Anyone want to take a crack at answering John MacArthur here?

[Scott1]

Great thoughts, Bryan!

As I understand it, dispensationalism says the "real kingdom" is not now...

Covenant theology says the kingdom of God really came with Christ's first advent...

Hi Scott, enjoy reading your posts. I especially liked your concise DT and CT definitions. Wouldn’t it be easier if the kingdom was the only distinctive point to defend? CT and DT seem to possess extra points depending on who defines them, making it a challenge to “prove” one system or the other.
Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, The Case for Amillennialism, p. 33

Everyone has presuppositions which color how they read the Scriptures. The assumption that any one of these millennial views is the result of a straightforward, unbiased reading of Scripture is overly simplistic... Presuppositions are especially problematic is they go unstated and even more so if people don't believe they have any.

Overall, this book is helpful, even refreshing in the way it facilitates understanding of these difficult issues.



It might seem even more daunting that some who generally accept the label of DT or CT don’t even hold to the respective kingdom view normally associated with DT or CT.

But should we be surprised? DT and CT are really just propositions. They are conclusive in nature, summaries. They are effectively “secondary sources” and secondary sources are inadequate to prove themselves or disprove another secondary source. Just as with differing hermenuetics, if the point of departure begins with a secondary source, we cant’ be surprised when folks end up concluding the discussion with the same disagreement they started with. Even verses (“primary sources”) sometimes seem inadequate to convince folks of DT or CT, which isn’t a surprise either since niether system rests on just a couple verses.

I do like the focus your definitions provided (the kingdom now vs. not now). Certainly from a systematic approach the kingdom question raises many more passionate thoughts about associated implications, such as who it is for. But it seems it sometimes devolves into attempts (or assumptions that there was an attempt) to prove an entire system of theology rather than just consider a focused question of the text.

I think the systems of dispensationalism and covenant theology are really only broad frameworks from which to understand the whole of God's redemptive plan. One basic problem with dispensationalism, whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does. A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self.

How about a couple verses that speak to just the “kingdom now, or not yet” question? No attempt to prove either DT or CT.

In the beginning of Acts, Jesus appeared to his disciples for forty days, “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. Right before He ascended they asked Him if He would at that time restore the kingdom. He told them it was not for them to know the times but it was instead for them to be witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth. If their question indicated they misunderstood the teaching they had received about the kingdom (ie. It seems they thought that the kingdom was not yet), was it a misunderstanding that could be allowed to persist, and even be propogated by their witness, far and wide? If we were to teach a group of folks and send them out as witnesses to spread the teaching, the Larger Catechism seems to explain our duty in the ninth commandment would require us to clarify misunderstandings in order to preserve and promote truth, as well as preserve the good name of our neighbor . Yes, another reason this matters.

In the same vein (asking is the kingdom now or not yet), in Act 4 the desciples are threatened for speaking out. They pray for the Lord to grant that they would speak the word with boldness (in order to be the witnesses they were told they would be immediately before Christ ascended). An additional basis of their request to God was Psalm 2. In effect, “See now, the kings and rulers are doing what was told by the mouth of David”. The kings, rulers, etc. all gathered against the Lord and His Christ. “Help us to be bold witnesses”. Psalm 2 also mentions that Christ will break the kings and rulers with a rod of iron and dash them like a potters vessel. If it were the case that the kings and rulers were then being dashed it seems inconsistant that the desciples would have needed intervention to have boldness.
Maybe.

But God ordains both the ends and the means- He chooses to use sinful, fearful, disobedient people whom He loves to accomplish His ends. That's right now- and it's part of the what the Kingdom coming is about.

I think it fair to consider, were the desciples asking for boldness to tell the kings that they were being dashed, or that they would be dashed if they didn’t become wise and fear the Lord?

The above verses don’t prove DT or CT but I think they are close enough to speak to the focused question of the kindom “now or not yet”. Many more of course should be considered, and if they seem to be at odds then I suppose a resolution might be discoverable, or not... till much later.

And to make this even more complete, we need to acknowledge there is both a "now" and a "not yet" aspect- certainly there is within covenant theology. How one leans or apportions the two can affect millennial eschatology.

(Even Dr. GI Williamson said you can call him either an optimistic amillenialist or a non-utopian postmillenialist.)

Bryan
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Wannabee]

Dear Scott,

It's hard to read your authoritative position on dispensationalism. You continue to make assertions that are not necessary for dispensationalism: "whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does. A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self."
I've provided proofs that this is not the case. Even Ryrie points out that there is only one means of salvation. How much more dispensational can one get than Ryrie? If you must make such assertions, it would be more credible if you at least tempered them with some limiting adjectives such as "some" or "many." Such broad brush assertions really only exacerbate the disagreements and fail to embrace the verity of the relationship between DT and CT.


