Leading figures of dispensational theology

[Iosias]

John Nelson Darby

J.N.Darby (1800 - 1882) wrote prolifically, and many of his writings have been preserved and are published and available today (thanks particularly to the efforts of his prodigy, William Kelly, and to modern day devotees). He has also been much written about, both favourably and unfavourably. He had connections in high places. His father was a wealthy landowner, his uncle, Admiral Sir Henry Darby, commanded the Bellerophon in the Battle of the Nile, and his godfather was the national war hero Lord Nelson (thus his middle name). Darby’s brother-in-law was the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and no doubt Darby too, who had an early promising legal career, could have rose to the top of that profession.

Darby was no mean scholar, writing profoundly on many theological subjects as well as commentating on the entire Bible. He translated the original Hebrew and Greek text of the scriptures into English, French and German. He wrote numerous hymns and kept up a voluminous correspondence throughout his life. He chose a simple life-style and had a particular empathy with the poor and weak and children. There have been many recorded instances of his kindness, notably toward those who opposed him. He vigorously defended what he believed and opposed what he saw to be evil even if, as often transpired, it led to relationships irretrievably broken. He loved the Lord and His people and was tireless in His service. He travelled extensively and was instrumental in establishing some 1500 Brethren assemblies world-wide. He held dogmatic beliefs and did not compromise (even over what many would consider inessentials or where a continuing relationship was desirable). As for those who did oppose him, he could be ruthless in his dealings.

 

[Iosias]

C. I. Scofield

C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) was an American Congregational/Presbyterian clergyman, writer, Bible conference speaker. defender of dispensational premillennialism, and editor of the Scofield Reference Bible. He was born on August 19 in Lenawee County, Michigan, the youngest of seven children, to a father that combined farming and lumbering to provide for his family. After his mother died, unable to recover from the birth of her son, his father remarried, so Cyrus was reared by a stepmother.

Scofield found employment in his brother-in-law's work and, advancing among the city's social elite, met Loentine Cerre; they married on September, 211866. Sometime later, Scofield, now a lawyer. moved to Atchison, Kansas, where he entered a career in politics and was elected in 1871 as a representative to the lower house of the Kansas legislature. In 1873 he was appointed by President Grant to the office of District Attorney for the District of Kansas; he resigned within six months under suspicion of misuse of his office for personal gain. Loentine gained a legal separation from her husband in 1877; the marriage dissolved, though the divorce did not become legal for several more years (1883). Scofield returned to St. Louis leaving behind his children. He appears to have sunken into a life of thievery and drunkenness, never to practice law again.

Scofield experienced an evangelical conversion in 1879, apparently through the witness of Thomas McPhetters, who was a member of James Hall Brookes's Walnut Street Presbyterian Church. Brookes, claimed Scofleld, was his mentor in the faith. Scofleld immediately became active in Christian work assisting in the campaign of Moody in St. Louis, 1879-80 and joined the Pilgrim Congregational Church. He was licensed to preach by the St. Louis Association of the Congregational Church shortly thereafter, then organized and pastored the Hyde Park Congregational church in the city. In addition, he worked under the auspices of the YMCA in East St. Louis. Enormous zeal for Christian work characterized his life from his conversion onward.

In 1882 Scofield accepted a call to a mission church of the denomination in Dallas where he was ordained in 1883. The small work grew rapidly; within the decade, the church reached a membership of four hundred from the fourteen when he first arrived; a larger church was erected in 1889. In 1884 he married a member of his congregation, Hettie Van Wark. In 1886 the Congregationalist D. L. Moody held a crusade, through Scofield's invitation, in the city, with Ira B. Sankey. Scofield became the acting missionary superintendent for his denomination in the Southwest (the American Mission Society of Texas and Louisiana). His church rose out of its former mission status to become vibrantly self-supporting. Scofield's sphere of influence increased rapidly. In 1887 he began to appear regularly in the Bible conferences (such as the Northfield and Niagara conferences), recognized for his teaching abilities. He was asked by his denomination to oversee mission work as far west as Colorado. In 1888, he published the immensely popular Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, an explanation of the dispensational, pretribulational, and premillennial approach to interpreting the Bible. Further, Scofield directed the Southwestern School of the Bible in Dallas and was president of the board of trustees of the denomination's Lake Charles College in Lake Charles, Louisiana. His endeavors as pastor of the First Congregational Church seem to have been amazing a witness to his enormous energy. In 1890 he founded the Central American Mission' having been inspired by J. Hudson Taylor the previous year at the Niagara Bible Confer-ence. In the same year he started a self-study Bible program, called the Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (much of the material was placed in the Bible he edited). Further, the healthy growth of his church is evident in that two mission churches were started in the city, Grand Avenue Church and Pilgrim Chapel.

In 1895, Scofleld accepted an invitation from D. L. Moody (who held a second campaign in Dallas that year) to the Trinitarian Congregational Church of Northfield, Massachusetts, leaving in Dallas a church that had reached a membership of over eight hundred. In addition to pastoral duties, Scofield presided over the Northfleld Bible Training School (he served as president from 1900-1903), which Moody had established in 1890, and regularly attended the major Bible conferences. He witnessed the growing rift in the grand Niagara Bible Conference as the premillenarian assembly became divided over pre- and posttribulationalism, Scofield and A. C. Gaebelein favoring the former, with West and Cameron the latter. Though not the only issue in the demise of Niagara in 1899, it was a major factor. As a result, A. C. Gaebelein, Scofleld, John T. Pirie and Aiwyn Ball established the Sea Cliff Bible Conference on Long Island. At the conference in 1902, the idea of editing a reference Bible was first discussed, according to Gaebelein it is there that the basic outline of the work was formulated, with Pine's financial support.

Increasing preoccupation with editing the notes for the Reference Bible and the desire to be in a less hectic environment enticed Scofield to consider a return to his former pastorate in Dallas, where the promised assistant would allow for intense work on the new project. He returned in 1903 through 1909; however, work on the Bible took him away from Dallas after 1905. He apparently finished the initial draft of the notes in Montreux, Switzerland, in 1907, and edited them at his summer home in New Hampshire and in New York City in 1908. The Bible was published by Oxford University Press in 1909 and again with revisions in 1917. Scofield continued as pastor of the Dallas church, but appears to have been present only for periodic annual meetings. In 1908 the church withdrew from the Lone Star Association of the Congregational Church citing the rise of liberalism as the ground. In 1910, Scofield left the denomination also joining the Paris (Texas) Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church, USA (a strongly premillenarian presbytery where Judge Scott was a firm financial supporter of Scofield's). Formally resigning from the church in 1909, he was granted the status of pastor emeritus from 1910-21. In 1923, the church was named in his honor, the Scofield Memorial Church during Chafer's pastorate.

After the publication of the Reference Bible in 1909, Scofield became evermore popular in the evangelical world. From his residence near New York City, he established the New York School of the Bible, which was more of a coordinating center than a school. From that office the Bible correspondence course was sent out and graded and Bible conferences and institutes were organized throughout the country. Scofield was asked by Oxford University Press to prepare another edition of the Bible, the Tercentenary Edition of 1911, later to revise the 1909 Reference Bible for republication in 1917. In 1914, Scofield, with William Pettingill and Chafer, established the Philadelphia School of the Bible; Scofield served as its president, though Pettingill oversaw the school's daily operations until failing health necessitated his resignation in 1918. In 1915, Scofield and several residents of Douglaston organized the Community Church; Scofleld agreed to do the regular preaching. He continued to write extensively for Charles Trumbull's Sunday School Times. Notices of Scofield's declining health became a recurrent theme in the publications of the Central American Bulletin, the mission's journal after 1910; he resigned from the executive council of the mission in 1919. He died at his Douglaston residence on July, 24 1921; Hettie died there in 1923.

The contribution of C. I. Scofield to the development of the evangelical fundamentalist movement in the twentieth century has been enormous, particularly as it relates to premillennial dispensationalism. This can readily be demonstrated in several ways.

1. Scofleld was profoundly influential in the development of the Bible conference movement (It must be understood that the appeal of this movement was to a popular audience, not the learned scholarly community. The vast majority of the voluminous literary output of this movement aimed at the non-professional). He was a regular speaker at the Niagara conferences in the 1880s and 1890s, as well as the Northfield conferences after 1887. Possessing the communicative skills to clearly and effectively teach the Bible, Scofield was significant in the ongoing of these conferences, as well as the important Sea Cliff conferences. Out of these conferences, a network developed of friendships with such leaders as Gaebelein, Brooks, James Martin Gray, W. H. Griffith Thomas, Chafer, and numerous others who cooperated in a wide variety of evangelical enterprises from conferences to missionary agencies to Bible institutes. Scofield influenced a younger generation of leaders, such as Chafer, to carry forth the Bible conference tradition.

