totally convinced that all of this physical earth will be overwhelming christian. 
Jonathan Edwards work on the History of redemption was very helpful in pulling me away from the whole dispensational scheme.
The amill men can agree on many areas with the postmill. They see the current rule as almost exclusively spiritual in nature,waiting for Jesus to save us from a major apostasy that they see as now and growing worse and worse.
We are not to form our escatological position from current events or the newspaper. The bible alone is to be where we come to any truth.
One thing I encourage anyone to do is to be able to accurately teach each of the other positions,using the verses they use without creating the proverbial straw man. We all do that when a person asks about the doctrines of grace. they ask, do you believe in calvinism/ we ask, what do you mean by calvinism? Trying to determine if they know what the teaching is.
Most premill persons I have met in person, cannot give a fair representations of the A, or Post mill views.
I have even spoken with pastor's who do not accuratley portray these positions, much less identify where they differ. Some men go through a seminary,and accept the mainline view of the seminary without really having enough time to work through many of these issues.
Have you had many opportunites to interact on these issues? What has been your experience with this?
Have you read many of the contempory men who are very active with these things. Gentry, Demar, Englesma,or is it to hard to keep up with everything once you are in the ministry .
How do others here on the board approach these issues? Are you settled in a position, or do you attempt to keep up with eschatology today.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 14, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> I would suggest going back to this article.
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> ...



And thanks be to the Lord for that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> I would suggest going back to this article.
> 
> 
> AV1611 said:
> ...



That's true. There are very few good Reformed critiques of progressive dispensationalism. It's a lot harder system to critique. WHen most people think Dispensational, they think the old darby system and do not realize things have changed.


----------



## mshingler (Nov 14, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> > I am from a dispensational background and have spent several years (at least) wrestling with some of the issues involved. I've never been able to accept some of the distinctives of "classic dispensationalism" such as the church being a parenthesis in God's program. I have, more recently, been leaning toward more of a covenantal premill. view. One thing that influenced my thinking was simply realizing that I need to turn to Scripture to find an authoritative guide to hermeneutics. I realize that I have, for years, carried what I would call a scientific, rationalistic hermeneutic to the Bible. Now, as I look to the New Testament for guidance in interpretation of the Old, I find more evidence for a continuity in the one people of God and for a "reinterpretation" of certain features of Old Testament prophecies. I tend to think that both classic covenantalists and classic dispensationalists have over-systematized their eschatological systems. We should, perhaps, recognize elements of continuity between the testaments as well as elements of discontinuity.
> ...



I am getting more interaction with other views at this point in my life than I have had previously. I have been having an e-mail dialogue with a man in Colorado who is amil. and an elder in a Presbyterian Church. It has been helpful to both of us, I believe. I'm at a point, now, where I don't know if I could be rightly classified as completely covenant or completely dispensational. Still trying to weigh some of the evidences. I've been helped by Darrell Bock (progressive dispie), Doug Moo and G.E. Ladd (historic premil.), Vern Poythress and Kim Riddlebarger, to name a few. However, it is true that, as a full-time pastor, it's pretty hard to keep up with all the different views and variations of views.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 29, 2007)

danmpem said:


> I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!



Hello Sir,

I know it's been a while since you posted this, I wanted to add a little from a different perspective for your edification. Many have said that one of the defining differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is the disparate definitions between Israel and the Church. While this is true, I think it is important to understand the root of this in terms of the incarnation and how dispensationalism does violence to this doctrine.

The Council of Chalcedon provides us a definition of Scripture's revelation concerning Christ's incarnation:



> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.



Christ as two natures, yet one person, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation is the key. Dispensationalism's concept of "rightly dividing the word of truth," in its interpretational hermeneutic wrongly divides Christ in the incarnation and philosophically posits an incomplete incarnation separated by time, or the Church Age dispensation.

It is within this paradigm that the distinction between Israel and the Church is developed in Dispensationalism and it is merely an ecclesiological statement of its anti-Chalcedonian definition of the incarnation. That is to say, the body of Christ's Church and the body of Christ's incarnation and the Scriptural continuity between the two are necessarily linked, for Scripture reveals: "_For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones._" Ephesians 5:30

These subsequent Scriptures utilize the picture of Adam's creation and marriage covenant applied to Christ as the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) and the Church saying, "_This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church._" Ephesians 5:32

Dispensationalism, while nominally affirming Christ as the incarnate Son of God, implicitly denies His nature as the *eternal* Son of God when in the Ascension He is somehow not King in His human nature and won't be King until the Second Advent. There are various twists in which Dispensationalism will morph itself to deal with the implications of this, for example, it may affirm He is King but deny the inheritance of His Kingdom, since the marriage is not yet consummated in our resurrected bodies, since He is sitting on a heavenly and not earthly throne at this moment in time. There are many more, nevertheless, all together they implicitly deny Christ's nature as the *eternal* Son of God. When His eternal nature took on human flesh, that flesh is not divided against Him, nor is it a mere moral union, but an incarnation.