Blessings,

 

[Scott1]

Dear Scott,

It's hard to read your authoritative position on dispensationalism. You continue to make assertions that are not necessary for dispensationalism: "whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does.
When dispensationalism was popularized by Mr. Scofield he came up with seven dispensations and then wrote the books "Rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (into the seven dispensations) with the clear implication that seven was a biblical number of perfection. Then, with a little further study, the number got shifted around. Dr. J. Vernon McGee believed there were eight, presently there is a popular "four dispensational periods" now (really, see Wikipedia's description).

There is no dispensational system left without those highly distinguished dispensations- after all that's what it is composed of- a certain number of dispensations based on, it is said, God's testings of man.

Now, that has been mostly downplayed so it's only separation of people who have some ethnic Jewish ancestry from the Body of Christ. That used to be forever in dispensationalism. Now, most say they do eventually get together in the future state of glory.

Believing only that there will be a special, notable work of redemption among people with some Jewish ancestry is not enough to be a dispensationalist.


A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self."
I've provided proofs that this is not the case. Even Ryrie points out that there is only one means of salvation. How much more dispensational can one get than Ryrie? If you must make such assertions, it would be more credible if you at least tempered them with some limiting adjectives such as "some" or "many." Such broad brush assertions really only exacerbate the disagreements and fail to embrace the verity of the relationship between DT and CT.


Blessings,

.

 

[kceaster]

Dear Kevin,

I have not argued for a seven year tribulation period. I hold that aspect of eschatology very loosely. I see it as a mere possibility. But, since I take the 144,000 literally just as I do the 1000 years, I see more to the equation in this regard than you do.

Blessings,

So, are these 144,000 made up of the Jews that will turn to God in the latter days (Chap 14)? They are the firstfruits for God and the Lamb? They have not defiled themselves with women and are virgins? They are no liars and are blameless?

And since we're talking about being literal, you believe that an angel, that is, a heavenly being, is going to literally preach the gospel to those who dwell on earth of every nation and tribe and language and people? There is no imagery in that at all?

And after this happens, vs 13 says, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." Does that point to the future from today, or is it in the past?

And after that, there will literally be a sickle swung across the earth to reap the earth?

Joe, some of this has to be mystery, doesn't it? We can't take it all literally can we? If if we can't take it all literally, then we have to discern what is past, what is now, and what will be. And we have to take these numbers of 144,000 and 1,000 as something that could be symbolic. I am quite happy to take them literally, too, but then, I don't claim to understand it at all. It could be just as you say, but I could just as easily be convinced it is not as you say.

I guess in the end, I'd say we can't know for sure. If we could, it wouldn't be a mystery, would it?

In Christ,

KC

 

[Roldan]

Dear Kevin,

I have not argued for a seven year tribulation period. I hold that aspect of eschatology very loosely. I see it as a mere possibility. But, since I take the 144,000 literally just as I do the 1000 years, I see more to the equation in this regard than you do.

Blessings,

So, are these 144,000 made up of the Jews that will turn to God in the latter days (Chap 14)? They are the firstfruits for God and the Lamb? They have not defiled themselves with women and are virgins? They are no liars and are blameless?

And since we're talking about being literal, you believe that an angel, that is, a heavenly being, is going to literally preach the gospel to those who dwell on earth of every nation and tribe and language and people? There is no imagery in that at all?

And after this happens, vs 13 says, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." Does that point to the future from today, or is it in the past?

And after that, there will literally be a sickle swung across the earth to reap the earth?

Joe, some of this has to be mystery, doesn't it? We can't take it all literally can we? If if we can't take it all literally, then we have to discern what is past, what is now, and what will be. And we have to take these numbers of 144,000 and 1,000 as something that could be symbolic. I am quite happy to take them literally, too, but then, I don't claim to understand it at all. It could be just as you say, but I could just as easily be convinced it is not as you say.

I guess in the end, I'd say we can't know for sure. If we could, it wouldn't be a mystery, would it?

In Christ,

KC

Your awesome!!

 

[MW]

Even if you understood it in the simpler sense of until the fullness. I do not see that there is anything after that.

ie. blindness until all the Gentiles come in then we are done.

It is the casting away of the Jews which has brought gospel salvation to the Gentiles. Paul speaks of something greater when the Jews are received.

 

[Scott1]

Dear Scott,

It's hard to read your authoritative position on dispensationalism. You continue to make assertions that are not necessary for dispensationalism: "whether one takes four, seven or eight dispensations or even waters them down to mean less than different ways of redemption (e.g. "economies") is that it would make God discontinuous and reacting more to what man does. A totally different approach than looking at God as completely, infinitely and eternally in control of absolutely everything, within His Triune self."
I've provided proofs that this is not the case. Even Ryrie points out that there is only one means of salvation.
Yes, after dispensationalism finally got some biblical scrutiny, most quickly backed off the inference that salvation was by the law or somehow through the patriarchs.