2. Scofield was a major influence in the institutionalization of the Bible conference movement through educational institutions and missionary agencies. He was centrally prominent in the creation of several schools, beginning with the Southwestern School of the Bible during his first Dallas pastorate, then presiding over the Northfield Bible Training School, founding the New York School of the Bible, and, finally, establishing the Philadelphia School of the Bible (now Philadelphia College of the Bible) In the field of missionary endeavour, he founded the Central American Mission and presided over its direction for nearly thirty years.

3. Scofield was a persistent contributor to the massive literary production of the evangelical fundamentalist movement, particularly the dispensational and premillennial wing of it. What began as regular installments of Bible expositions in The Believer: a publication through the Dallas church in 1890, became the extremely popular Scofield Bible Correspondence Course and Bible leaflets. They sold in the thousands, providing self-study training for many pastors and Christian workers. The Dallas and the New York schools were correspondence centers, not resident schools. Along with the self-study course were numerous other publications that flowed from conference and pulpit addresses. These include such doctrinal works as Plain Papers on the Holy Spirit (1899), No Room in the Inn and Other Interpretations (191 3). New Life in Jesus Christ (1915), Where Faith Sees Christ (1916), C. I. Scofleld's Question Box (1917) and In Many Pulpits with Di: C. I. Scofield (1920): expositional works such as The Epistle to the Galatians (1903): and esehatological works such as The World's Approaching Crisis (I 9 1 3). Addresses on Prophecy (1914, messages that came out of the prophetic conference held at Moody Bible In stitute), Will the Church Pass Through the Tribulation? (1917), What Do the Prophecies Say? (1918). and Things Old and New (l922. a compilation by Gaebelein). Two other publications require particular note because of their wide influence in shaping the dispensational premillennial tradition. In 1888. Scofield wrote Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, which attempted in pamphlet form to practically explain the dispensational, pretribulational, premillennial interpretation of the Bible. The hallmark of his literary production was the now-famous Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909 and revised in 1917. The Reference Bible is widely recognized as the most important literary production of the Bible conference institute movement. Scofield. by editing the text of the Bible with carefully placed notes, articulated the dispensational understanding of Scripture for the lay audience as never before accomplished. Generations of laity and pastors in the dispensational tradition learned the essence of the system from a careful study of the Scotield notes.

4. While Scofield was an advocate of particular tradition, which he did much to create, he was an orthodox Presbyterian cleric who defended traditional orthodox Interpretations of the Christian faith. In correctly commented to his longtime friend and colleague William Pettingill that eschatology, a doctrine that occupied much of his time and interests, was not nearly so crucial as the central indisputable core of Christian truth that encompasses the dotrines of sin, Christ, and grace in redemption. In this sentiment Scofield stands in the continuum of the historic faith of the church universal. It is difficult to determine Scofield was a fundamentalist since the movement did not coalesce definitely till the 1920s. He did not participate in the formation of the World Christian Fundamental Association in 1918 due to declining health. While it is not likely he would have embraced the more strident forms that fundamentalism later took, since he had quite a noncombatative demeanor, he clearly was the ideological and practical source of many of the distinctive teachings.

5. Scofield had the ability, through the clear expositions of the Bible and personal charm, to inspire subsequent generations to continue the spirit of the Bible conference tradition within evangelical Christianity. The clearest example of his impact, perhaps can be seen in his influence on Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, though it was certainly not limited to his having met Scofield for the first time at the Northfield Training School in 1901. Chafer was marked for life: "Until that time I had never heard a real Bible teacher It was a crisis for me. I was changed for life." What ensued was the closest relationship in which Scofield became Chafer's father figure. Writing shortly after Scofield's death. Chafer commented. "For twenty years, I have enjoyed the closest heart-fellowship, and the incalculable benefit of his personal counsel.' The fruit of that mentoring relationship was the founding of Dallas Seminary as the fulfillment of a dream of Scofield.

To Noel, Scotield's son, Chafer wrote, "You will be interested to know that the school for which your father prayed and hoped for so many years for Dallas is going to be located here."

Chafer's Systematic Theology (1948) was the culmination of Scofield's tutelage. The continued attraction of dispensational premillennialism at least in part has a root in the ability of leaders like Scofield. and later Chafer, to inspire a devoted following: in this, Scofield had a huge contribution to the movement.

(John Hannah)
(From The Dictionary of Premillenial Theology edited by Mal Couch.)

 

[Iosias]

HARRY A. IRONSIDE (1876 - 1951)

At the age of twelve, Canadian born H. A. Ironside heard Dwight L. Moody preach, but he did not trust Christ until two years later. His own words, "I rested on the Word of God." From that moment on, the Word of God seemed to be like a burning fire in his bones, and he gave his first public testimony three nights later at a Salvation Army meeting. Shortly afterward, he began preaching and became know as "the boy preacher of Los Angeles."

Although he had little formal education and was never ordained, he travelled for well over fifty years as a home missionary, evangelist, and Bible teacher. A prolific writer, he contributed regularly to various Christian periodicals and journals in addition to publishing over eighty books and pamphlets. His writings included addresses or commentaries on the entire New Testament, all of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and a great many volumes on specific themes and subjects.

For some time he was with the Salvation Army but later joined the Plymouth Brethren. After 1924 he held meetings continually under the auspices of Moody Bible Institute, going often as visiting faculty to Dallas Theological Seminary. For eighteen years of ministry (1930-1948), he was pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. He went to be with the Lord on January 16, 1951, while on a preaching tour in New Zealand.

 

[Iosias]

William Kelly
THE last prominent survivor of the first generation of "Brethren" fell asleep on the 27th March, 1906. Mr. WILLIAM KELLY - the title-pages of whose writings generally bear only the initials "W. K." - was born in the north of Ireland in 1820. Being early left fatherless, he was already supporting himself by tuition to the family of the Rev. Mr. Cachemaille, Rector of Sark, when, in 1840, he made the Christian confession, and he shortly afterwards embraced the view of the church characteristic of "Brethren," with whom he then at once united. He retained a close connection with the Channel Islands for thirty years, residing chiefly in Guernsey, but for the latter half of his Christian career his home was at Blackheath.

He was a graduate, in classical honours, of Trinity College, Dublin, and was recognised as not merely a sound, erudite scholar, but a controversialist of formidable calibre. Besides aiding Dr. S. P. Tregelles in his investigations as a biblical textual critic, Mr. Kelly himself published, in 186o, a critical edition of the Revelation of John, which Professor Heinrich Ewald, of Göttingen, declared was the best piece of English work of the kind that he had seen.

Such studies were carried on concurrently with the editing of a periodical entitled The Prospect, which latterly was carried on by Mr. Kelly to the time of his death as The Bible Treasury, a paper that, as taken by various prominent clergy in academical circles, brought the editor into correspondence with such men as Dean Alford, Dr. Scott the lexicographer (whom he convinced of the true force of the word unhappily rendered in the Authorised Version of 2 Thessalonians 2. 2 as "is at hand"), Principal Edwards (who confessed to Mr. Kelly his conversion to the pre-millennial standpoint), with Professor Sanday, of Oxford, and other living theologians. After the capitulation of younger ecclesiastical associates to the Higher Criticism, Archdeacon Denison spoke of Mr. Kelly’s periodical as the only religious magazine any longer worth reading - so steadfast was the editor in his rejection of what he believed to be Christ-dishonouring views of the Bible. His simplicity and self-suppression may be illustrated by the reply he made to a Dublin professor who had expressed an opinion that, if Mr. Kelly did but settle there as a teacher, he would make a fortune - "For which world?"

His supreme delight was in ministering in things spiritual to those whom he described as the "few despised" ones of Christ’s flock. To such service he gave untiring energy, put forth to within two months of his decease. He identified himself whole-heartedly with the body of doctrine developed by the late John Nelson Darby, whose right-hand man he was for many years. The "Collected Writings" of "J. N. D." were edited by Mr. Kelly, who has done much by his own expositions to give currency to the views enshrined in them. His own merits were manifest alike in oral and written ministry.