However, the point that needs to be understood, is if Scripture teaches what Chalcedon has exegeted and creedally explained then it's four negative correlations, that He is incarnate as one person in two natures, _without confusion, without change, without division and without separation_ then Dispensationalism's hermeneutic cannot stand.

Covenant or "Reformed" Theology is presuppositional upon God's Covenant which is revealed in the Covenant of Works with Adam and in the proto-Gospel of Genesis 3:15 and then fully revealed in the Covenant of Grace consisting of the Old and New Testaments as Christ, the Second Adam, and His elect that are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh in the Marriage Covenant of the Lamb foreordained before the Foundation of the World.

If Dispensationalism is true, then you necessarily must have two plans of salvation because a people that are saved independent of Christ's flesh, which is a necessity for Israel so defined, since they cannot be part of the Church - of his flesh and his bones. 

When you boil it down Dispensationalism is not only incompatible with Reformed Theology it is a doctrine of antichrist and is another Gospel because it must ultimately deny, in some way, implicitly or explicitly, the flesh of Christ in the incarnation. It may do this in a number of ways, but ultimately it denies Chalcedon and therefore violates 1 John 4:3, implicitly or explicitly.

In Christ's Bonds,


Thomas


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 29, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> ...the point that needs to be understood, is if Scripture teaches what Chalcedon has exegeted and creedally explained then it's four negative correlations, that He is incarnate as one person in two natures, _without confusion, without change, without division and without separation_ then Dispensationalism's hermeneutic cannot stand.
> 
> If Dispensationalism is true, then you necessarily must have two plans of salvation because a people that are saved independent of Christ's flesh, which is a necessity for Israel so defined, since they cannot be part of the Church - of his flesh and his bones.
> 
> When you boil it down Dispensationalism is not only incompatible with Reformed Theology it is a doctrine of antichrist and is another Gospel because it must ultimately deny, in some way, implicitly or explicitly, the flesh of Christ in the incarnation. It may do this in a number of ways, but ultimately it denies Chalcedon and therefore violates 1 John 4:3, implicitly or explicitly.



Thomas, I must respectfully submit that this is hogwash. It may be incompatible in your mind, but your brush is too broad.


----------



## danmpem (Dec 30, 2007)

Thomas, I was wondering if you are referring to classic dispinsationalism or the progressive type or another. I am starting to learn that there is more than one, and am still somewhat confused as to how they work.

I wish there was a Point-Counterpoint book specifically on dispinsationalism, just so I could get the different views on this stuff. I know that in those books there are Dispensationalists who contribute, but I only get to see their views on one little topic here or there.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 30, 2007)

Dear Wannabee,

I'm sorry you felt, apparently, offended - I do realize my words were harsh but it wasn't made as an outsider. They were no more harsh than those of our Reformed father's who called the Roman Church the seat of antichrist, because principally it is the same issue. The Roman Church claims to be the Temple, it's Mass is a perpetual recrucifixion of Christ; Dispensationalism teaches that the old sacrificial system has not been done away with in Christ, but the Temple will be rebuilt and those sacrifices reinstituted. Principally, it is the same issue, the sacrifice of Christ once for all is insufficient, denying the Lord who has bought us.

I was raised in Dispensationalism and spent the better part of my life in it. When I became Reformed I was horrified and shaken to my boots, while the Gospel is present in Dispensational theology, when taken as a whole and the way it culminates into eschatology that denies the true meaning of the Kingdom of God, I found it to be more than a mere error. Instead, I found myself as a "double agent," of sorts, it terrified me and I repented of that sin. I lost my ministry as a result and was ejected from the Baptist Church, I just couldn't lead men any longer into that.

So, in my view, I don't view Dispensationalism as a theological system I've grown past, but something I've repented of. I think that is how it has to be treated, not argued against, but men have to be called out of it.

Dispensationalism, as a whole system, very plainly teaches men to theologically "cross" themselves with the Star of Moloch (Amos 5:26) in the name of Jesus Christ. I haven't broadbrushed that anymore than Dispensationalists have broadbrushed it themselves, take a look at the latest book by John Hagee and his "Christians United For Israel" political action organization.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 30, 2007)

Thomas,

You have indeed painted with too broad a brush. The fact that you refer to Hagee makes the point; Hagee is not a dispensationalist. He is a heretic. To say that men such as MacArthur or even Chafer teach another gospel based on the incarnation is foolish.