What didn't change, however was the viewpoint that God was "testing" man as if to see how man might respond to His God. It is as if God had to keep trying different things because God failed in trying to get man redeemed.

Think of it this way, stated or unstated assumptions of dispensationalism:

1) Jesus tried to be Messiah and Redeemer to Israel but they would not accept Him so He had to leave and postpone His Kingdom till later because, Israel would not allow it.

2) God had to keep testing man to try and find a way that would work redemption with man. Each dispensation failed, so God had to try something different- a new "economy" a new dispensation.

That's the shell of what this system is based on. The more I think about it, the more it seems aggrandizing of man and demeaning of our grand and glorious God.

How much more dispensational can one get than Ryrie? If you must make such assertions, it would be more credible if you at least tempered them with some limiting adjectives such as "some" or "many." Such broad brush assertions really only exacerbate the disagreements and fail to embrace the verity of the relationship between DT and CT.


Blessings,

.

 

[DonP]

Even if you understood it in the simpler sense of until the fullness. I do not see that there is anything after that.

ie. blindness until all the Gentiles come in then we are done.

It is the casting away of the Jews which has brought gospel salvation to the Gentiles. Paul speaks of something greater when the Jews are received.

Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off.

I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this.

"God hasn't cast off his people, He will save a whole bunch of them after all the Gentiles come in."

Or, "There will be a day that God will save all the Jews living at that time, in this way all Israel will be saved".

"...until the fullness of the Gentiles, then once again Israel shall have glory as the fleshly children of Abraham no matter how mix-bred by then, well as long as they ar at least 1/8 Abrahamic, or Judahish, God will open their eyes and they will want to believe and be saved.

No, Paul does not hold out any other hope for Jews or any man than salvation now.

I know I went waaaaay beyond your thinking, but not all Dispensationalists,
but 1st of all this interpretation, is inconsistent with Calvinism.

The Jews are no more blinded during the time of the Gentiles than any other unregenerate.

This blindness has happened or ( God has not chosen to save many Jews now) so that we his disciples are driven to the Gentiles to take the gospel to them.

We cannot take Paul's illustration of blindness beyond its intended implication. It was the means God used to get the gospel to the Gentiles.

To make more of this as some parenthesis and latter happenings goes beyond Paul's illustrative use of blindness.

We know ultimately that there is no blindness on the Jews but such as is common to all man. And what is really happening is that God is not opening the eyes of many Jews.
There is no blindness. It is a figure of speech. They are just plain old ordinary unwilling unregenerates.


So if Paul would not use the defense of God's character that you and the dispensationals use, why would you want to?

God is done with nations and races, there would be no reason or need.
He has fulfilled all His promises. And they were to the children of promise.

 

[MW]

Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off.

I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this.

He did say this:

Verse 5, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Verse 12, "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness."

The remnant was the result of the partial blindness of the nation, and led to the salvation of the Gentiles; their fulness is envisaged as something future which will bring even greater blessing to the world.

 

[DonP]

Could the something greater be the Jews currently being saved. As Paul was converted and uses the example that this is the proof God has not cast them off.

I would suggest, Paul had no idea of a later mass gathering or he would have said this.

He did say this:

Verse 5, "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Verse 12, "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness."

The remnant was the result of the partial blindness of the nation, and led to the salvation of the Gentiles; their fulness is envisaged as something future which will bring even greater blessing to the world.

Yes, their fullness is those being saved at this present time. It is the full, complete number of all of them who get saved at this present time and going forth in this same manner.

Come on now
Nothing here about masses later.

Fullness does not mean a one time mass number.
It does not mean all living in Jerusalem at some time.

It simply means:
So much more when their complete number has entered just as the fullness of the gentiles has entered.

So does fullness of Gentiles mean some later masses of Gentiles conversions??

Don't you feel the need to be consistent here with the meaning of fullness?

 

[Wannabee]

Dear Scott,

What you present is not necessary for dispensationalism. Please consider carefully the fact that you present your view as absolute though evidence has been given to refute your claims. And you claim to be able to label a group that you are not a part of and tell them what they are to think in order to be a part of that group. Does not this strike you as at least a little bit arrogant? But, you are right, I don't fit your definition. There's not much more I can say on this. I will ask, at least once more brother, that you consider that not all dispensationalists can fit into the box you have built for them.



Dear Kevin,

You really are awesome.
This thread is all over the map, eh? Your observations are pretty valid, other than forcing the literal aspect of it a bit. Note that I said that "I" take it literally. I certainly don't have the lid down on this stuff, as is evidenced in my previous posts.