Mr. C. H. Spurgeon, judging by the latter, has applied to Mr. Kelly, in the "Guide to Commentaries," the words of Pope, "born for the universe . . .". In the list of his writings will be found Lectures or Notes on all the books of the Bible. How long he retained his clearness and vigour of intellect comes out in the fact that several of his best expositions have appeared during the last fifteen years. Within the lifetime of "J. N. D." (1800-1882) Mr. Kelly was already well known to outsiders by his lectures on the Pentateuch, the Gospel of Matthew, the Revelation of John, the Church of God, and the New Testament Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, besides Notes on Romans, &c., recommended by Professor Sanday. Since 1860 he has put forth "In the Beginning" (Gen. i, 2), commended by Archbishop Benson an Exposition of the Prophecies of Isaiah, of the Gospel of John, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Epistles of John; a volume of 6oo pages on "God’s Inspiration of the Scriptures;" and his last words on "Christ’s Coming Again," in which he vindicates the originality of "J. N. D." in regard of the "Secret Rapture"; this had been impugned by an American writer.

Shortly before he passed away, "W. K." said to one by his bedside: "There are three things real - the Cross, the enmity of the world, the love of God." At the interment was read Acts 20: 25-38, and amongst hymns sung that commencing "For ever with the Lord." An aged clergyman, who had long resorted to him for counsel, on hearing of his decease, wrote: "He was pre-eminently ‘a faithful man, and feared God above many’ (Neh. 7. 2)."

 

[Iosias]

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952)

was a well-known American premilleniarian, dispensationalist, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, writer, and conference speaker.

Beginning in the fall of 1889, he associated with A. T. Reed, an evangelist under the auspices of the Congregational Church in Ohio, as a baritone soloist and choir organizer in the meetings. During these years he gained enormous insight into the work of the traveling evangelist. In 1896, he married Ella Lorraine Case, whom he had met at Oberlin College, and the two formed an evangelistic team (Lewis preaching and singing with Lorraine playing the organ). They briefly settled in Painesville, Ohio, where they served as directors of the music programme of the Congregational church though they continued to travel, often with other evangelists such as Wilbur Chapman and A. T. Reed.

In 1889 Lewis became the interim pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Lewiston, New York, although in the fall of the year he began a two-year ministry as an assistant pastor in the First Congregational Church of Buffalo. The initial year appears to have been an apprenticeship with a view to his formal ordination as a minister in the Congregational community, which took place in April 1900.

The circumstances of Chafer's move to Northfield, Massachusetts, in 1901 are not at all clear. It is reasonable to assume that he became increasingly well known within evangelical circles through his ministerial gifts and within the Congregational ranks by his ordination and pastoral associations. Residing at Northfield, where he operated a farm and his wife served as organist at the annual conferences, Chafer continued to travel in evangelistic endeavours, particularly in the winter months. In 1904 the Southland Bible Conference was inaugurated in Florida, a counterpart of the Northfield conferences; Chafer was president of the conference after 1909. Through the Northfield conferences, the Chafers met an array of prominent evangelicals from both sides of the Atlantic, among them G. Campbell Morgan, F. B. Meyer, A. C. Gaebelein, James M. Gray, and W. H. Griffith Thomas.

By far, however, the most important contact was with Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, then pastor of the Trinitarian Congregational Church, Moody's church, in Northfield. Chafer found in Scofield a clear, biblically oriented teacher, and the two were thereafter bound together in ministry for two decades. Scofield lead the younger Chafer into his particular understanding of the Scriptures, as well as into a change of careers. No longer an itinerant evangelist, Chafer progressively joined his mentor as a travelling Bible teacher, increasingly becoming a central participant in the Bible conference movement. Gradually, through enlarged exposure in the major Bible and prophetic conferences, the publication of books and articles, and teaching in short-term Bible institutes, Chafer emerged in the early 1900s as a quiet, energetic leader of one segment of the emerging evangelical movement.

From 1906 to 1910, he taught at the Mount Hermon School for Boys, instructing in Bible and music (his first published book was Elementary Outline Studies in the Science of Music, 1907). In 1906, he left the Congregational community to join the Troy Presbytery, Synod of New York, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), reflecting his discomfort with liberalizing trends in the denomination and Scofield’s ecclesiastical sympathies. In these years, he published two additional books, Satan (1909, Scofield wrote the foreword) and True Evangelism (1911).

His close identification with Scofield increased in the second decade of the century as Chafer moved to East Orange. New Jersey, to join the staff of the New York School of the Bible, an agency that distributed Scofield's increasingly popular Bible correspondence course, written in 1892, and an office for the coordination of conference activities. As a member of the "oral extension department" of the "school," Chafer began a rather extensive travelling conference ministry throughout the South.

In 1913, he assisted Scofield in founding the Philadelphia School of the Bible, apparently writing the curriculum. Due to his growing southern ministry, Chafer joined the Orange Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in 1912. In 1915, he published The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, a work endorsed by Scofield and dedicated to Chafer's father. It was a defence of pretribulational, dispensational premillennialism. Several other works followed: Salvation (1917), He That Is Spiritual (1918), Seven Major Biblical Signs of the Times (1919), and Must We Dismiss The Millennium? (1921).

Scofield’s declining health, resulting in increasingly limited itinerant ministry, brought another shift in the sphere and nature of Chafer's work. Moving to Dallas, Texas, in 1922, he became pastor of the First Congregational Church, which had been founded in 1882 by Scofield (it was renamed Scofield Memorial Church in his honour during Chafer's pastorate in 1923); Chafer pastored the church from 1922 to 1926 in addition to increased conference speaking. Further, he became general secretary of the Central American Mission, a missionary society founded by Scofield in 1890. He transferred his ministerial credentials to the Dallas Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in 1923.

During this period, Chafer founded the Dallas Theological Seminary (originally, the Evangelical Theological College) in 1924, serving as its president as well as professor of systematic theology from its inception until his death in 1952. Though he resigned from both the church and the mission, he continued a rigorous conference ministry; his publications mushroomed. In addition to regularly contributing to evangelical periodicals, he wrote Grace (1922) and Major Bible Themes (1926). After the seminary acquired Bibliotheca Sacra in 1933, a journal with roots in the early nineteenth century, Chafer wrote numerous articles that, combined with portions of his books, were published as his largest work, Systematic Theology (1948). The advanced age, the burden of carrying on a school without secure financing, the growing turmoil over Scofieldian dispensationalism in his own Presbyterian church, and the death of his wife in 1944 were factors that progressively limited his public ministry. After 1945, the operations of the school devolved to his executive assistant, John F. Walvoord. Chafer died due to heart failure while on a conference tour in Seattle, Washington, in August 1952.

Chafer's contribution and lasting legacy to American evangelicalism in the twentieth century was enormous; he stands with his mentor, C. I. Scofield, as well as his successors, John F. Walvoord and Charles Ryrie, as a proponent of the Bible conference movement's distinctives from the late nineteenth century, which emerged as an integral and influential subsegment of twentieth-century evangelicalism, the premillennial dispensational camp. In essence, Chafer's contribution to the ongoing life of the church can be seen as the broadening and deepening of the Bible conference movement. This can be illustrated through both his institutional and theological contributions.

Institutionally, Chafer's legacy is the creation of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924; it represented an extension of the Bible-conference emphases at the postgraduate level of education, just as the Bible institutes extended them at the undergraduate level. Chafer's vision for a ministerial school began with his contact with students at the Mount Hermon School for Boys. His travels under Scofield’s auspices lead to contact with numerous pastors (whom he consulted about the deficiencies of their formal ministerial training), denominational colleges, and seminaries, particularly throughout the South. He came to believe that the unique emphases of the Bible conference movement-intensive English Bible instruction, dispensational premillennialism, and the victorious Christian life teachings-were the additional ingredients, when added to an otherwise standard seminary curriculum, that could adequately prepare Christian missionaries and pastors-a combination of ingredients he described as "a new departure" in ministerial training.
The stress on the English Bible provided the content of the minister's preaching; dispensational premillennialism was the intellectual grid for interpreting the Bible; a mild Keswick holiness emphasis on two works of grace in the believer's life (as well as the distinction between obedient and fleshly Christians as spiritual states) provided the ground for a right relationship to the Holy Spirit, the source of power in ministry. The goal of the institution - to place men into the mainline churches after training in an independent school - proved illusive, however. Though the school was deeply influenced by Presbyterianism - Chafer and Scofield were both ordained in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as were most of the early faculty - the distinctive ideas of the Bible conference movement were not accepted by many Presbyterian leaders or by other mainline denominations as useful preparation for the ministry. They increasingly viewed the emphases as antithetical to historic Presbyterianisim. In the 1930s and 40s, Presbyterians in the North and South became openly hostile to dispensationalism. As a result, graduates of the seminary found placement in the mainline churches difficult.