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense:



> Dispensationalism, while nominally affirming Christ as the incarnate Son of God, implicitly denies His nature as the *eternal* Son of God when in the Ascension He is somehow not King in His human nature and won't be King until the Second Advent. There are various twists in which Dispensationalism will morph itself to deal with the implications of this, for example, it may affirm He is King but deny the inheritance of His Kingdom, since the marriage is not yet consummated in our resurrected bodies, since He is sitting on a heavenly and not earthly throne at this moment in time. There are many more, nevertheless, all together they implicitly deny Christ's nature as the *eternal* Son of God. When His eternal nature took on human flesh, that flesh is not divided against Him, nor is it a mere moral union, but an incarnation.


Christ is not eternally king in His human nature. It is a part of His office of Mediator of the Covenant (cf. WSC). What you say actually borders on a fusion of Christ's Natures.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 30, 2007)

danmpem said:


> Thomas, I was wondering if you are referring to classic dispinsationalism or the progressive type or another. I am starting to learn that there is more than one, and am still somewhat confused as to how they work.
> 
> I wish there was a Point-Counterpoint book specifically on dispinsationalism, just so I could get the different views on this stuff. I know that in those books there are Dispensationalists who contribute, but I only get to see their views on one little topic here or there.



Hello,

Dispensationalism is Dispensationalism, what you are calling "progressive dispensationalism," is merely an attempt to redefine some key elements to maintain the defeated system, at core it is the same principle - a perpetual racial segregation in God's election positing a necessary division in the incarnation of Jesus Christ as King and High Priest, as man of very man and God of very God. In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile - to eschatologically teach that this is true presently, but there will be a segregation again when Christians are raptured away is sophism. It denies the eschatological victory of the Christ on the Cross.

Either form is a "vietnam theology," teaching men to "progressively" give back to Satan what Christ won, so that He can finally come in the flesh and put down with force what He presumably can't do by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Gospel. He's already come in the flesh and He has, in the flesh, ascended to the Right Hand of God and sat down on the Throne of David, ruling heaven and earth, saying "all power in heaven and in earth has been given unto me." Matthew 28:18 God will not give His glory to any other, when Christ proclaimed in His dieing breath - "it is finished," then it was finished, the price for sin had been fully paid, once for all forever.

As for a good critique of dispensationalism I would recommend "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" by John Gerstner; but really you would do better reading "Foundations of Social Order," by RJ Rushdoony as learning correct Reformed doctrine on the meaning of the Trinity and Chalcedon will clear away all the smoke and mist which veils the manifold errors of dispensationalism.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 30, 2007)

Hello Pastor Greco,

How is a heretic that holds to and plainly teaches dispensational theology not a dispensationalist? If you could explain what you mean by that a little more I'd appreciate it. It appears what you are trying to say is that some other heresy trumps and is the root of his dispensationalism and not dispensationalism itself, I'd like for you to identify what that is, because Hagee clearly teaches dispensationalism.

The Scripture teaches that Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever, He was eternally begotten of the Father. This is not a "fusion" of His natures as you allege, God's scepter has never passed from eternity into time, rather God the Son has and then returned to eternity (John 3:13), for it written:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last..." Revelation 1:11 He is the root and offspring of David (Revelation 22:16), indeed understanding how "that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual," and the first man is of the earth and the second man is the Lord from heaven, yet the first man was made in the image of Second, is a mystery to us, but it is what Scripture teaches.

What is broad, in my understanding, is the meaning of Chalcedon.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 30, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Hello Pastor Greco,
> 
> How is a heretic that holds to and plainly teaches dispensational theology not a dispensationalist? If you could explain what you mean by that a little more I'd appreciate it. It appears what you are trying to say is that some other heresy trumps and is the root of his dispensationalism and not dispensationalism itself, I'd like for you to identify what that is, because Hagee clearly teaches dispensationalism.



Hagee actually does not teach either classic or progressive dispensationalism. He teaches that grace is not required nor faith in Christ required for salvation by the Jews. He teaches Word of Faith theology. To say equate his error with dispensationalism (which has its own errors) would be like saying that Reformed theology is wrong because Robert Schuller is a minister in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). Hagee teaches another gospel.



> The Scripture teaches that Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever, He was eternally begotten of the Father. This is not a "fusion" of His natures as you allege, God's scepter has never passed from eternity into time, rather God the Son has and then returned to eternity (John 3:13), for it written:
> 
> "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last..." Revelation 1:11 He is the root and offspring of David (Revelation 22:16), indeed understanding how "that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual," and the first man is of the earth and the second man is the Lord from heaven, yet the first man was made in the image of Second, is a mystery to us, but it is what Scripture teaches.
> 
> ...