I do take the 144k literally. And I take the 1000 literally. And, you know as well as I that "angel" and "messenger" are the same word. I really don't know what that entails. Is there imagery in that? I dunno. And, yes, I would take the sickle as figurative because of the imagery. And, no, Jesus is not a literal door. And I don't pluck my eyes out so I can avoid hell. But I don't think the Song of Songs is about the church either, though there is some valid application. If you go back to my post that pointed out the literal aspect of my hermeneutic it also made linguistic devices a part of that literalism. Of course, you already know that, but are trying to make a point.

So, we all land somewhere. You take 1k figuratively or symbolically and I take it to be a literal 1000 years. In fact, if the article were not there in both the millennium and the 144k I would be hard pressed to do so. But I accept it at face value because I am persuaded that such language necessitates it, whether I fully grasp the ramifications or not; and I don't.

And you do see the rapture, but not from the same perspective. You even quoted the verse that makes it clear that some sort of rapture takes place. My point in my post was that I have not espoused a seven year tribulation, which you linked to another post of mine. I was simply attempting to make that clarification.

Whether my understanding is correct or not there is one thing we both agree on; we can both rejoice in and look forward to the return of Christ. I look forward to meeting you here, there or in the air (I just had to say that ). May He come swiftly.


Blessings,

 

[MW]

Yes, their fullness is those being saved at this present time. It is the full, complete number of all of them who get saved at this present time and going forth in this same manner.

The apostle specifically says of the present time that the remnant is being saved, explains that this is due to partial blindness or blindness "of the parts," and contrasts this with a fulness which shall mean nothing less than life from the dead for the world.

Yes, the fulness of the Gentiles refers to the nations in their fulness and not simply as remnants turning to the Lord, as is testified in many passages of the Old Testament.

 

[kalawine]

MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's apologia for Christ found in Acts 7.

But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"

N.B.: 'congregation' is ekklesia in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English

He wants an old testament verse

OK... he wants not only ONE verse but he demands an Old Testament verse. Hmmm... and at which seminary did he study hermeneutics? Or (the answer to) a much more horrifying question might be: at which seminary does he TEACH hermeneutics?

 

[Turtle]

Mr. Riddlebarger, in his book, The Case for Amillennialism, p. 33

Everyone has presuppositions which color how they read the Scriptures. The assumption that any one of these millennial views is the result of a straightforward, unbiased reading of Scripture is overly simplistic... Presuppositions are especially problematic is they go unstated and even more so if people don't believe they have any.

Overall, this book is helpful, even refreshing in the way it facilitates understanding of these difficult issues.

Yes, Scott, the hope of my previous post was to propose/embark on a way past the unending discussions of presupositions (and maybe hermenuetics?) of which you, and the author you cite, speak of. Even the best of authors or proponents of DT, CT or millenial views are all essentially sencondary sources, and cannot prove themsleves or disprove others (not by their own summaries and statements). If we doubt the inability of a secondary source to be authoritative, just imagine if a lawyer showed up to probate with a very good summary or paraphrase of the last will and testament of a very rich uncle. We have the book able to shed the light on errors, incuding presups (and our own, even if they dwell in our joints).

By asking a focused question (such as kingdom now or not yet) we can be more confident to find a text that explicitly speaks to the question we ask it. If we read a single text and then expand the question to address DT, CT, or milenial views then we may be expecting too much. We have to at least be aware we changed our question or maybe didn’t explore the one we at first intended.

Bryan
.
.
.
.

 

[Scott1]

Wannabee

Dear Scott,

What you present is not necessary for dispensationalism. Please consider carefully the fact that you present your view as absolute though evidence has been given to refute your claims. And you claim to be able to label a group that you are not a part of and tell them what they are to think in order to be a part of that group...

It's not really about labeling a group at all... it's about defining our terms.

Dispensationalism has been defined by those who hold to it and it is what it is- a framework for viewing different ways of salvation at different of man's time periods and redemption separation of those with some Jewish ancestry from the Body of Christ.

Dispensationalism has been changed and watered down considerably since its introduction in the late 1800's because it is so inconsistent with scripture and logically inconsistent.

It is not merely or even primarily about whether one believes there will be a future redemptive work, on the basis of Christ, among people with some Jewish ethnicity.

With dispensationalism, as a framework for interpreting the whole of scripture having been defined sufficiently here on this thread, it has become clear that what you are holding to... is not really dispensationalism. You describe a few aspects of it, but mainly you are agreeing the substantive covenantal framework points (which are logically inconsistent with the dispensational framework).

That's not a criticism, just a point of observation. What you describe is mostly covenantal with some significant unresolved dispensational attributes mixed in. They are not consistent with the whole of the dispensational system, and cannot be wished into being so.