At the same time, numerous denominational splinter groups, independent churches, and para-ecclesiastical organizations (Chafer supported many of them) were emerging in the country. The seminary became the major graduate-level source for their leaders. Thus, the distinctives of the Bible conference movement were carried into this emerging evangelical submovement of the American church.

In addition to institutionalizing the Bible conference movement, Chafer systematized its unique theological emphases with the publication of his Systematic Theology (8 vols.) in 1948, the first major attempt to set forth the teaching of dispensational premillennialism within the rubric of traditional systematics. What Scofield’s notes delineated in a dispensational approach to the Bible. Chafer's theology book simply enlarged. The work reflects Chafer's attachment to Scofield and the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917). The work became the definitive statement of dispensational theology.

Chafer's theology, and subsequently that of the seminary's, reflects his attachment to three somewhat diverse traditions within historic orthodoxy: Augustinianism, Keswick theology, and (Plymouth) Brethrenism. From the first source, Chafer's systematics is Reformed or Calvinistic in anthropology and soteriology (i.e., the doctrines of election, predestination, humanity's plight, and the origin and cause of Christ's redemptive mercies). It reflects his adherence to Presbyterian confessionalism, although he deviated from the tradition by advocating an unlimited view of the intent of Christ's sacrifice. It is profoundly Princetonian (i.e., Warfieldian inerrancy) in its delineation of the doctrine of the Scriptures.

In the second, Chafer's understanding of the spiritual life, as put forth in He That Is Spiritual, reflects a view that Warfield opposed. It was essentially a counteractivist understanding of the relationship of the Spirit and the believer relative to the duty of spiritual progress (i.e., a stress on the believer's duty to be rightly related to the Spirit as the cause of growth), rather than the more traditionally Reformed emphasis on suppressionism by the Holy Spirit (a stress on the activity of God as the cause of the believer's sanctification).

Finally, reflecting the influence of the Brethren movement, which made significant inroads into American evangelicalism in the late nineteenth century through the emerging Bible conference movement, Chafer embraced the teachings of dispensationalism, modern premillennialism, and pretribulational eschatology.

Chafer's third major legacy, and arguably the primary one, was his emphasis on the centrality of Christ and the grace of God; the preeminence of Christ and Calvary was the very heart of Chafer's religious passion. In this Chafer stands without question in the orthodox tradition of the church. Chafer was at heart a heralder of the Gospel, and the motto of the seminary he founded reflects this emphasis: "Preach the Word" (2 Tim. 2:2). To effect this mission, he felt that one had to know the Bible with intensity and affection, which implied a correct understanding of its overall purposes (i.e., dispensational premillennialism), and one must be in a correct relationship to the Holy Spirit (i.e., sanctified). This is clearly seen in his career; he was involved in itinerant evangelism for over a decade, and out of that experience he published a criticism of the errors he found in it (True Evangelism), causing quite a stir among his contemporaries in the field. Two works devoted to the theme of the Gospel followed: Salvation and Grace as well as briefer statements in other works, Major Bible Themes and Systematic Theology.

It can be argued that the centrality of Christ in Chafer's understanding of the unfolding plan of redemption in the Bible is why he seemed to denigrate the revelation of God in the Old Testament. The superior light of the revelation of God in Christ caused a shadow of insignificance to fall over the less clear revelation of Him in the Old Testament. This created in his mind, as Scofield had seen before him, a discontinuity between the two testaments that became a defining characteristic in his understanding of the Bible.

(John D. Hannah Taken from Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Couch)

 

[Iosias]

Arno C. Gaebelein

Born in Germany on August 27, 1861, A. C. Gaebelein emigrated to the United States in 1879 to avoid compulsory military service and to experience the adventure of travel. He settled in Lawrence, Massachusetts, among other Germans immigrants and went to work in a local mill. He soon began attending worship services at a German Methodist fellowship and in 1881 became an assistant to the pastor of a German Methodist congregation in New York City. In 1881, Gaebelein became a supply preacher in a mission in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and in 1882 he was assigned to a congregation in Baltimore. Although he had no college or seminary training, Gaebelein was a devout student and fervently studied and mastered Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic.
In 1884 Gaebelein was ordained as a deacon and moved to Harlem, New York. There he met and married Emma Grimm in 1885. He was ordained as an elder in 1886, and shortly thereafter, when his infant daughter died, he began a period of intense spiritual reflection and contemplated entering missions. He moved to a congregation in Hoboken, New Jersey in 1887, where Samuel Goldstein, a converted Jewish parishioner, encouraged him to look to evangelistic opportunities among local Jewish immigrants. Gaebelein began to preach in a Jewish mission and developed a passion for Jewish evangelism. This new work forced him to reevaluate his views on prophecy, and he became an ardent premillennialist. He immersed himself in Jewish culture and Hebrew and was soon writing religious literature in Yiddish and Hebrew. In 1891, Gaebelein requested that his denomination appoint him to work full-time among Jewish immigrants, and in 1893 he began publication of Tiqweth Israel--The Hope of Israel Monthly.
Gaebelein was soon joined in his work by Ernst F. Stroeter, a college professor from Colorado, and in 1894 they began publication of English and German editions the journal "Our Hope". Devoted to reports on the work of The Hope of Israel Mission as well as the study of prophecy, the journal did much to advance evangelistic and social work among the Jewish people. Edited initially by Stroeter, and by Gaebelein after 1896, Our Hope provided conservative Christians world-wide information sympathetic to Zionism, Jewish affairs, and prophetic studies. Historian David Rausch noted: "Our Hope, was a key periodical in the fundamentalist movement of the twentieth century, through this periodical, Gaebelein brought the teaching of biblical prophecy to the forefront of the movement and coupled it to in-depth, scholarly biblical studies" (Arno C. Gaebelein, 19). The journal continued publication until 1958, when it merged with Eternity.
In his early ministry to immigrants, Gaebelein coordinated a broad-based work of social and evangelistic outreach that included distribution of food and clothing, operation of a dispensary, sewing classes, and relief funds for Jews in Europe. He also spoke fluent Yiddish, traveled to Russia and Europe to view Jewish conditions first-hand. He wrote of these years,
". . . I was obliged to do something for the relief of the great suffering among the poor Jews. It appeared to me a grand opportunity to show to them the practical side of Christianity" (Half a Century, 35).
Branches of The Hope of Israel Mission were eventually established in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.

BIBLE EXPOSITOR AND AUTHOR
Toward the turn of the century, focus began to shifted from Jewish evangelism to a Bible teaching and conference ministry. He had become a in 1887, after reading a French book, "La Future D'Israel" by Pasteur Guers. Through contacts with men such as James H. Brookes, James M. Gray, and C. I. Scofield, Gaebelein began to write and speak extensively on prophecy. When Brookes died in 1897, Our Hope came to be seen as the ideological successor to Brooks The Truth, and it became an instrument for proclaiming nation-wide. Gaebelein believed that Israel was the key not only to biblical prophecy, but to all history, and he sought to understand current events through careful teaching and application of prophecy.
In the years between 1900 and 1915, reputation as a Bible teacher and his prominence grew significantly. In 1901 he began the annual Sea Cliff Bible Conference on Long Island. It was there that C. I. Scofield first mentioned his desire to publish a Study Bible and asked for Gaebelein's assistance in the project. Both men were fervent dispensationalists, and Scofield asked Gaebelein to provide the prophetic portions of the Scofield Reference Bible. So great was his admiration of Gaebelein, that Scofield wrote him saying, "By all means follow your own views of prophetic analysis. I sit at your feet when it comes to prophecy and congratulate in advance the future readers of the Reference Bible on having in their hands a safe, clear, sane guide through what to most is a labyrinth" (Half a Century , 94).The events and tragedy of World War I troubled Gaebelein, and he was saddened to see the progress of Zionism slowed by the war. He cautioned his readers not to identify the war as Armageddon and exhorted them to trust God and turn to the Bible for comfort and guidance. He closely watched the events of the war and when Jerusalem was captured by British forces, he claimed it as the most significant event of 1917.
In the years after the war, Gaebelein became a vocal and prolific defender of fundamentalism, inerrancy, and premillennialism. He engaged critics from the pulpit and in print and always did so with a firm but irenic spirit. In 1922, Wheaton College conferred upon him an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree. Politically conservative, he saw a great threat in Communism, and it is in his responses to it, as well as some of his statements on conspiracy theories, that he has been criticized. In 1933, he published his thirty-eighth volume, Conflict of the Ages. Controversial to some, the book portrayed all of human history as conflict between God and Satan, and as obedience and disobedience to the will of God. In it he addressed current events and focused especially on the threat of Communism.

