Is dispensationalism another gospel?

[turmeric]

Most people are not elect - the Church is a mixed body - and some Reformed people are not saved either. I am convinced that Dispensationalism is a collection of errors, some very serious. They border on the theology of Marcion, especially the old-line Dispensationalists, also they brought elements of perfectionism, i.e.the carnal christian, into Dispensationalism from the outset. However, I'm convinced many of them are Christians.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The history of dispensationalism is very revealing as to its orthodoxy. It is quite right to trace the origins of modern dispensationalism to the 1830's Plymouth Brethren movement. What many people do not know, however, is that there were two Jesuit theologians (one in the 16th century, Francisco de Ribera, and one in the 18th century, Manuel Lacunza Y Díaz) who were, as far I can tell, the first to advocate some of the major aspects of modern dispensational eschatology. Jesuit and Plymouth Brethren (the anti-PB crowd, as it were) origins are not likely to add up to rightly dividing the word of God.

Here are some resources on the history of dispensationalism:

http://www.founders.org/FJ09/article1.html

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/dispensationalism.html

http://mikeblume.com/dispen.htm

http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/history/Timeline.htm

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/dispensationalism.html (beware other aspects of this website)

http://www.lmn.org/magazine/170/Jesuits.html

 

[Average Joey]

I believe it is going through changes that is leading it to possibly become another gospel.

 

[Craig]

there are many kinds of dispensationalism...some of it is rank heresy and a denial of the gospel...others are just error, or silly. MacArthur has the gospel right, for instance. Most Dispensationalists seem to be only eschatologically Dispensational, and not on other parts. The church as a whole doesn't know how to understand the "old" covenant in light of the "new", and make a false dichotomy between them...so I can't lump too many Dispensationalists into the "false gospel" section unless they deny sola gratia and sola fide.

 

[SmokingFlax]

Quote:

"Can a dispensationalist church have the three marks of a church?

I think so, if in flawed form.

We need to also remember that it was our Dispensational brethren, with all their flaws, that did the lions share of the heavy lifting in defending the doctrine of inerrancy."

Fred...
These are really good points.
What are these three marks that you've mentioned? I need to know this, my ecclesiology is horrendous.

The inerrancy issue was (and still is) HUGE in my experience as to where I would attend church. I would rather put up with the charismatic nonsense in a church that reveres the Word as perfect than attend these modern glee clubs that subvert Scripture with modernist pretensions.

As I stated in one of my first posts on the board...Reformed theology has HORRIBLE advertising.

I'm certain that there are plenty of folks out there who are sitting in Dispensational churches all the while retaining a healthy dose of skepticism within themselves (just like me) but figuring that at least they're not putting their right hand of fellowship in with unbelieving religionists in the liberal churches -yet at the same time deeply discontent with the state of the church.

I think (hope) that the medium of the internet will, like Gutenberg's printing press, be a tool that will eventually lead to a dissemination of Gospel truth that will rock the foundations of our corrupt institutions -just like the 16th and 17th centuries.

I know that it is primarily because of the internet that I came into the reformed perspective.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I know that it is primarily because of the internet that I came into the reformed perspective.

Me too! The Lord definately used something I loved to do to lead me to the truth!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SmokingFlax

Fred...
These are really good points.
What are these three marks that you've mentioned? I need to know this, my ecclesiology is horrendous.

The inerrancy issue was (and still is) HUGE in my experience as to where I would attend church.

The marks are:

1. Proper preaching of the Word
2. Proper administration of the sacraments
3. Exercise of biblical discipline
   [/list=1]
   And by "proper," it is not meant perfect. I agree about the inerrancy, sufficiency issue. That is a reason why I would attend a conservative, Dispensationalist Church before a "Reformed" charismatic church. Non-cessationism strikes at the vitals of the doctrine of Scripture.

 

[ANT]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The marks are:

1. Proper preaching of the Word
2. Proper administration of the sacraments
3. Exercise of biblical discipline
   [/list=1]
   And by "proper," it is not meant perfect.

1. 
   
   #1 - The proper preaching of the word.
   
   I know that I'm not looking for perfect preaching. But when the preaching contains Israel receiving earthly promises while the church receiving the spiritual ... and everything else that follows ... would this still be classified as proper preaching of the Word?
   
   And what about when they preach for weeks at a time about the rapture along with their eschatalogical scheme. Would that be considered proper preaching of the Word?
   
   [Edited on 12-18-2004 by ANT]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ANT

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The marks are:

1. Proper preaching of the Word
2. Proper administration of the sacraments
3. Exercise of biblical discipline
   [/list=1]
   And by "proper," it is not meant perfect.