This is a matter of defining our terms and the presuppositions of the systematic approach being used. I would submit that what you have been posting is more consistent with covenant theology than with dispensationalism

 

[kceaster]

Dear Scott,

What you present is not necessary for dispensationalism. Please consider carefully the fact that you present your view as absolute though evidence has been given to refute your claims. And you claim to be able to label a group that you are not a part of and tell them what they are to think in order to be a part of that group. Does not this strike you as at least a little bit arrogant? But, you are right, I don't fit your definition. There's not much more I can say on this. I will ask, at least once more brother, that you consider that not all dispensationalists can fit into the box you have built for them.



Dear Kevin,

You really are awesome.
This thread is all over the map, eh? Your observations are pretty valid, other than forcing the literal aspect of it a bit. Note that I said that "I" take it literally. I certainly don't have the lid down on this stuff, as is evidenced in my previous posts.

I do take the 144k literally. And I take the 1000 literally. And, you know as well as I that "angel" and "messenger" are the same word. I really don't know what that entails. Is there imagery in that? I dunno. And, yes, I would take the sickle as figurative because of the imagery. And, no, Jesus is not a literal door. And I don't pluck my eyes out so I can avoid hell. But I don't think the Song of Songs is about the church either, though there is some valid application. If you go back to my post that pointed out the literal aspect of my hermeneutic it also made linguistic devices a part of that literalism. Of course, you already know that, but are trying to make a point.

So, we all land somewhere. You take 1k figuratively or symbolically and I take it to be a literal 1000 years. In fact, if the article were not there in both the millennium and the 144k I would be hard pressed to do so. But I accept it at face value because I am persuaded that such language necessitates it, whether I fully grasp the ramifications or not; and I don't.

And you do see the rapture, but not from the same perspective. You even quoted the verse that makes it clear that some sort of rapture takes place. My point in my post was that I have not espoused a seven year tribulation, which you linked to another post of mine. I was simply attempting to make that clarification.

Whether my understanding is correct or not there is one thing we both agree on; we can both rejoice in and look forward to the return of Christ. I look forward to meeting you here, there or in the air (I just had to say that ). May He come swiftly.


Blessings,

I completely agree with everything you said except for your statement that I am awesome. I can assure you, I'm not...

In Christ,

KC

 

[Wannabee]

Thank you Kevin.



Dear Scott,

Perhaps you missed the definition Ryrie supplied, which is consistent with what I've submitted. Here's another:

Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church. [NOTE: He goes on to say that this is not in regard to salvation]
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

To be fair, it does appear that Ryrie's definition is a bit reactionary. He obviously distances himself from Scofield in many respects. Block and Blaising's book is helpful too, particularly the conclusion (though some attempt at defining is in the intro). Incidently, they point out the challenges of narrowing dispensationalism down because of its lack of a confession too. But they also note that defining dispensationalism does not necessitate the inclusion of Scofieldism because of its development since his writings. And they call "Lindseyism" (nice word I'd not seen before) as a derivative of dispensationalism, but not necessary by any means.
Perhaps the absence of a clear confession is much of the problem. Of course, there are many confessions associated with covenantalism. But which one is an accurate representative? And even the LBC 89 can be accepted by many dispensationalists. So is the unity really as present as supposed? Either way, what would be different from the LBC 89 if it were dispensational? Perhaps the hermeneutic would be defined. The eschatological future of ethnic Israel would be a part of it. The focus on the glory of God is inherent in the confession already. Would it go on to attempt to propose two means of salvation though, as you see as non-negotiably inherent in dispensationalism? I don't think so. And, if it did, then I would know I wasn't dispensational.
I don't wear the label because I covet it. I shunned it for a long while. However, as this definition came up repeatedly I realized I could not deny it. It's my hermeneutic. God's glory is central. I do perceive that Scripture teaches a future for national Israel. It may be that progressive dispensationalist fits better. Perhaps history will show that you are right. For now, I am persuaded that you are not and that you impose your understanding of much that is wrong with dispensationalists as endemic to dispensationalism.

-----Added 7/23/2009 at 11:51:05 EST-----

Perhaps, Scott, you could query me on what is central to covenantalism in order to realize that I am decidedly not a covenantalist. Are not the covenant of works and covenant of grace, two extrabiblical terms, inherent in covenantalism? Do covenantalists see the New Covenant as a "renewed covenant"? If, as you say, I am not a dispensationalist; And if, as you say, there is no middle ground; then I have a huge problem, because I find myself in the middle according to your terms.

 

[Scott1]

Wannabee
Mr. Ryrie is quoted as saying:

Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church. [NOTE: He goes on to say that this is not in regard to salvation]
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

You've posted there is no different way of redemption in dispensationalism yet point#1 is that, a different means of redemption for one group verses another. Language like "different program" cannot hide that fact. It's like saying all people who are pro-life are not anti-abortion. Dispensationalism cannot say... "there's a different (redemptive) program, but not in relation to salvation."

You've accepted that dispensationalism does not always use "a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation." It does so when when it suits the framework and is done so without interpretation of the latter revelation in the New Testament. This is a larger error in the dispensational framework.