HOLOCAUST YEARS
In the 1930s, the dangers of Communism gave way to the threat of Nazism, which Gaebelein abhorred. In 1937 he sailed to Germany to witness first-hand the Nazi regime, and he denounced it continuously in the pages of Our Hope. Both before and during World War II he meticulously documented and published accounts of Nazi atrocities to the Jews. While many American religious leaders denied or ignored contemporary reports of extermination, Gaebelein repeatedly reported Jewish conditions. In 1939, E. Schuyler English became Associate Editor of Our Hope, relieving Gaebelein, now 80, of some of the editorial burdens. However, as he had done in World War I, Gaebelein closely followed the events of World War II.

In 1944 and 1945, Gaebelein rejoiced in Hitler's demise but was greatly grieved over the Holocaust. While he saw the end of the war, he did not live to see either the return of the Jews to Israel or the return of Jesus Christ in the rapture, as had been his hope. He died in his home on Christmas Day, 1945. In 1942, Gaebelein had written a letter to English to be published in case he died before the Lord's return. In it he proclaimed his lifelong faith and hope: "Only He knows the exact time when the crowning event in the history of the Church, the gathering of the saints of god to meet Him in the air will take place. Perhaps in His infinite mercy He may still tarry to add more members to His Body, His own fullness, which filleth all in all" (quoted in Arno C. Gaebelein, 182).

PROPHETIC HOPE
Throughout his ministry Gaebelein shunned prophetic date-setting and those who practiced it, arguing that our hope and interest must not be in the Antichrist but, rather, in Jesus Christ. With the storm clouds of war gathering once again in 1939, Gaebelein wrote words that applied not only to his readers then, but to us as well:
We look at the approaching storm precipitating all into an abyss of hopelessness. We look again and see a marvelous sunrise. The Morningstar appears, the herald of the Day and the Sun in all His glory. Even so Come, Thou Hope of the hopeless, Thou Hope of Israel, Thou Hope of the World, all Nations, and Creation. Even so, Come Lord Jesus (quoted in Arno C. Gaebelein, 150).

By Timothy Demy

 

[BibleJunky]

Uhmmmmm... What about Dake? His Bible is a dispensational too.

I don't know alot about this subject, so, I'm really not qualified enough to bring something to the table. But did want to mention that his Bible has been referred to as a dispensational Pre-trib Bible.

I own one.



BibleJunky

 

[Iosias]

Uhmmmmm... What about Dake? His Bible is a dispensational too.

I don't know alot about this subject, so, I'm really not qualified enough to bring something to the table. But did want to mention that his Bible has been referred to as a dispensational Pre-trib Bible.

I own one.



BibleJunky

Personally I have never heard of the man but I did a search and came up with this: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?fr=slv1-&p=dake%27s+bible. From this I would have to conclude that he is not a dispensationalist because he is Charismatic whereas dispensational theology is cessationist. If you have Dake quotes that shew he is a dispy then feel free to post them and we can see

 

[thereselittleflower]

C. I. Scofield

C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) was an American Congregational/Presbyterian clergyman, writer, Bible conference speaker. defender of dispensational premillennialism, and editor of the Scofield Reference Bible. . . .
(John Hannah)
(From The Dictionary of Premillenial Theology edited by Mal Couch.)

Much was left out of the biography presented in this thread, of C.I. Scofield . . much was omitted or glossed over . . .



Here is some additional information about this particular person who was most responsible for the dissemination and acceptance of Dispensationalism in America through his Scofield's Reference bible . .

While Cyrus Ingerson Scofield may justifiably be regarded as the father of American dispensationalism and its most popular exponent through the various editions and variants of the Scofield Reference Bible1, his personal life is shrouded in mystery, one of American Fundamentalism's best kept and perhaps most embarrassing secrets.


Ernest Sandeen insists, "...in the calendar of Fundamentalist saints no name is better known or more revered."2 Yet while writings abound on the early Brethren such as J. N. Darby and other contemporary American dispensationalists such as D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield remains an illusive and enigmatic figure. Only two biographies have been published, one by a fellow dispensationalist, eulogises Scofield3, the other, from a Reformed perspective, exposes him as morally unfit for Christian ministry.4 Reconciliation of these two perspectives is difficult if not impossible. George Trumbull, Scofield's biographer, writing in 1920, claims,

Dr. Scofield loves all nature-not only men and women and children, but the whole created world, still so beautiful in spite of what Satan and sinners have done to mar God's work.5
​

Similarly, George W. Truett, speaking at a memorial service for Scofield, held in Dallas, Texas on 27 November 1921, included this tribute,

Every one felt that he was a prince of true men. And what a friend he was. A man who would have friends must show himself friendly. Along with these qualities he was kindly, full of good will and cheer which radiated from him as the light from the sun. When with him you knew you were in the presence of one who knew what he believed. Christ was real to him... a wonderful preacher and a world preacher. He would have been at ease in any congregation where he could have preached. There was about him a positiveness, a definitiveness, a certainty...6
​

Canfield's detailed investigation of Scofield's past portrays a very different person. Discrepancies exist between Scofield's own reminiscences, Trumbull's biography, family correspondence and actual public records regarding many aspects of Scofield's life and ministry both before and after his alleged conversion, ordination and association with D. L. Moody. These range from the trivial to the reprehensible.

1. His claim to have fought with General Lee is disputed as is his alleged decoration for service in the Confederate army in 1861.7

2. His 'rank perjury' in swearing the oath of office to become District Attorney for Kansas in June 1873, denying he had served in the Confederate Army8, a post he then had to resign just six months later following well publicised charges of extortion and blackmail.9

3. The desertion of his first wife Leontine, and daughters Abigail and Marie-Helene from 1877 and failure to provide for them.10

4. The unsubstantiated claim that he was admitted to the Bar of St. Louis and practised law.11

5. The discrepancies surrounding his alleged conversion in 1879 in jail and also while practising law.12

6. The criminal charges of fraud and embezzlement brought against him between 1877-1879, some following his alleged conversion13 resulting in at least one jail sentence.14

7. His persistent refusal, even as a Christian minister, to make restitution to those he had defrauded.15

8. The embarrassment of having divorce proceedings initiated against him by his wife Leontine in 1881 while he was pastor of Hyde Park Congregational Church, St. Louis . Her divorce papers charged Scofield with, '...gross neglect of duty...' having, 'failed to support this plaintiff or her said children, or to contribute thereto, and has made no provision for them for food, clothing or a home...' 16 The court decided in favour of Leontine after some delay in 1883 and issued a decree of divorce in December of that year, describing Scofield as, '...not a fit person to have custody of the children.'17

9. His nomination as pastor to the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882, by James H. Brookes was apparently without reference to or acknowledgement of any Christian obligation to provide for his family.18

10. Discrepancies exist in the accounts of his alleged theological training prior to ordination.19

11. Discrepancies exist in the conflicting length of his courtship and the date of his second marriage to Hettie Van Wark in March 1884, only three months after her arrival in Dallas and his divorce becoming final.20

12. Doubts have been raised as to claims made that Scofield made several visits to London prior to 1903,21and claims that he studied and lectured in Rome, Paris, Geneva and Berlin between 1906-1907.22

13. Scofield apparently conferred a doctorate on himself in 1892.23 The 1897 Northfield Bible Conference, for example, lists Scofield's name with a D.D. yet there is no evidence of this award being conferred by a university or college. 'We are not aware of any degree-awarding institution which in the 1890's would recognize dispensational accomplishments.'24

14. In 1904, addressing a gathering of Confederate veterans in Dallas, Scofield made pejorative and racist remarks concerning blacks and whites.25

15. Major discrepancies exist in his Who's Who in America 1912 entry both in terms of misstatements, factual inaccuracies and omissions, including the dates of his marriages, the names of his three children, and subsequent divorce.26

16. In 1909 and 1921, despite significant royalties from the Scofield Reference Bible, he wrote to his daughters Helene and Abbie, explaining his inability to help them financially as he was suffering from chronic 'Scofielditis', his euphemism for 'a purse which has grown dismally empty.'27


​

Excerpted from

[size=+1]Chapter 5: Cyrus Ingerson Scofield[/size][size=+1] (1843-1921) The Author of the Scofield Reference Bible[/size]

​

http://www.virginiawater.co.uk/christchurch/articles/scofield1.html


Peace in Him!

