Help with Dispensationalism

[Wannabee]

I would suggest going back to this article.

What is Dispensationalism?

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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]

I would suggest going back to this article.

What is Dispensationalism?

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

And thanks be to the Lord for that.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would suggest going back to this article.

What is Dispensationalism?

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Cordially,

Thomas

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]

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

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]

Most church fathers were premil.

This is news to me.

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.

Crassness? Meaning an earthly fulfillment?

 

[RamistThomist]

This is news to me.

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.

Crassness? Meaning an earthly fulfillment?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.)

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.

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]

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.
...
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.

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]

 

[biblicalthought]

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]

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.