Dispensationalism is focused on man's time periods, how man was tested, how he reacted... not centered on the glory of God, despite Mr. Ryrie's (defensive) claims to the contrary. That's why in Arminian influenced churches, the broadly evangelical ones, dispensationalism is by far predominate.

Covenant theology is, above all centered on the glory of God, beginning with a covenant among the three persons of the Trinity to bring forth redemption and justice (covenant of redemption). Covenant theology begins and ends with that focus.

Dispensationalism begins with (man's) time periods, testings of man (which man failed), failed Kingdoms (why Jesus had to leave the earth because the Jewish nation rejected Him), and ends with 1,000 years (on man's Julian?) calendar for the real Kingdom...all because after all dispensationalism is not centered on the glory of God. That doesn't mean it doesn't mention the glory of God or acknowledge it, but it is not central to the dispensational framework.

As a final summary, you are not defining dispensationalism as it is. The London Baptist Confession of Faith is not dispensational and could not be, so asking hypothetically what something might be does not justify dispensationalism.

There are reasons none of the historic creeds reflect a dispensational framework and that is that it does not flow naturally and consistently from a reading of the whole of God's revealed will through Scripture.

I think we have covered the basic points here now sufficiently and those following have a basis for evaluating this biblically so will not address them further here.

You may want to start another thread on what you are now calling "progressive dispensationalism," define that and defend it. I think we all would recognize that is not what Dr. MacArthur holds to ("progressive dispensationalism") so it might be helpful to address that in a new thread.

 

[Wannabee]

You've attempted to do a summary post like this already, but continue with erroneous statements that should be addressed. So, I'm glad you've decided not to address them further here. I don't expect to win. But much fo the problem is that many covenantalists can't even say "dispenstationalism" without clenching their teeth and spewing it out as though just saying it would sully their souls. Much of this is due to mischaracterization within the reformed camp and among those who, if any, should recognize that they are nothing but for the grace of God illuminating the truth so that they could understand it. And central to the argumentation put forth in this thread has been a focus on peripheral issues in an effort to discredit all dispensationalists in one fell swoop. You, Scott, have been gracious in this discussion. But you have also presented yourself as the expert on dispensationalism and, in fact, have shown great prejudice in how you perceive it. Unfortunately much of the validity of what you have stated is lost in the perceived necessity to construct a dispensationalism box.
Obviously, in regard to this, I am a lone voice on this forum. But I have come to love the people here and care about what is said. So, against overwhelming odds, I have attempted to offer some balance and help others here understand that they have brethren who are also dispensationalists and love Christ just as much, or more, than they do; and are just as faithful, if not more, than they are. May we all resist the temptation toward elitism. It is with this in mind that I find it necessary to continue to point out erroneous accusations.

You've posted there is no different way of redemption in dispensationalism yet point#1 is that, a different means of redemption for one group verses another. Language like "different program" cannot hide that fact. It's like saying all people who are pro-life are not anti-abortion. Dispensationalism cannot say... "there's a different (redemptive) program, but not in relation to salvation."

You impose "redemptive" to assert a point. And as far as how the future of Israel relates to salvation, I think Matthew, clearly a covenantalist, did a much better job of explaining that in this thread than I ever could. Did God have a different plan for Moses than David? How about Joseph and Noah? Of course He did. Just because He works differently in the lives of different people does not necessitate alternate means of salvation.

You've accepted that dispensationalism does not always use "a consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation."

No, I didn't. I noted that many, if not most, dispensationalists are inconsistent in their application of the dispensational hermeneutic. The point is quite different.

Dispensationalism is focused on man's time periods, how man was tested, how he reacted... not centered on the glory of God, despite Mr. Ryrie's (defensive) claims to the contrary. That's why in Arminian influenced churches, the broadly evangelical ones, dispensationalism is by far predominate.

Again, this is historically accurate but not necessary for dispensationalism. It's interesting that you don't allow for the development of dispensationalistic thought even though covenantalism, as a system, is relatively new as well (generously, certainly less than 400 years old).

Dispensationalism begins with (man's) time periods, testings of man (which man failed), failed Kingdoms (why Jesus had to leave the earth because the Jewish nation rejected Him), and ends with 1,000 years (on man's Julian?) calendar for the real Kingdom...all because after all dispensationalism is not centered on the glory of God. That doesn't mean it doesn't mention the glory of God or acknowledge it, but it is not central to the dispensational framework.

Isn't or wasn't. You describe many dispensationalists well. But you continue painting with a broad brush. Furthermore, many covenantalists are premillennial, undermining your assertion.

I think we have covered the basic points here now sufficiently and those following have a basis for evaluating this biblically so will not address them further here.

Good, this has grown tedious, hasn't it? No, you don't have to answer that question...