The Scripture clearly teaches that the Second person of the Trinity became incarnate and thus the Mediator of the elect - taking on flesh to be as they are, excepting sin. In that role as Mediator Christ is Prophet, Priest and King. Do we violate the incarnation by saying that Christ's prophetic work is not yet finished, as long as the gospel is to be preached (viz. WSC 24) ? Do we say that Calcedon is violated because Christ still intercedes as Priest and that His work is not consummated as it will be in glory? So how then does Christ's Kingship have anything to do with His divinity in this context? Christ is King - He is a twofold King: (1) King as the Creator of the Universe, the Second Person of the Trinity; and (2) King over His people, as their Mediator (WSC 26). WSC 26 clearly states that Christ's kingship is not consummated in that sense: "_in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies_" - and yet that is not complete: "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25).

Dispensationalism has its errors - and many are serious - but the incarnation is not one of them.


----------



## danmpem (Dec 30, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas, I was wondering if you are referring to classic dispinsationalism or the progressive type or another. I am starting to learn that there is more than one, and am still somewhat confused as to how they work.
> ...



Hmm, I'm still trying to digest all the great input everyone's been giving me. I'm still unsure about some of the things you've said, though. I guess the best way for me to express myself would be to post the verses I have read used by Dispinsationalists. When I hear the exegesis of the verses, the preachers or commentators make perfect sense to me, but when I hear that the system is incompatible with scripture, I want to say "Well, no it's not", but I also know the the people who say it is not compatible would not say it lightly either. I will get the verses and get back to you as soon as I can.

Thank you.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 30, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



Crassness? Meaning an earthly fulfillment?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 30, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



Yes, Origen and Augustine downplayed, sometimes quite strenuously, the earthly fulfillment aspect. I am quoting Moore from memory, though, so I could be fuzzy.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 1, 2008)

Fred's reply is good. 

Thomas, it's not a matter of whether or not I'm offended. It doesn't matter whether or not your words are more or less harsh then Reformed fathers who confronted the heresies of Rome. What matters is the truth, and your statements stray from the mark. Your comparisons between RCC and DT betray an incredible bias that, more than any form of dispensationalism you may have once entertained, should be repented of. You boxed in dispensationalism in your earlier post as though any and all dispensationalists do, indeed must, conform to the model you presented. 

As one who has some clear dispensational leanings, let me assure that I in no way see any possibility of salvation by any means but the priceless blood of Jesus Christ. There never has been, and never will be. Many, if not most, dispensationalists of today will agree with this statement. 

Yes, dispensationalists think that sacrifices will be instituted in the new millennium. And, there are varying perspectives on the meaning of this, from actual atonement (a heretical view in my opinion) to a remembrance (perhaps with similarities to communion). 

Some Dispensationalists struggle with the dual nature of Christ, being both man and God. They tend to see a 50/50 perspective that doesn't allow them to see the beauty and grandeur of the incarnation. That is sad and contributes to many struggles and erroneous views. But many, again - if not most, dispensationalists understand the completeness of Christ being wholly God and wholly man and, as you say, not divided or merely moral. 


Thomas2007 said:


> Either form is a "vietnam theology," teaching men to "progressively" give back to Satan what Christ won, so that He can finally come in the flesh and put down with force what He presumably can't do by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Gospel.


Wierd.



Thomas2007 said:


> As for a good critique of dispensationalism I would recommend "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" by John Gerstner...


Gerstner's work is outdated and a typical example of building a straw man. If you've bought in to his argumentation it's no wonder you have the perspective you do.

My simple statements here, as one known on this board as dispensational, clearly refute what you have claimed. You cannot box dispensationalism in as you have done. Any attempt to do so results in a straw man. It may help to view dispensationalism as more of a hermeneutic than a system. I know that rankles with some, but because of the broadness of dispensationalism as a whole in today's churches, a system cannot be pinned down any more than CT can be pinned down in churches that call themselves covenantal. There's one down the street that has a new "pastor." I understand she's a great speaker. 


For the glory of our eternal King,
Joe


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 8, 2008)

Hello Pastor Greco,

I apologize for the delay in responding to this, and am also incorporating a response to Joe in the substantive weight of my argument, although not necessarily particularly in every point.



fredtgreco said:


> Hagee actually does not teach either classic or progressive dispensationalism. He teaches that grace is not required nor faith in Christ required for salvation by the Jews. He teaches Word of Faith theology. To say equate his error with dispensationalism (which has its own errors) would be like saying that Reformed theology is wrong because Robert Schuller is a minister in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). Hagee teaches another gospel.



I've watched Hagee on television teach dispensationalism complete with the charts, they are the same charts that dispensationalism commonly uses, and I haven't noticed much disparity.

