Your Theology Label?

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

So, I am not trying to "open a can of worms" with this. Here is our situation. We have belonged to mostly SBC churches until the last year. We moved back to KS after living in CO for 8 years. When we moved back, we couldn't find a SBC church with a preacher just preaching the Word. We found lots of "topic" preaching, never expository which is what we like. Anyway, in the end we joined a Bible church. Our pastor was recently called to a church in TX and now the church is looking for a new senior pastor.

Here is where the issue comes up. This church is rigidly attached to dispensationalism. Our former pastor was not, even though he was a Dallas Theological grad (THE school for dispensational training, we are finding). He just approached preaching the Word with much prayer and study. I never heard him preach anything that we felt was unbibliccal. My DH and I don't really subscribe to any "theological system" (ie. dispensationalism, covenant, etc.), we just feel like we pray to the Lord for wisdom and understanding to interpret what His Word is teaching us. Not that we think that God doesn't place many good teachers in our path, He does and for that we are thankful!! However, this issue coming up in our church is causing a division which I fear may split our church. My thinking is, we all believe there is one true God who sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross and be resurrected 3 days later. This act took care of my sin and cleans me, as long as I accept it. I believe you only have to accept it once (which is a done deal!) and that after that you turn your life over to Him and follow Him. You are one of His believers. Isn't it that simple, or must we suscribe to a theological system?

Sorry, this is LONG!! It has been a frustrating time at our church. Much prayer is needed:prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: . Thanks for reading.

[holdon]

So, I am not trying to "open a can of worms" with this. Here is our situation. We have belonged to mostly SBC churches until the last year. We moved back to KS after living in CO for 8 years. When we moved back, we couldn't find a SBC church with a preacher just preaching the Word. We found lots of "topic" preaching, never expository which is what we like. Anyway, in the end we joined a Bible church. Our pastor was recently called to a church in TX and now the church is looking for a new senior pastor.

Here is where the issue comes up. This church is rigidly attached to dispensationalism. Our former pastor was not, even though he was a Dallas Theological grad (THE school for dispensational training, we are finding). He just approached preaching the Word with much prayer and study. I never heard him preach anything that we felt was unbibliccal. My DH and I don't really subscribe to any "theological system" (ie. dispensationalism, covenant, etc.), we just feel like we pray to the Lord for wisdom and understanding to interpret what His Word is teaching us. Not that we think that God doesn't place many good teachers in our path, He does and for that we are thankful!! However, this issue coming up in our church is causing a division which I fear may split our church. My thinking is, we all believe there is one true God who sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross and be resurrected 3 days later. This act took care of my sin and cleans me, as long as I accept it. I believe you only have to accept it once (which is a done deal!) and that after that you turn your life over to Him and follow Him. You are one of His believers. Isn't it that simple, or must we suscribe to a theological system?

Sorry, this is LONG!! It has been a frustrating time at our church. Much prayer is needed:prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: . Thanks for reading.

In the last days people will gather teachers who tickle their ears. They will choose whatever variety of pastor they like.
All kinds of "isms" will be their idols, whether dispensationalism or Calvinism, whether congregationalism or presbyterianism, etc., etc..
Not to speak of following all kinds of "preferential speakers" as it was in Corinth almost 2000 years ago: "I am from Paul, Apollos, Cephas."

"But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those who create divisions and occasions of falling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them. For such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting."

[christian73]

Personally, I just go by what the Bible says. I don't belong to any "theological system" or whatever it's called. The Bible is what I go by.

I will keep you in my prayers. :)

[GordonSlocum]

I believe a number of church members don't have a view either way on this subject.

What I would tell you is find a Soul winning fundamentally doctrinally sound Church and go there. If you take the SBC statement of faith and you find a SBC that is firm on those statements you will most likely find a decent place to worship and study the Bible.

I personally prefer a dispensational approach to Bible teaching because I fanatically believe it is the only way.

But, this may surprise you - my pastor is not Dispensational. I love my pastor and he does not battle the issues in the pulpit. We are SBC.

The main stream well know SBC pastors are mainly Dispensational. Dr. David Jeremiah, Dr. Charles Stanley, Dr. Farwell, (Deceased - Dr. Adrian Rogers) Dr. Richard Lee, and others are, as said, Dispensational. You will find for the most part that the pastors that are Dispensational none Calvinist Bible teachers have the most vibrant Churches in the land. Well rounded in both worship and the teaching of Scripture. There are exceptions but they are the rule.


It has been my observation over the years, more than 35, that Dispensational Believing Pastors are the more rounded in their total Biblical teaching of the Bible.
The Charismatic movement for the most part is Dispensational in Eschatology too.