You may want to start another thread on what you are now calling "progressive dispensationalism," define that and defend it. I think we all would recognize that is not what Dr. MacArthur holds to ("progressive dispensationalism") so it might be helpful to address that in a new thread.

I have no intention of doing so...

 

[kalawine]

MacArthur wants one verse? Verse headings or divisions are not inspired so how about a whole sermon? Stephen's apologia for Christ found in Acts 7.

But if one verse is needed how about Acts 7:38? "This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us"

N.B.: 'congregation' is ekklesia in the Greek, or the word we translate as 'church' in English

He wants an old testament verse

OK... he wants not only ONE verse but he demands an Old Testament verse. Hmmm... and at which seminary did he study hermeneutics? Or (the answer to) a much more horrifying question might be: at which seminary does he TEACH hermeneutics?

Friends,
I have received a private message from someone who is offended by the post that I made above and called it unchristian. I would like to apologize for any MacArthur fans for my sarcasm (which was meant to be humorous). I am aware that MacArthur is a great teacher and I'm glad he is among us especially with most TV and radio preachers we have today. The purpose of my post was to point out that I don't believe he uses good hermeneutics in the case where he wants one verse from the Old Testament to prove or disprove a doctrine.

 

[MW]

It's interesting that you don't allow for the development of dispensationalistic thought even though covenantalism, as a system, is relatively new as well (generously, certainly less than 400 years old).

I'm sure Justin Martyr would be flattered to be considered so young.

 

[Wannabee]

It's interesting that you don't allow for the development of dispensationalistic thought even though covenantlism, as a system, is relatively new as well (generously, certainly less than 400 years old).

I'm sure Justin Martyr would be flattered to be considered so young.

That was funny. You're talking about the premil church father, right?

Although the idea of the covenant existed since the early church, particularly in Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Augustine, covenant theology was first systematized during the Reformation. Ulrich Zwingli, Henry Bullinger, Zacharias Ursinus, Caspar Olevianus, Francis Turretin, John Preston, and William Ames were some of the early Reformation and poormation covenant scholars. - source

Not that this quote is authoritative. But it does show a covenantalist who did not see the systemization of CT until the reformation. It is true that Justin Martyr shows some infant form of covenantalism in his writing, particularly his Dialogue with Trypho. But claiming that he had a systemetized understanding is quite a stretch. I must admit, however, that the claims that his premillennial perspective is in any way related to dispensationalism is a bit embarrassing.

 

[DonP]

Not all who call themselves dispensationalists agree as much as they used to.

When Scofield and Darby invented this approach to scripture anyone who agreed with it followed it, as it expanded and more study was done seeing its errors some have changed.

So there is what is historically Dispensational defined by its inventors.

There is that which more moderate Dsispensationals hold to.

So we should be careful not to say a man must think one way if he holds to parts of dispensationalsim.

But he must define his own breed of dispensationalism so he is not challenged on the other historical beliefs.

But I do not understand how Glory of God would be a distinctive anyway. Not only do I agree with what was written above about it being a man centered system but this concept is not novel.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?

Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.

So to me what is distinct about Disp is

1. It forces literal where possible, except when this contradicts #2 or our presuppositions

2. The church is a parenthesis in God's dealing with Israel, His main program.

So I do not how you can consistently see them as one body of believers. Most Dispensationalists I have talked to don't. And they are stumped as to what to say when I ask the question.

If you do, then I say you are learning more and more in the word and god is drawing you away from dispensationalism, as I said earlier, I think you are covenantal, you just have some reservations that have not been answered yet.

You are distinct from most dispensationals. I hope more and more of them are thinking as you do. I praise God for that and am glad you enjoy the discussions here and appreciate that you have been willing to put up with our rough explanations as you explained your position.

I am not even sure you would agree with my statement above that Israel was His main plan. Maybe equal parts of His plan.

But I hope one day you and others will see the church is just the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to make him a father of many nations, starting with Issace and Jacob then the 12 tribes on to the Israelites and then to the entire the world. And it was never for the Israelites alone they were to gather others in who would be circumcised. Now after the messiah comes, we shift from types to remembrances, and continue the same gospel of obey the law or die, or make use of the sacrifice of the messiah.

We are Jews. We are Jews by faith, or proselytes as in the OT, Jews of The Way. The sect of Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

The fact is just more Gentiles became proselytes at this time, eventually after some discussion, where the Jews began realizing this was the prophecy and promise to them all along, lots of Gentiles coming in.

The same plan. The same gospel of a messiah to come who will be king and redeem the people from sin, and make them all into one temple.

The Jews had the same struggle Dispensationalists do today. It was hard for them to accept the Gentiles coming into the people of God.

This is the full development of the promises to Israel. Israel was to become all nations.