The frame of reference I made my comments is toward the whole system complete with it's dispensational premillienial eschatology. If one could leave that out of it, I suppose I could entertain what you are saying, but the whole system is developed to manifest that eschatology - wherein the problem I outlined comes to complete focus. I will try to clarify my position below.




fredtgreco said:


> The Scripture clearly teaches that the Second person of the Trinity became incarnate and thus the Mediator of the elect - taking on flesh to be as they are, excepting sin. In that role as Mediator Christ is Prophet, Priest and King. Do we violate the incarnation by saying that Christ's prophetic work is not yet finished, as long as the gospel is to be preached (viz. WSC 24) ? Do we say that Calcedon is violated because Christ still intercedes as Priest and that His work is not consummated as it will be in glory? So how then does Christ's Kingship have anything to do with His divinity in this context? Christ is King - He is a twofold King: (1) King as the Creator of the Universe, the Second Person of the Trinity; and (2) King over His people, as their Mediator (WSC 26). WSC 26 clearly states that Christ's kingship is not consummated in that sense: "_in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies_" - and yet that is not complete: "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25).
> 
> Dispensationalism has its errors - and many are serious - but the incarnation is not one of them.



Reformed Theology posits the doctrine of Economic Appropriation and thereby reserves unto God the ultimacy, primacy, authority, and activity in all things wherein it is written, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, *O God*, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Hebrews 1:8 Thus there is no division posited in the Chalcedonian definition because economic appropriation affirms the two natures in true union without confusion and forbids the ascription of certain acts to Christ's humanity and others to His deity, because to do so posits an alternating consciencous and no true union. Rushdoony, in reviewing the Council of Ephesus and quoting Chrystal, explains it this way: 

"In that true union, "we must economically ascribe to Him, God the Word, all the human names and human expressions used of that Man in the New Testament, in order to guard against our being led, as were the Nestorians, to worship a mere creature, contrary to Matthew 6:10 (1) (e.g., Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.) In that the Divine is the infinitely superior and controlling nature in the incarnate Son, we must _economically_ ascribe to Him the activities and words of the whole, for, while God the Son was truly incarnate, the determination of all things never passed from eternity to time, nor from God to man." 

RJ Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order: A Study in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church, p. 43 (1) Quote of Chrystal, I, 326 Italics in the original

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, through its premillennial eschatology manifests most clearly its main premise of epics expressed in linear time, and thereby posits a division in the incarnation, or maybe incompleteness is a better word, that is reserved unto the Second Advent. It cannot maintain it's segregation of Israel and the Church, Jews and Christians, without this presuppositional, yet implicit, negation of economic appropriation. Hence, the determination of history has passed from eternity to time, in the incarnation, from God to the man Jesus, and *history* is "doctrinally" on hold while Christ is Ascended. Necessarily, this means that there is an alternating consciousness between the Eternal Son of God and the Man Jesus that is segregated in the "prophetic stop watch," of it's interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks, and no true union.

What Reformed Theology teaches is that God the Son took on human flesh, but was begotten from eternity, and that one person, with two natures, ascended into eternity and sat down on the Right Hand of God the Father. And Scripture teaches: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13

The doctrine of economic appropriation requires that Christ has always been one person in two natures, "slain before the foundations of the world," whereby linear time proposes no division in the incarnation. Hence, David speaking by the spirit said, "The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool," and Christ poignantly asks "If David call him Lord, how is he his son?" Matthew 22:45

While Hagee is one who has obviously worked out the logical anti-Chalcedonian conclusions of its hermeneutic, possibly farther than others have, doesn't mean it isn't a necessary presupposition in the system.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## py3ak (Jan 9, 2008)

Thomas, your remarks here on the incarnation and economic appropriation leave me with a certain degree of doubt. Do you see these statements as being compatible with WCF 8.2,7?



> The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, *did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof*, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
> ...
> Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.


 (emphasis added)


----------



## danmpem (Jan 9, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Dispensationalism, on the other hand, through its premillennial eschatology manifests most clearly its main premise of epics expressed in linear time, and thereby posits a division in the incarnation, or maybe incompleteness is a better word, that is reserved unto the Second Advent.



How so?



Thomas2007 said:


> It cannot maintain it's segregation of Israel and the Church, Jews and Christians, without this presuppositional, yet implicit, negation of economic appropriation. Hence, the determination of history has passed from eternity to time, in the incarnation, from God to the man Jesus, and *history* is "doctrinally" on hold while Christ is Ascended. Necessarily, this means that there is an alternating consciousness between the Eternal Son of God and the Man Jesus that is segregated in the "prophetic stop watch," of it's interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks, and no true union.



I might understand what you just said better if I knew what 'economic appropriation' meant.




