The number of ways of salvation, and how Dispensationalists can be mid- or post-trib

Status
Not open for further replies.

Confessor

Puritan Board Senior
(1) I was reading about dispensationalism tonight, and at this site I found the following quote:
All modern dispensationalists would argue for one plan of salvation (salvation by faith), yet some, like Charles Ryrie have argued for a salvation by faith, yet meaning by such a statement a salvation by faith in God, without any content of Christ.

How do dispensationalists hold to only one plan of salvation? I thought they were essentially forced by their system to speak of the Mosaic law as a way of justification.

(2) At the same site I saw this:
The Church is only a parenthetical period until God can get back to plan one, the kingdom. Therefore before God returns to unfurl plan one again, plan two must be brought to a close by the rapture of the Church from the earth. The rapture will be followed by a tribulation period (thus the Church's rapture is a pre-tribulation rapture), which will bring judgment on a Christ-rejecting Gentile world and the purification of His people, the nation of Israel.

It also said this:
It would be true to say that all dispensationalists are premillennialists, and that all dispensationalists are pretribulation rapturists.

The author affirms that all Dispensationalists are pre-trib rapturists, offering pretty solid reasoning for this. But I remember hearing elsewhere that Dispensationalists can be mid- or post-trib. Is this true, and if so, how is it the case?
 
I have not heard any dispie to be anything other then pre-trib rapture. The only ones that hold to mid or post are(from my understanding) usually historic premils.
 
My old prof, Bob Gundry (during his pre redaction days) authored a book arguing for a post-trib scenario based upon dispensational premises (I even helped proof the footnotes). For a time it created such a stir in the dispi seminaries that Walvoord devoted a year's worth of BibSac articles to rebuffing it. If memory serves me, Bob felt that Walvoord misquoted him, misrepresented him, and engaged in unscholarly slight of hand in dealing with him. Similarly, most mid-tribs I know are also dispi.

I think that it would be more fair to say that ONLY a dispensationalist would be pre-trib. One could, however, be dispi and be mid-trib, past-trib, or post-trib. I'm not arguing for internal consistency here; merely stating that most non-historic premils operate with dispensational hermeneutics, particularly with regard to prophecy. Daniel forces some of them into the mid-trib camp on "literal exegetical" grounds.
 
The author affirms that all Dispensationalists are pre-trib rapturists, offering pretty solid reasoning for this. But I remember hearing elsewhere that Dispensationalists can be mid- or post-trib. Is this true, and if so, how is it the case?

There are definitely post-trib Dispensationalists. IHOP (The International House of Prayer) is one post-trib Dispensational group. As to the "how," I would have to see the author's arguments because I don't know why post-trib dispensationalism wouldn't work.
 
(1) I was reading about dispensationalism tonight, and at this site I found the following quote:
All modern dispensationalists would argue for one plan of salvation (salvation by faith), yet some, like Charles Ryrie have argued for a salvation by faith, yet meaning by such a statement a salvation by faith in God, without any content of Christ.

How do dispensationalists hold to only one plan of salvation? I thought they were essentially forced by their system to speak of the Mosaic law as a way of justification.

Ben, I would advise you to read some Dispensational theology. Your perception isn't even close to representing the system, especially not for the last 50 years. No Dispensationalist of whom I am aware ever unequivocally stated that there were multiple grounds of justification, yet I have repeatedly seen that asserted in Reformed critiques. A few Dispensationalists did make some statements in that direction, but it has never been mainstream. The issue over which I broke from Dispensationalism is the other one you alluded to - the idea that you can have saving faith in God, or in a promise of God, without any reference to Christ. This is a serious error.

I'd suggest you get a copy of Ryrie's Dispensationalism, since it is still the most accurate reference point for the movement as a whole. Learning about Dispensationalism really is crucial if you want to understand American Christianity, since outside the academy, the Dispensationalists are far and away in the majority.


About Dispensationalists and the timing of the Rapture, check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Views-R...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262445528&sr=8-1
 
BTW, if you read Ryrie, get the latest edition which engages the "progressive movement," not the older 1965 edition.

You can read a short documented piece denying that dispis hold to multiple means of salvation: Does Dispensationalism Teach Multiple Ways of Salvation? Vlach is a prof at TMS. He is quite conversant with the topic and is used to dealing with criticism from the Reformed camp on this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top