1. 
   
   #1 - The proper preaching of the word.
   
   I know that I'm not looking for perfect preaching. But when the preaching contains Israel receiving earthly promises while the church receiving the spiritual ... and everything else that follows ... would this still be classified as proper preaching of the Word?
   
   And what about when they preach for weeks at a time about the rapture along with their eschatalogical scheme. Would that be considered proper preaching of the Word?
   
   [Edited on 12-18-2004 by ANT]

1. 
   
   In a word, Yes. There is no denial of essential doctrines. Arminian Churches are true churches as well

 

[ReformedWretch]

Is dispensationalism the only doctrine that teaches there are "different types" of gospels?

Like this:

1) Gospel of the kingdom (OT and trib) -- regards Christ's kingdom coming to earth for the justification of "all Israel."

2) Gospel of grace (NT and MK) -- regards justification in Christ and sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

3) Everlasting gospel (Age of ages, eternity) -- regards the glorified state which succeeds justification and sanctification. It regards the completion of the plan of salvation.

 

[FrozenChosen]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Can a dispensationalist church have the three marks of a church?

I think so, if in flawed form.

We need to also remember that it was our Dispensational brethren, with all their flaws, that did the lions share of the heavy lifting in defending the doctrine of inerrancy.

 

[tdowns]

In a word, Yes. There is no denial of essential doctrines. Arminian Churches are true churches as well [/quote]


I guess I'm confused, How are Arminian doctrines proper teaching of the word, and how can they be a true church? I've heard them called sects. But it just seems Arminianism is different gospel? Is it wrong to say that then?
If Arminianism is not a different gospel, then is RC? When I read Romes catechism on salvation, sounds alot like Arminianism to me. God is totally Soveriegn, but, he works through man's choices. I'll quote tomorrow, don't have the RC catechism with me right now. I know RC has a plethora of other issues, but It alwasy seemed to me, that bottom line on salvation, it's all God, but, you have to work it out or else... Just like the Calvary guys saying, "We believe in faith alone, but, you better stay out of sin or else...

sincere questions, not challenges. One minute I get the feeling that Armins are near false gospel, then I hear they can be a true church?

TD

 

[ANT]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by ANT

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The marks are:

1. Proper preaching of the Word
2. Proper administration of the sacraments
3. Exercise of biblical discipline
   [/list=1]
   And by "proper," it is not meant perfect.

1. 
   
   #1 - The proper preaching of the word.
   
   I know that I'm not looking for perfect preaching. But when the preaching contains Israel receiving earthly promises while the church receiving the spiritual ... and everything else that follows ... would this still be classified as proper preaching of the Word?
   
   And what about when they preach for weeks at a time about the rapture along with their eschatalogical scheme. Would that be considered proper preaching of the Word?
   
   [Edited on 12-18-2004 by ANT]

1. 
   
   In a word, Yes. There is no denial of essential doctrines. Arminian Churches are true churches as well

1. 
   
   So as long as no essential doctrines are compromised, all the error in the world can be classified as proper preaching of the Word? I'm confused!
   
   I'm not trying to be divisive, but this really does not make sense to me. I do not see how the preaching of error can be classified as the proper preaching of the Word.
   
   [Edited on 12-21-2004 by ANT]

 

[Scott Bushey]

This side of Heaven, everyone's theology is erred in some capacity. Based upon the premise that erred preaching is excluding, virtually everyone would be outside looking in. Orthodox Chrisitianity is based upon Gods word. History, by and large has been the proverbial thermometer for Gods people. That which is dross, has been sifted out of the body. The main elements Fred has spoken of are those central tenets that must be present in preaching in order for someone to be considered within orthodoxy.

Justification by faith alone is the centrality of reformed belief.

Rome: Denies jusitification by faith alone, are generally Arminian in their preaching, believes in baptismal regeneration (to a degree).

Rome vs present day evangelicalism: Rome is more of a truer Arminiansm. The Roman Catholic believes they are justified by many of their works. The present day evangelical does not generally believe this, hence they do not deny justification by faith alone.


[Edited on 12-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[fredtgreco]

There is a LOT more to Rome than Arminianism. Rome's errors are in every area of theology: soteriology, ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc. Basically, the only thing Rome has right is the Trinity.

 

[ANT]

I'm still looking for the answer to this ....

"So as long as no essential doctrines are compromised, all the error in the world can be classified as proper preaching of the Word? I'm confused!

I'm not trying to be divisive, but this really does not make sense to me. I do not see how the preaching of error can be classified as the proper preaching of the Word."