Thomas2007 said:


> What Reformed Theology teaches is that God the Son took on human flesh, but was begotten from eternity, and that one person, with two natures, ascended into eternity and sat down on the Right Hand of God the Father. And Scripture teaches: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13
> 
> The doctrine of economic appropriation requires that Christ has always been one person in two natures, "slain before the foundations of the world," whereby linear time proposes no division in the incarnation. Hence, David speaking by the spirit said, "The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool," and Christ poignantly asks "If David call him Lord, how is he his son?" Matthew 22:45
> 
> While Hagee is one who has obviously worked out the logical anti-Chalcedonian conclusions of its hermeneutic, possibly farther than others have, doesn't mean it isn't a necessary presupposition in the system.



Is the confused doctrine of Christ's incarnation explicitly taught in dispinsationalism's interpretation of scripture or is it a conclusion drawn from scripture and taught by several Dispensationalists, like Hagee? Meaning, would it only be logical for a Dispensational to believe Christ is 50/50 man/God, or is it a common teaching among heretical Dispensationalists?


And as to those verses I said I was bringing - I realized that the person who I was reading really isn't a Dispensational to the fullest extent (whether classic or progressive). He was very Reformed with just lots of hints of dispinsationalism.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 16, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Thomas, your remarks here on the incarnation and economic appropriation leave me with a certain degree of doubt. Do you see these statements as being compatible with WCF 8.2,7?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hello Ruben,

I apologize for the delay, but no I don't see any problems with it. I presume that what you are emphasizing is in contrast to my statement that linear time proposes no division in the incarnation? Your second reference gets into the concept of two wills vs one will, what is called Monothelism (e.g. doctrine of two natures but one will), so don't interpret my statements as meaning there is only one will, but rather two wills in true union.

To the other gentlemen, I think all of your questions can be summed up in an answer to this one, and I defined economic appropriation in the first response:



> Is the confused doctrine of Christ's incarnation explicitly taught in dispinsationalism's interpretation of scripture or is it a conclusion drawn from scripture and taught by several Dispensationalists, like Hagee? Meaning, would it only be logical for a Dispensational to believe Christ is 50/50 man/God, or is it a common teaching among heretical Dispensationalists?



No, it is a philosophical construct that is presuppositionally imposed through the hermeneutic. Hence, differences between one dispensationalist and another are to be traced less to changes in the doctrine itself than to alterations in the interpretative context into which the doctrine - as a philosophical concept of time - and then into a particular theological system, hermeneutically understood, has been placed.

So one dispensationalist may conclude that salvation in the old testament was of works only, another may hold to grace, and a third may hold to a combination of grace/works - each hermeneutical conclusion is derived from the context of the altered approach, but all presupposed upon a concept of time that is derived from the same philosophical presupposition. Therein lies the problem, yet not explicitly normally.

Chalcedon was developed specifically to put down philosophical conceptions of the incarnation derived from Hellenic and thus dialetical thinking, hence this philosophical concept of time superimposes the same implicit concepts indirectly, yet really only manifested in terms of its eschatology where prophetic time for one group of people is different than prophetic time for another group of people. The whole concept of a prophetic stop watch is dialetical thinking.

Reformed people with dispensational leanings are not going to have these problems because they don't have the presuppositional problem of a semi-pelagian soteriology in the first place to understand how the two interlock, hence it never interlocks for them. That is not the case, however, for the vast majority of the modern evangelical world that already has a dialetical presupposition in their soteriological system which dispensationalism is appended onto.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 18, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Dispensationalism is Dispensationalism, what you are calling "progressive dispensationalism," is merely an attempt to redefine some key elements to maintain the defeated system, at core it is the same principle - a perpetual racial segregation in God's election positing a necessary division in the incarnation of Jesus Christ as King and High Priest, as man of very man and God of very God.



No, it's not. What you may need to do is actually read Bock and Blaising's _Progressive Dispensationalism_ or Robert Saucy's _The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism_. Saucy's treatment in particular actually pushed me past PD into Covenant Theology. Your statements show a lack of knowledge (either willful or accidental) with PD. It's okay to critique someone else's viewpoint, but God is not glorified when you misrepresent what others believe (strawman fallacy) and then tear that down as you've done in this thread.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 18, 2008)

Thomas, thanks for answering. What I was looking at was specifically this statement from you:



> The doctrine of economic appropriation requires that _Christ has always been one person in two natures_, "slain before the foundations of the world," whereby linear time proposes no division in the incarnation.


 (emphasis added)

And WCF 8.2 seems to be saying something a little different when it says:


> The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, *when the fullness of time was come*, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof...



My question relates specifically to how your "always" compares with Westminster's "when the fullness of time was come". I regret that your last answer didn't actually clear that up for me. May I ask you to try again?