 

[Terral]

Hi Av1611:

Personally I have never heard of the man but I did a search and came up with this: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?fr=slv1-&p=dake%27s+bible. From this I would have to conclude that he is not a dispensationalist because he is Charismatic whereas dispensational theology is cessationist. If you have Dake quotes that shew he is a dispy then feel free to post them and we can see

That is certainly a great deal of information about folks who call themselves Dispensationalists. I must admit to being ignorant of what all of those men believe concerning the Holy Scriptures; though I have heard of a few of them. The important thing or me is what God's Word says about the different dispensations in Scripture. It is difficult for me to understand why some posters here wish to disregard or 'not accept' dispensations as a normal part of the Holy Text. Since all who believe the gospel are members of the 'body of Christ,' (Eph. 4:12), which is Christ's body (Col. 1:24), it is also not easy for me to understand why folks would want to call themselves 'Dispensationalists.' But, anyway, thank you for the information.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is difficult for me to understand why some posters here wish to disregard or 'not accept' dispensations as a normal part of the Holy Text.

Hi Terral . .

Dispensations ARE found in Sacred Scriptures . . no one I know of has suggested they do not .

The issue is not whether or not there are dispensations of God, but rather if Millenialism, millinarianism, Darby's and Scofield's Dispensationalism is even scriptural!

Dispensationalism goes way beyond the biblical texts on dispensations.

Remember, such an interpretation of scripture never existed in the Church for about 1900 years, and presently is embraced by a small percentage of Christians worldwide. It just seems so prevalent because it has found a strong foot hold in the US . .. but go outside the US and it becomes a very minor segment of Christian thought . ..

This dispensationalist "understanding" is something that is very new and recent in the history of the Christian Church and flies in the face of all the Church has always believed about Christ's atoning death on the Cross, and the New Covenant being established with, in and through the Church . .

It is a novel idea and simply isn't biblical . . just because a belief misuses scripture to back up its claims, that doesn't make it scriptural . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Iosias]

Remember, such an interpretation of scripture never existed in the Church for about 1900 years, and presently is embraced by a small percentage of Christians worldwide. It just seems so prevalent because it has found a strong foot hold in the US . .. but go outside the US and it becomes a very minor segment of Christian thought . ..

This dispensationalist "understanding" is something that is very new and recent in the history of the Christian Church and flies in the face of all the Church has always believed about Christ's atoning death on the Cross, and the New Covenant being established with, in and through the Church...

So the olny charge you lay against dispensationalism is that it is not tied to tradtions and that it reads scripture without being told by a 'Priest" what X, Y and Z means? The Professing Church may have believed for a very long time that the New Covenant was established with the church but such a view is unsupported by scripture which says that: Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" No mention of the church being a party to the New Covenant!

Dispensationalism goes way beyond the biblical texts on dispensations.

How so?

 

[Terral]

Hi Littleflower:

Terral original >> It is difficult for me to understand why some posters here wish to disregard or 'not accept' dispensations as a normal part of the Holy Text.

Littleflower >> Dispensations ARE found in Sacred Scriptures . . no one I know of has suggested they do not .

Please forgive me for writing in an unclear manner. Of course dispensations are a major part of Paul’s Epistles, and particularly when he speaks on the topic of the Mystery and the body of Christ. Eph. 3:1-4, Col. 1:24-27, etc.. My original statement was made in reference to Doc Markus’ thread called ”can you be premillenial without accepting dispensations?” Then, Bizzlebin answered and said, “Yes, it is entirely possible. However, being a pre mill usually does lead a person to dispensationalism from what I have observed.” So, I am still at a loss as to the reasoning behind ‘not accepting’ dispensations. I am trying to present an argument for not tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

LittleFlower >> The issue is not whether or not there are dispensations of God, but rather if Millenialism, millinarianism, Darby's and Scofield's Dispensationalism is even scriptural!

The problem for me is that none of those terms appear in Scripture. Those are men’s ideas about what the Bible says; their interpretations. Quite frankly, I cannot see the value in spending time accessing what any of these dead guys have to say about Dispensationalism, unless we use them as tutors on one aspect of Scripture. Does the Spirit of God dwell in us or not? 1Cor. 3:16, 6:19? Paul writes to us, saying,

“Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Gal. 4:6.

If the Author of the Holy Scriptures dwells insides us, what is this debate over the interpretations of men? Your words carry just as much weight, as any one else, if they are supported by the Word of God. Those among us who have heard and believe the gospel are members of the ‘body of Christ.’ (Eph. 4:12). The Apostle Paul says,

“And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Eph. 4:11-16.

LittleFlower >> Dispensationalism goes way beyond the biblical texts on dispensations.

Then those areas represent the avenues where they have gone beyond that which is written. Paul writes,

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” 1Cor. 4:6.

It is one thing to provide information about those who profess to be Dispensationalists. However, it is something very different to use statements by Darby or Scofield to support your arguments in any forum of debate. Perhaps they represent tutors (1Cor. 4:15) to some folks, and that is according to God’s Word if they can backup their dogma with proper application of Scripture. My experience is that tutoring from anyone is like eating fish; eat the meat and throw away the bones. You will find me quoting the Apostle Paul frequently in all of my posts. He writes,

“For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet {you would} not {have} many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” 1Cor. 4:15.

LittleFlower >> Remember, such an interpretation of scripture never existed in the Church for about 1900 years, and presently is embraced by a small percentage of Christians worldwide. It just seems so prevalent because it has found a strong foot hold in the US . .. but go outside the US and it becomes a very minor segment of Christian thought . ..

Do you know what? Over and over again I keep reading about this ‘interpretation’ of Scripture. What exactly are we talking about? I mean . . . most likely, these guys are part right about some aspects of God’s Word, and off on other parts. If I may impose on you just a bit, then please describe what you mean by ‘this interpretation’ of Scripture that never existed, with your commentary on where that interpretation deviates from God’s Word. Perhaps then I can find myself on the same page, as to what the majority of posters here are talking about.

LittleFlower >> This dispensationalist "understanding" is something that is very new and recent in the history of the Christian Church and flies in the face of all the Church has always believed about Christ's atoning death on the Cross, and the New Covenant being established with, in and through the Church . .

What the Church has always believed does not seem to be as important, as what these people are saying that is contradictory to God’s Word. For example, quoting Church writers is no better than quoting the Dispensationalists, if both deviate from what Paul says in our Bibles. We could spend centuries debating what this group has to say versus another group, and in the end be no nearer the truth than when we began. My point is that one Word from God is greater than all the words of men. 2Tim. 3:16+17, Hebrews 4:12.

LittleFlower >> It is a novel idea and simply isn't biblical . . just because a belief misuses scripture to back up its claims, that doesn't make it scriptural . .

It is most difficult for me to fathom the concept that any one group is 100 percent correct, or 100 percent wrong. Again, every person who has heard and believed the gospel – the message of truth, was ‘sealed in Him’ with the Holy Spirit of Promise. Eph. 1:13+14. That does not make anyone perfect, but sets their feet upon the right path. Paul writes,

“For even as the body is one and {yet} has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit . . . But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body . . . And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.” 1Cor. 12:12-22.

Paul specifically says,

“For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” 1Cor. 11:19.

A person is not approved, because he calls himself a Catholic, Baptist or a Dispensationalist. Paul does not say that there ‘may’ be factions among us, but that there ‘must,’ be factions (groups/parties/divisions) among us. A person from each particular group can argue his understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and the chips can fall where they may. However, the determination of which side of any discussion has merit (if either) is the responsibility of each individual member of the body of Christ.