So, what I'm understanding so far ... is ... As long as a church, in it's statement of faith agrees to the essential doctrines (even if they are not actively preaching them from the pulpit that day, week, or month) they can teach on anything they would like, be it man centered or describing how Israel and the church have two different plans in God's economy, or creation by means of evolution. Then we as good reformed believers are to recognize that there is error in all of us and still be able to say to the people who are wrapped up in these errors that they are under the proper preaching of the Word?

I could never with a good conscience see or hear error being taught and call that the proper preaching of God's Word, for that would be violating my own conscience. I could however, acknowledge truth in an errant message saying that there was truth in the message, but still not be able to call it the proper preaching of God's Word.

Could you honestly sit through a sermon that contained nothing but known errors and afterwards tell the people you sat next to that you were glad you came to hear the proper preaching of the Word just because you know they hold to the essentials?

Please help me understand what we can call the proper preaching of the Word if this is not the case?

[Edited on 12-21-2004 by ANT]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Anthony,
There is a difference between a sound sermon and that which foundates the sermon. Poor teachers are rampant. Most of the church today has poorly educated leaders. Does every sermon have the essentials of the Chrisitian faith in them? No. Does this alone remove them from orthodoxy? No. Do we as reformed men and woman applaud the poorly educated teachers that are ramnpant today-also No! A former pastor of yours and mine; should he be teaching? No. Is he heretical? No. He is just poorly educated in the things of God. He needs reprogramming. Is he orthodox? In the main tenets, yes.

I guess if these men were to preach on the main tenets of our faith solely, they might be found to be in a much more sound zone than when they do not preach solely on these tenets. It is sad that most preachers today lack the needful knowledge to properly organize their sermons so that they are fully aligned with Gods word and principles.

[Edited on 12-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ANT]

I totally understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to argue that they are outside the orthodox teachings of the church. But I am saying, when there are poorly prepared sermons, with little or no true knowledge of what the Bible teaches in them, in fact they are filled with known errors that can easily be disputed and proven by the Word. I cannot with a pure conscience call these sermons, or say that these teachers are properly preaching the Word of God.

Can I get a definition of what the meaning of properly preaching the Word is? Does it only concern the essentials? Where was it formulated and by whom? How does the definition of properly preaching the Word handle sermons that do not touch essential doctrines but are filled with 'minor' errant teachings all the way through them?

I know there is a difference between calling someone a heretic and a false teacher. I am not trying to change that. My main question is to how a person can say that a srmon full of errors can still be called proper preaching of the Word? This is where I need help.

I just do not want to see compromise invade the reformed position, accepting a little error in the teaching of God's Word and calling it the proper preaching of the Word will truly lead to accepting big errors and calling it the proper preaching of the Word.




[Edited on 12-21-2004 by ANT]

 

[ANT]

Here's another thought .... If dispensationalist teach this end times schedule based on their hermeneutics, which incorporates everything from ecclesiology to soteriology. They teach that Israel and the Church are not the same and that the pre-trib rapture and the seven year tribulation is a fact that could happen any time. Then would they not falsely be proclaiming what God's Word teaches. Would this not put them in the same camp as false prohets, declaring false things about the Word of God and leading the people of God into error.

... just a thought, I'm not passing judgment on them as false prophets.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Anthony,
Is John MacArthur a heretic? A false Teacher? Why not? Also, as far as prophesy is concerned; There is a big difference between saying that Christ WILL return and Christ will return this Friday at 3 pm. What the Dispensationalists are saying is not neccesarily a private interpretation of scripture or a prohesy of thier own. They believe the scriptures teach (prophesy) this. We reformed KNOW Christ will return. The only difference between them and us is the fuller picture of the prophesy.


[Edited on 12-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ANT]

I'm still waiting for an answer on this ....

Originally posted by ANT
I totally understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to argue that they are outside the orthodox teachings of the church. But I am saying, when there are poorly prepared sermons, with little or no true knowledge of what the Bible teaches in them, in fact they are filled with known errors that can easily be disputed and proven by the Word. I cannot with a pure conscience call these sermons, or say that these teachers are properly preaching the Word of God.

Can I get a definition of what the meaning of properly preaching the Word is? Does it only concern the essentials? Where was it formulated and by whom? How does the definition of properly preaching the Word handle sermons that do not touch essential doctrines but are filled with 'minor' errant teachings all the way through them?

I know there is a difference between calling someone a heretic and a false teacher. I am not trying to change that. My main question is to how a person can say that a sermon full of errors can still be called proper preaching of the Word? This is where I need help.

I just do not want to see compromise invade the reformed position, accepting a little error in the teaching of God's Word and calling it the proper preaching of the Word will truly lead to accepting big errors and calling it the proper preaching of the Word.