----------



## danmpem (Jan 19, 2008)

BlackCalvinist said:


> What you may need to do is actually read Bock and Blaising's _Progressive Dispensationalism_ or Robert Saucy's _The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism_. Saucy's treatment in particular actually pushed me past PD into Covenant Theology.



I'm reading both right now.


----------



## David_A_Reed (Feb 17, 2008)

I hesitate to try to add anything here, in view of the in-depth discussion and the incisive comments from everyone above. But I think a couple of important points need to be made when replying to dispensationalist teaching, especially when discussing it with laymen in less theological and more practical terms:

*1) Dispensationalism contradicts the plain teaching and parables of Christ. * 

For example, consider the lesson of the parable of the ten virgins at Matt. 15:1-13.

Spurgeon commented,


> “when once in the last days as Master of the house he shall rise up and shut the door, it will be in vain for mere professors to knock, and cry Lord, Lord open unto us, for that same door which shuts in the wise virgins will shut out the foolish for ever.” (_Morning and Evening: Daily Readings_, for the morning of June 5, titled “The Lord shut him in,” commenting on Genesis 7:16)



Calvin commented,


> “all who shall not be ready at the very moment when they shall be called will be shut out from entering into heaven.” (Calvin’s _Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists_)



But dispensationalism teaches those who aren't ready will receive a "second chance" consisting of seven more years to make up their minds about Christ.

For example, the teaching is popularized through the _Left Behind_ novels, read by millions of laypeople, where one prominent character is assistant pastor Bruce Barnes, a hypocrite who pretends to believe in Christ, but is just going through the motions. When Christ returns, Bruce is 'left behind' and manages to get his act together later. _Second Chance_ is actually the title of one of the novels, and apologists for dispensationalism spell out this doctrine of the 'second chance' in their nonfiction works.

Commenting on a different parable, Wesley spoke more appropriately of the fate of such pretenders:


> “If ministers are the persons here primarily intended, there is a peculiar propriety in the expression. For no hypocrisy can be baser, than to call ourselves ministers of Christ, while we are the slaves of avarice, ambition, or sensuality. Wherever such are found, may God reform them by his grace, or disarm them of that power and influence, which they continually abuse to his dishonour, and to their own aggravated damnation!” ( John Wesley's _Notes on the Bible_, Matt. 24:51)



Bible-believers always expected such pretenders to face damnation at Christ's return, but dispensationalism gives them a second chance.

*2) Dispensationalism denies what Bible-readers understood for centuries concerning the Antichrist.*

The Reformers all clearly identified the Antichrist and the 'man of sin' who sits down in God's place in the Temple of God. Dispensationalists take a more 'politically correct' position by putting this key Reformation teaching behind them, and telling people to look, instead, for a future Antichrist who will be like the Nicolae Carpathia character in the _Left Behind_ novels -- a U.N. Secretary General who will grab worldwide political power for himself. (One of his first acts is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so that animal sacrifices can resume there.)

In fact the popular _Left Behind_ novels show the pope raptured to heaven along with other true followers of Christ.

So, dispensationalism leaves lay people speculating about preparations for rebuilding the Temple, and speculating about which politician may rise to power through the U.N. -- instead of recognizing the forces of Antichrist that are already operating in this world today.


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 17, 2008)

It probably comes as no surprise that I'd speak up on this. 


David_A_Reed said:


> But dispensationalism teaches those who aren't ready will receive a \"second chance\" consisting of seven more years to make up their minds about Christ.
> 
> For example, the teaching is popularized through the _Left Behind_ novels, read by millions of laypeople, where one prominent character is assistant pastor Bruce Barnes, a hypocrite who pretends to believe in Christ, but is just going through the motions. When Christ returns, Bruce is 'left behind' and manages to get his act together later. _Second Chance_ is actually the title of one of the novels, and apologists for dispensationalism spell out this doctrine of the 'second chance' in their nonfiction works.
> 
> Bible-believers always expected such pretenders to face damnation at Christ's return, but dispensationalism gives them a second chance.


The brush is, again, too broad. There are many, probably most, who teach this. But not all do. Perhaps, in light of the respect some here show for progressive dispensationalism, this is already understood. Many who hold to a tribulation period would point to 2 Thessalonians 2 in order to maintain that those who have refused Christ before the rapture do not get a second chance.


> 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,



The virgins without oil will be deceived. God will not be mocked by hypocrites.



> *2) Dispensationalism denies what Bible-readers understood for centuries concerning the Antichrist.*
> 
> The Reformers all clearly identified the Antichrist and the 'man of sin' who sits down in God's place in the Temple of God. Dispensationalists take a more 'politically correct' position by putting this key Reformation teaching behind them, and telling people to look, instead, for a future Antichrist who will be like the Nicolae Carpathia character in the _Left Behind_ novels -- a U.N. Secretary General who will grab worldwide political power for himself. (One of his first acts is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so that animal sacrifices can resume there.)
> 
> ...