We are to determine these things by examination of all the facts in the case, and arrive upon our own conclusions. It is not for you or me to make those decisions for other folks. Have you finished growing in the body of Christ? Who among us sees everything there is to see about the Mystery of Christ, and our place in the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2)? Again, I must adhere to Paul’s words concerning “countless tutors.” If one of those Dispensationalists can help me see one aspect of God’s Word more clearly, then they have obeyed God’s command to feed the body of Christ. And, unless someone can provide me with sufficient evidence, then I can see no reason to cast a burning blanket over any particular group.


In Christ,



Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Av1611, ThereseLittleFlower and All:

Thank you very much for posting this reply. Now I am beginning to understand the division that exists between the posters in this forum. After posting this message, it is likely that I will be labeled a ‘dispensationalist,’ because the answer to this ‘New Covenant’ question has its answer in a proper understanding of dispensations. While I am totally ignorant as to what Darby or Scofield have to say about this topic, I can explain what God’s Word says about the New Covenant and how that applies strictly to Israel and her Kingdom. First, your words:

Thereselittleflower wrote >> This dispensationalist "understanding" is something that is very new and recent in the history of the Christian Church and flies in the face of all the Church has always believed about Christ's atoning death on the Cross, and the New Covenant being established with, in and through the Church...

Av1611 >> So the only charge you lay against dispensationalism is that it is not tied to traditions and that it reads scripture without being told by a 'Priest" what X, Y and Z means? The Professing Church may have believed for a very long time that the New Covenant was established with the church but such a view is unsupported by scripture which says that: Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" No mention of the church being a party to the New Covenant!

The fact that the ‘Church’ is not mentioned by Jeremiah is to be expected. The fact that Christ would have a ‘body of Christ’ is according to the relation of the mystery. Col. 1:24-27 (24). Therefore, Jeremiah could not write about the Gentile dominant body of Christ, because he could not see it. That part of God’s plan was still ‘hidden.’ 1Cor. 2:6-8 (7). The phrase “New Covenant” is used in God’s Word only once in the OT (Your quote above), and seven times in the NT. Luke 22:30 (Lord’s Last Passover Meal), 1Cor. 11:25, 2Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, Heb. 8:13 ‘new’ (covenant is inferred), Heb. 9:15, Heb. 12:24. Paul does use the phrase twice, but I want to reserve those comments until they are brought up by other posters; addressing those points individually. The very first thing we should note is that this phrase is predominantly used by Kingdom writers with half being in Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews quotes your Jer.31:31 verse in Hebrews 8:8, saying,

“For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH.” Heb. 8:8 (CAPS is OT quote).

And the Holy Spirit does not stop quoting OT Scripture there. The very next verse is really quite amazing, (please forgive the CAPS, they are all OT quotes from my PC Bible Program)

“NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.” Heb. 8:9.

This verse of Scripture is many OT verses joined together, as follows, Exodus 19:5; 24:6-8; Deut. 5:2 and Jer. 31:32 (the verse after the one Av1611 posted above). Then, in the following verse, we see words from Jeremiah 31:33:

"FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.” Heb. 8:10.

Many Christians wish to theorize that the ‘body of Christ’ has superseded the House of Israel and Judah regarding the ‘New Covenant.’ We can see by these Hebrew quotes above that this is definitely not the case. The Holy Spirit has clearly kept all of those OT verses intact. If the body of Christ (the Church: Col. 1:24) was to replace Israel of the flesh with regard to the New Covenant, then the Holy Spirit would have simply told us so in Hebrews. Right here is where we must properly apply a correct understanding of ‘dispensations’ to this topic. Even if you disagree 100 percent with what Dispensationalists have to say about Dispensationalism, we must adhere to what God’s Word says about ‘dispensations,’ and how that applies to this issue.

This very topic was the focus of all the parties at the famous meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15, Gal. 2). Remember again that Paul was sent there by Christ Himself through a revelation.

“It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but {I did so} in private to those who were of reputation [Peter, John and James; “reputed pillars” Gal. 2:9], for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.” Gal. 2:2.

Make no mistake about this crucial point being made by Paul, and understand that he is being sent to a meeting some two decades after the crucifixion. Paul was heading down to Jerusalem to submit our gospel (2Cor. 4:3, 1Thes. 1:5), and he proceeded to go in fear of failure. Many posters to this forum will argue that Paul’s gospel (“my gospel” Rom. 2:16, 16:25, 2Tim. 2:8) is the same message preached by all the other apostles before him. However, that premise stands against everything Paul has written above. Did Paul really go down to submit “the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” in fear of failure, or not? It was because of another ‘revelation’ of Jesus Christ that Paul carried this message for twenty years, before finally being sent down to submit it to Peter, John and James. Paul writes,

“For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal. 1:11+12.

If Paul had received the same ‘gospel message,’ as Peter, John and James, then Christ was sending Paul to Jerusalem for absolutely nothing. Here is the specific reason that Christ sent Paul to see the ‘pillars’ of the Kingdom Disciples:

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is {really} not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” Gal. 1:6+7.


“But {it was} because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.” Gal. 2:4.

Who were these ‘false brethren,’ and what was the false message they carried? James tells us back in Acts 15, saying,

"Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with {their} words, unsettling your souls.” Acts 15:24.

These men from James were Kingdom Disciples who were “

zealous for the Law

.” Acts 21:20. They had a serious problem with Paul teaching that believers need not circumcise their children.

“And when they heard it they {began} glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.” Acts 21:20+21.

By reading Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, you will clearly see that ‘circumcision’ and ‘works of the Law’ are clearly at the heart of Paul’s message. He uses a form of the word twelve times to that church, and four times in chapter five alone. For example, he writes,

“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” Gal. 5:2+3.

And right here is where we must again correctly apply the concept of ‘dispensations’ to this discussion. Those men from James were 100 percent correct about circumcision and keeping the ‘whole Law.’ They were responsible for keeping the ‘whole Law,’ (James 2:10) according to Kingdom Doctrine. Those were Christ’s commands in Matthew 5:17-19. The very first canonized book of our NT is the Book of James, which was written shortly after this meeting in Jerusalem to calm the concerns of these Jews who were ‘zealous for the Law.’ He wrote to them, saying,

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one {point,} he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10.

When Paul sat across the table from Peter, John and James, at the meeting in Jerusalem, then he was looking at three men still under Mosaic Law. They were still preaching the same ‘gospel of the kingdom,’ (Matt. 4:17 (23), 9:35, 24:14, Acts 8:12) that they had been preaching for the past twenty years. Paul’s gospel includes justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 4:4+5), while James teaches justification by faith AND works. James 2:20-24. That is because the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ includes repentance AND baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Acts 2:38. Paul’s gospel includes the precepts of hearing (Rom. 10:7) and believing (Eph. 1:13+14) the gospel (1Cor. 15:1-4) of Christ’s shed blood (Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:20).


According to my word processor, my post has 13,000 characters. The site word count is over 22,000. Something is up someplace. I cannot shorten this post by that much and retain the original intent, so part 2 is below, hopefully.

God bless,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Greetings:

Peter, John and James are writing to Kingdom Disciples in the Messianic Kingdom that already began from the time of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). Christ said,

"For all the prophets and the Law prophecied until John." Matt. 11:13.

John the Baptist preached the Kingdom (Matt. 3:1-6), Christ preached the Kingdom (Matt. 4:17 (23), 9:35), and His disciples preached the same thing (Matt. 10:5-7). That offering was made STRICTLY to the House of Israel. As it is written,

“These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in {the} way of {the} Gentiles, and do not enter {any} city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'” Matt. 10:5-7.

Is there any doubt in your mind that Christ was sent only to Israel? If you will not believe me, then believe Him. What does He say?

“But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24.

When Peter gave his Acts 2 address, to whom was he speaking? To Gentiles? No. Should we pretend that Christ and His Disciples are addressing the House of Israel AND Gentiles, when they clearly are not doing any such thing? Do we invalidate Christ's words in Matthew 15 above to justify our home made doctrines? Or, are we to read the Bible for what it 'does' say? If we are to understand God's Word, then we must be willing to interpret the words according to the proper context. Otherwise, we are guilty of doing the same thing we accuse others of doing, i.e., taking the verses of Scripture out of context. In Peter's Acts Two Address, he clearly says,

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene . . .” Acts 2:22.



"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God . . .” Acts 2:36.