[Edited on 12-21-2004 by ANT]

I never said John MacArthur is a heretic. I never even brought up his name. In fact I attend a dispensational church that has a reformed soteriology that is modeled after MacArthur's church. I do not agree with them, but I do not think them heretics. I was just throwing out something to think about. (That if the dispensationalists were teaching these errors as truths that can easily be disproved by the Word, would not that, somewhat put them in the same camp proclaiming things that are never going to happen and misleading the people of God?) Also, I know that we teach that Christ will come again in the future as well as that dispensationalists teach He will come again too.

Please help me in finding answers to what is quoted above. Thanks.





[Edited on 12-21-2004 by ANT]

 

[turmeric]

And I have some questions.

1) Is Rick Warren's thing another gospel?

2) Some have said that you must never leave a church as long as it has the marks of a true church. So if they're not screaming heretics of some kind, does that mean you're stuck in a Dispensational church if you're reformed? I feel like I was spiritually "stuck" for 5 years and have only come "unstuck" since finally deciding to attend a reformed church. Was I wrong to leave the Dispensational church?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Properly preaching the word is preaching that comprises orthodox standards that have been embraced by Christs church over the centuries. These are biblical standards and truths that the church has rested upon since the apostles, i.e. the Apostles Creed, our confessions, etc.

It is impossible to comprise all these fundamentals into every sermon preached. The church at Corinth had many errors, yet they held to the main tenets of the faith.

Anthony,
I was not implying that you said MacArthur was heretical; that is the point. He is not. He is dispensational, hence, according to your premise, he would be guilty then of leading the people of God astray. This is not true of MacArthur. Obviously, dispensationalism is not as easily dealt with as you imply or else the error would quickly cease, right?


[Edited on 12-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ANT]

I do agree that dispensationalist are misleading the people of God with their errors. I did not say that they were leading them away from the faith, or the essentials, just leading them into error. I think anyone would agree with me on that one.

I just stand firmly on this because, although I have been saved for 9 years, I was led into error for the first 4 years or so because of the 'Proper preaching of the Word' by the dispensationalist teaching I was under.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Anthony,
Did that preaching lead you astray in secondary ideas or main tenets, i.e., Justification is not by faith alone, We are saved by our works, one can lose their salvation, etc. ?

Saw your answer above..........ok.

I am not so shell shocked by the first 5 years of my walk. I was in the dark. I got a flashlight and ventured out. Much like yourself. Dispensationalism is error. There are worse things in my opinion. Unfortunately, it is an accepted theology and system. John MacArthur does not help the reformed cause. in my opinion, he is part of the problem.


[Edited on 12-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ANT]

I ansewed that in the above post

Originally posted by ANT
I do agree that dispensationalist are misleading the people of God with their errors. I did not say that they were leading them away from the faith, or the essentials, just leading them into error. I think anyone would agree with me on that one.

Can we not classify dispensationalism as error?

Sorry Scott, Just saw your post edited above. Please know that I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers, but I do appreciate the one on one.

[Edited on 12-21-2004 by ANT]

 

[Scott Bushey]

See my post above; I addended it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ANT
I ansewed that in the above post

Originally posted by ANT
I do agree that dispensationalist are misleading the people of God with their errors. I did not say that they were leading them away from the faith, or the essentials, just leading them into error. I think anyone would agree with me on that one.

Can we not classify dispensationalism as error?

I believe it is error, as does much of the reformed community. But what do you do with MacArthur and all of the men of God whom came out of DTS? They are not all a bunch of dimwits; they do have something to offer. Through the reformed glasses, they are erring. From their spectacles, we are.


Classic dispensationalism is not as bad as the present error. I believe Phillip Way (one of our mods) is a classic dispensationalist. To me, this is less error that what is being preached today. He would say it is not error.

http://www.geocities.com/jeremyandrobin/systemsoftheology.htm

Ultimately, these men are Gods people. Phillip Way and I are good friends; I love him and everything he brings here to this board. In many ways, hew is the grace we reformed need!

[Edited on 12-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ANT]

I always thought that classical dispensationalism was worse. I'll have to do more studying to see if these things are so. What is it about the newer forms that you see as having worse error?

By the way Scott, I also edited my last post after seeing yours.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I believe Phillip Way (one of our mods) is a classic dispensationalist. To me, this is less error that what is being preached today. He would say it is not error.

I thought Pastor Way use to be a dispensationalist, but now considers himself a historic premillenialist rather than a dispensationalist. They come to similar conclusions for different reasons. I could be wrong.