The only thing that throws Dispensationalists is that this expansion began in mass and focus at the time Christ came and many Jews rejected it.
This did not change anything really. It was what the Jews should have expected and things just continued on the same. Just the types that foreshadow the messiah stop naturally as the reality appears and are replaced by new symbols and signs.

All else continues the same;
the fact some Jews disbelieved does not annul the promises before.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. NKJV

The promise still is in effect. Israel continues to expand as promised to many nations.

The promise is confusing because it was never to the ethnic Jews, but to those of the Seed. Not the ethnic seed, but the Seed Christ. So the promise was only to those in Christ, not those of flesh.

So, (in this way) all Israel Shall be saved.

Whether a lot of Jews or Italians are saved somewhere in the future will not affect the promise or the plan or the one original covenant that is still in effect.

God making Abraham a father of many nations starting with the nation of Israel first through the faith in Christ.

So for those Dispensationalists who know Jews were saved by faith not works, this should be the Literal interpretation of the NT.

As far as this being new thinking because it was codified by Westminster, they only codified what the church had believed all along. This was not new.
This was incidental and completely accepted before.

It only became noteworthy as heretics opposed it. And it was no doubt taught all along in the church, by word, prior to the invention of printing.

God did preserve His word, and He preserved its understanding else there would be no point to preserve the word. The word is so the people understand.

The church was not teaching a false gospel for 2000 years until Ryrie saves us with a dispensational view and Carnal christian gospel as an excuse to preserve the obvious failure of his system to have converts who are holy in lifestyle.
See: Balancing the christian Life. At least he says one is a false gospel.

Let the scriptures determine which one.
Matt 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' NKJV

Luke 6:46 "And why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? NASB

The answer is not, because you are a carnal christian, it is because they are unconverted. They have not turned away from the worldly life.
1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. NKJV

 

[MW]

Not that this quote is authoritative. But it does show a covenantalist who did not see the systemization of CT until the reformation. It is true that Justin Martyr shows some infant form of covenantalism in his writing, particularly his Dialogue with Trypho. But claiming that he had a systemetized understanding is quite a stretch. I must admit, however, that the claims that his premillennial perspective is in any way related to dispensationalism is a bit embarrassing.

I doubt Justin can be claimed for the premil view as his "literalistic" language simply echoes the language of Scripture without placing a theological interpretation on it. What is clear is that he was not dispensational but clearly covenantal in the way he viewed the Old Testament's continuity in the New Testament and especially the relation of Israel to the Church. It is of course to be expected that this covenantalism lacked systematisation because this was an early period in the church's history where there was little to no systematic treatment of any doctrine.

 

[Wannabee]

No, not dispensational. But clearly premillennial.

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. (Dialogue ch. 80)

For Isaiah spake 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...
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. (Dialogue - ch. 81)


Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Dialogue of Justin, 239.​

Don, I think this shows that your understanding of the literal aspect of dispensationalism is slightly off. Justin Martyr, along with many other church fathers, saw a future millennial reign which included the Israelites. Would you see them as imposing a dispensational presupposition as well?

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 09:46:29 EST-----

This, from Schaff (a postmillennialist), is interesting.

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it.

History of the Christian Church, II.XII.158 - Chiliasm

 

[MW]

No, not dispensational. But clearly premillennial.

Premillennial = Christ returns before the millennium. Certainly Justin speaks in a "literalistic" manner concerning the millennium, but where does he bring this into a specific relationship to the second coming of Christ?

 

[Wannabee]

I see what you're saying. It would seem to be self evident. Perhaps 1 Thes 4:16 helps.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.


Perhaps I misunderstand, but this seems to show the chronology he speaks of when he says, "there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged..." I thought it was well received that Justin, and many of the early church fathers, were premil. It's obviously well received with many who are not premil.

-----Added 7/24/2009 at 11:03:02 EST-----

At the beginning of chapter 81 Justin quotes Trypho:

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?

This is the context of the above quote, to which Justin graciously replied:

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.

This testimony does point to premillennialism, even made more evident by the nature of his defense.

 

[MW]

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this seems to show the chronology he speaks of when he says, "there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged..."

Then what do you make of this statement? "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."

I think it is inevitable that an ancient writer will be misunderstood where a consistent exegetical theology by modern standards is thrust upon his statements.

 

[Wannabee]

I would take that to mean the White Throne Judgment. It seems consistent to me. But, you may have a point. It is difficult to get into the mind of a man who thought and wrote in a different language, time and culture with consistent accuracy.

 

[MW]

I would take that to mean the White Throne Judgment. It seems consistent to me. But, you may have a point. It is difficult to get into the mind of a man who thought and wrote in a different language, time and culture with consistent accuracy.

Yes; what is undeniable is his literalistic millennialism, but without a correlating statement which relates that millennialism to the second coming of Christ we are left without a clear marker which can identify his view as pre- or post- millennialism.