Peter, John and James are addressing members of the Kingdom Dispensation, while Paul is addressing members of the Grace Administration (Romans 10:13). The “New Covenant” has everything to do with the House of Israel. They are the ‘bride’ of John 3:29. Peter, John and James are ‘servants of the bridal chamber.’ Mark 2:18-20 (19). They are looking forward to the ‘marriage supper of the Lamb.’ Rev. 19:5-10. That is where the members of the Kingdom Administration shall be joined to Christ through the legal act of marriage. There is where the Lord shall fulfill His promise in Hosea 2:19+20.

Here are the most important words of this post: We are members of the Lamb already! Eph. 4:12, 5:30, Col. 1:24, etc.. We were baptized into His body (1Cor. 12:13) the moment we heard and believed the gospel. That is what it means to be ‘sealed in Him.’ Eph. 1:13. Think about it carefully and realize that a Covenant is a promise to do something in the future. Israel’s joining to Christ is still future. They do not yet see Him as the Messiah/King/Savior/Son of God, as we do. After much debate during the meeting, James stands up and says,

"Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME.” Acts 15:14-17 (OT quotes in CAPS).

Then lastly, Paul tells the Romans,

“For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." Rom. 11:25+26.

This Dispensation of God’s grace is parenthetical to the Kingdom Dispensation. It looks something like this:



King(Grace Dispensation)Dom Dispensation. Our New Testament appears exactly according to this same format: Matt.–John(Pauline Epistles)Hebrews–Revelation.



The Kingdom Dispensation never ended, but has been placed on the back burner. That is why no prophecy is currently being fulfilled during this time. Paul’s gospel has power inside those (two parentheses above). The ‘gospel of the kingdom’ has power during the coming Kingdom Dispensation, when all Israel shall be saved. During the time of the coming Messianic Kingdom Dispensation, Elijah shall appear again to Israel, and will ‘restore all things.’ Matt. 17:11. The temple will be restored, and the remaining Gentiles in the world will seek the Lord through Israel and her ‘royal priesthood’ (1Pet. 2:9). And then the New Covenant will be in place.



God bless,



Terral

 

[thereselittleflower]

So the olny charge you lay against dispensationalism is that it is not tied to tradtions and that it reads scripture without being told by a 'Priest" what X, Y and Z means? The Professing Church may have believed for a very long time that the New Covenant was established with the church but such a view is unsupported by scripture which says that: Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" No mention of the church being a party to the New Covenant!



How so?

Ah . . AV . .

I think that because I have a Catholic Icon by my name that you somehow see this now as a Catholic/Protestant thing?

It isn't . . . your words above give away how poorly you understand Catholicism . . and how poorly you understand traditional Protestantism as well.

This is not a Catholic/Protestant thing . .

This is a new. novel idea against all Christianity has believed, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant in the history of the Church from its beginning.

It sets itself against historical Christian beliefs . .

But to lay your mind a rest, a priest does not tell me how to interpret scripture . .that is a myth that many non-Catholics have about Catholicism . . If you would like to learn more about this, may I invite you to OBOB to ask us there so we don't derail this thread.

The Church has always believed certain things to be true . . And I look at scripture in light of what the Church has always believed to be true . .


The fact that the Church is not mentioned per-se in that verse does not exclude the Church . . for the Church to have been excluded would mean that there would have to be clear language that it would be with the house of Israel and Judah ONLY . .but that langauge is not there . .

When the New Covenant is made with the Church it is at the same time made with Israel and Judah . .for the scriptures tell us that there in no longer Jew or Gentile . .there is no longer 2 groups, but they have been made one in Christ, made One NEW MAN.

This is not sometime off in the future . . this finds its fulfillment in the Church and is happening now.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

AV . .

Let me ask you something . . in the millenium, the Temple sacrifice will be restored . sacrifices will happen there at the Temple in Jerusalem.


How do dispensationalists understand this passage?

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts

​

Peace in Him!

 

[Terral]

Hi Flower and AV:

AV>> So the only charge you lay against dispensationalism is that it is not tied to traditions and that it reads scripture without being told by a 'Priest" what X, Y and Z means? The Professing Church may have believed for a very long time that the New Covenant was established with the church but such a view is unsupported by scripture which says that: Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" No mention of the church being a party to the New Covenant!

Flower to AV >> The fact that the Church is not mentioned per-se in that verse does not exclude the Church . . for the Church to have been excluded would mean that there would have to be clear language that it would be with the house of Israel and Judah ONLY . .but that langauge is not there . .

Yes, that language is there. You just pasted it to your message. The verse says,

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.” Jer. 31:21+32.

Then, the Writer of Hebrews quotes this same verse:

“For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH.” Hebrews 8:8 (CAPS are OT quotes).

If the Church is part of this covenant, then why did the Holy Spirit fail to include that as part of this verse?

Flower to AV >> When the New Covenant is made with the Church it is at the same time made with Israel and Judah . .for the scriptures tell us that there in no longer Jew or Gentile . .there is no longer 2 groups, but they have been made one in Christ, made One NEW MAN.

Please provide Scriptural support for your statements. That way our task of determining your context is much easier. There is no verse in the Bible that contains the phrase ‘two groups.’ NASB. You must be referring to this:

“Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," {which is} performed in the flesh by human hands--{remember} that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both {groups into} one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, {which is} the Law of commandments {contained} in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, {thus} establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” Eph. 2:11-16.

Paul does use the word ‘covenants’ once in the letter to the Ephesians. That compares to eighteen uses of a form of the word in Hebrews. We know for sure that Hebrews 8:8 and Jer. 31:31 are talking about the same thing, because those verses are almost identical. The important thing to note in considering the context of the passage above is Paul’s words, “But now in Christ Jesus you . . .” Who is the ‘you’ here? Israel or Gentiles? Saved or unsaved? Paul tells us above, “Therefore, remember that formerly you, the Gentiles of the flesh . . .” Paul is writing about Gentile participation in the body of Christ. Again, that is why the words appear, “But now in Christ Jesus you . . .” Paul is addressing members of the body of Christ who are already ‘in’ Christ Jesus. He writes to them, saying,

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly {places} in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Eph. 2:4-7.

These Gentiles have already been seated in the heavenly places “in Christ Jesus.” Paul is saying that all who believe the gospel (Eph. 1:13+14) are ‘sealed in Him,’ and members of the ‘one body’ (Eph. 4:4); whether Jew or Gentile. Our lives are already hidden with Christ in God. Col. 3:3.

The New Covenant for Israel concerns a promise to be joined to Christ in the future. Israel is currently blind to the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lord (Rom. 11:25). Just as AV is saying above, the New Covenant is for the house of Israel and Judah in the future.


God bless,

Terral]

 

[In Christ Forever]

No post. Sorry.

1 corin 15:21 For since by man [came] death, by Man also [came] the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order:

Christ the firstfruits, afterward [passed]

those [who are] Christ's at His coming. 24 [to come?]

Then [comes] the end, [THE END]

when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
Peace and Grace to you. God bless.

 

[TheScottsMen]

Personally I have never heard of the man but I did a search and came up with this: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?fr=slv1-&p=dake%27s+bible. From this I would have to conclude that he is not a dispensationalist because he is Charismatic whereas dispensational theology is cessationist. If you have Dake quotes that shew he is a dispy then feel free to post them and we can see

Dakes has probably written more on Dispensational theology than Scofield and Darby combined Dake is staunchly dispensational .

About the Dakes Bible (of which I own)
"KJV Dakes Annotated Reference Bible/Compact
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Fundamentalist and dispensational in perspective, this KJV reference Bible offers copious commentary notes, cross-references, and key-word definitions. 3-column format of Bible text, notes, and comments * Book summaries * Dake Bible chart adaptations * Words of Christ in red "[/font]

also:

"The purpose of the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible is to house a variety of study resources in one volume: commentary, atlas, dictionary, concordance, and study helps geared toward dispensational thought, such as charts of doctrines, prophetic studies, and notes on "Dispensational Truth." Dake's is Fundamentalist and Dispensationalist in its orientation. The Dake's Bible has four equal-sized columns on each page-- two columns of bible text with a column of notes on each side, and symbols in the text to indicate prophecies, promises, commands and "new messages from God."

His other book, "Gods Plan for Man" (also which I own) is a MUST have by any dispensationlist, as I said, Dakes has written more in his life about Dispenastional theology then most dispeys put together.

%99 of all Pentecostals (AOG, etc..) are all dispenastionalist. Remember, dispenastionalism is not agreeing with Scofield and Darby, but dividing Gods Word into dispensations.