Be careful not to lump all dispensationalists into the Left Behind, LaHaye, Lindsey, etc. camp. Regarding the pope, simply put, he is a heretic. To hear a dispensationalist speak out on this go here. He deals with the whole second chance heresy as well.
[video=youtube;bpWDUt89t2g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpWDUt89t2g[/video]
The sensantionalist eschatological entertainment industry does not represent the theology of those who hold to a high view of God's sovereignty and Scripture and yet are dispensational in their theological understanding. Neither do dispensationalists necessarily divide redemptive history as many assert. Many responsible Dispensationalists see the continuity of God's plan throughout history, unlike most of the mainstream sensationalists.

Simply put, the entertainment value of what's passed as dispensationalism has been too much for some to resist. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, some of these have peddled the Gospel and presented dispensationalism as some sort of circus show.


----------



## David_A_Reed (Feb 17, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> The brush is, again, too broad. There are many, probably most, who teach this. But not all do. Perhaps, in light of the respect some here show for progressive dispensationalism, this is already understood. Many who hold to a tribulation period would point to 2 Thessalonians 2 in order to maintain that those who have refused Christ before the rapture do not get a second chance.
> 
> 
> > 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
> ...


Thank you!

I stand corrected. I was giving Tim LaHaye too much credit as the popularly recognized spokesman for dispensationalism. I should have said "LaHaye's dispensationalism..."

Again, thank you.


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 17, 2008)




----------



## biblicalthought (Feb 17, 2008)

Since most here are CT (shades of it at least) and not dispensational, perhaps a quick general overview and comparison will help.

Covenant Theology[ies]:
Intra-Trinitarian covenant of Creation/Redemption/Eternal/? wherein Father, Son, and Holy Spirit agreed to the economical roles: Father would elect, Son would redeem, Holy Spirit would apply elements of redemption.

Covenant of works:
If Adam and Eve remained obedient and if they did not eat of the forbifdden fruit, they would have lived forever. 

Obviously they fell into sin, and rather than God leaving them in their sin, He was pleased to cut another covenant, the covenant of grace.

Covenant of Grace:
This covenant is eternal (forward) and demonstrates God's sovereign love in providing redemption to fallen man, according to His sovereign election. He could have let all continue on their way to hell, or He could have saved them all. He decided to save some, His elect, by grace. This covenant has two administrations, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Within this covenant of grace, the covenants such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New, are revealed in history as subsets. This is the way that CT accounts for all of the various stories, prophecies, etc., found in Scripture.

On the other hand, dispensationalism interprets Scripture very different. Rather than viewing redemptive history as God working by way of covenants, they say that he works by way of dispensations, or ages, epochs, etc. These ages are determined by the repetitive and predictible "cycles" of the people.

Classic dispensationalism is dead, there is no doubt of this. In the best book I've read on the subject: 3 Central Concerns in Contemporary Dispensationalism, or something like that (I forget, and my library is too unorganized to search for it right now), the scholars discuss the tension in CD, and attempt to resolve such issues as whether the New Covenant is now or in the millennium. Is the kingdom now, or future in the millennium, etc.

Let it be understood that Progressive Dispensationalism is often misrepresented as "the progression of dispensationalism" as if the system is getting better, or something like that. Progressive refers to the progressive relationship of the successive dispensations to one another (Blaising & Bock pg. 49). 

Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” (Update on Dispensationalism, Issues in Dispensationalism - Master & Willis pg. 20)

This is where their "already/not yet" hermeneutic is abused, in my view. I love the "both already/not yet" principle, but not when it is applied to such obvious fulfillments such as the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new Covenants. Those are clearly in the already category. 

At the end of the day, the simple answer is that dispensationalism interprets scripture as the historical record of God working out his-story in ages that contain covenants, whereas CT interprets Scripture as the historical record of God working out his-story through covenants that transcend ages.

Please, CT adherents, if I have misrepresented your view of CT, please forgive me. I am trying to make this as simple as possible and I was not attempting an extensive discourse on CT. Dispensationalists...never mind, there probably aren't any here anyway! I hope it helps.


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 17, 2008)

biblicalthought said:


> At the end of the day, the simple answer is that dispensationalism interprets scripture as the historical record of God working out his-story in ages that contain covenants, whereas CT interprets Scripture as the historical record of God working out his-story through covenants that transcend ages.


That's an interesting comparison. It doesn't quite match up with dispensationalism, but it does offer a good avenue for comparison.



> Dispensationalists...never mind, there probably aren't any here anyway!


Well, maybe one.


----------