Now in all of the professing Christians world from Baptist to Catholics the dominant theology is Covenant / A-millennial. Also, there is a large tendency in these belief systems to gravitate to liberalism (always exceptions) and Dispensationalist has a very good track record of remaining Conservative in its view of the Credibility of The Scripture even to a point of fanaticism, and legalism. The fanaticism and legalism are exception in this camp.

That is a personal observation in my life and experience. Again my pastor is not a dispensationalist. We have a very God fearing and loving local church and a pastor who has a passion for God's word and the lost. No chance of my local Chuch moving in the wrong direction as long as He is pastor.


Gordon.

[christian73]

I believe a number of church members don't have a view either way on this subject.

What I would tell you is find a Soul winning fundamentally doctrinally sound Church and go there. If you take the SBC statement of faith and you find a SBC that is firm on those statements you will most likely find a decent place to worship and study the Bible.

I personally prefer a dispensational approach to Bible teaching because I fanatically believe it is the only way.

But, this may surprise you - my pastor is not Dispensational. I love my pastor and he does not battle the issues in the pulpit. We are SBC.

The main stream well know SBC pastors are mainly Dispensational. Dr. David Jeremiah, Dr. Charles Stanley, Dr. Farwell, (Deceased - Dr. Adrian Rogers) Dr. Richard Lee, and others are, as said, Dispensational. You will find for the most part that the pastors that are Dispensational none Calvinist Bible teachers have the most vibrant Churches in the land. Well rounded in both worship and the teaching of Scripture. There are exceptions but they are the rule.


It has been my observation over the years, more than 35, that Dispensational Believing Pastors are the more rounded in their total Biblical teaching of the Bible.
The Charismatic movement for the most part is Dispensational in Eschatology too.

Now in all of the professing Christians world from Baptist to Catholics the dominant theology is Covenant / A-millennial. Also, there is a large tendency in these belief systems to gravitate to liberalism (always exceptions) and Dispensationalist has a very good track record of remaining Conservative in its view of the Credibility of The Scripture even to a point of fanaticism, and legalism. The fanaticism and legalism are exception in this camp.

That is a personal observation in my life and experience. Again my pastor is not a dispensationalist. We have a very God fearing and loving local church and a pastor who has a passion for God's word and the lost. No chance of my local Chuch moving in the wrong direction as long as He is pastor.


Gordon.
Gordon,

I'm not a theologian by any means and am not familiar with dispensational theology. Can you give an explanation as to what it is?

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

Gordon,

I'm not a theologian by any means and am not familiar with dispensational theology. Can you give an explanation as to what it is?
christian73 - Hold on to your hat!! I have found in the last month with what is happening in our church that finding out what a theology system follows is very involved and exhausting at times! Thankfully there are many on the boards here who will be very patient and kind (Gordon definitely comes to mind).

[Andyman_1970]

Personally, I just go by what the Bible says. I don't belong to any "theological system" or whatever it's called.

With all due respect you don't..........you're going by your interpretation (which is from someone else's interpretation) of the Text.


The Bible is what I go by.


So yesterday when you went to church did you greet your brothers in the faith with a holy kiss?

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon,

I'm not a theologian by any means and am not familiar with dispensational theology. Can you give an explanation as to what it is?

Dispensational theology is an outline in the simplest of terms.

Now that I have said that some devout dispensationalist will come on and kindly and extensively chastise me I am sure.

OK now that that is said here it is in simple form

(1) There are certain times in the Bible where God reveals to man something different He is doing. We all know he knows what He is doing but we don't unless He tells us.

(2) We read first of Creation to the fall. God is in control and how he ran things between creation and Adam and Eve's fall was what we would call a period of Innocence.

No sin in their lives, naked, full open fellowship with God not needing a mediator.


(2) Now they have sinned. All of a sudden they are conscience of "sin" "wrong doing" "violation of God's law" "don't eat that fruit" They are conscience of these things. It was a natural as we would call it outcome of their disobedience as they were warned.

The state they are in is the state of all mankind.

But not losing tack what did God do? He made some changes and told us about it.

OK Adam and Eve here is the deal, thorns and thistles, pain and sorrow. You can read the account for the very details of the change.

OK all this continues on until today and will up to the 1000 year kingdom yet future the 7 point in the outline


(3) Now the next big deal is the Flood - That is correct. The flood. God reveals to us a new deal. The first rainbow, the first rain, capital punishment toward animals and man. a promise not to ever again destroy the earth by water.

(1) innocence
(2) conscience which continues
(3) government - some new rules are introduced and the earth changed and they are still in effect too.

(4) We are about this and that but God tells us I am going to talk to Abram and promise him something. In this promise we see more of God's plan. So here is the forth time God has revealed more of his plan.

Dispensational theology is an outline in the simplest of terms.

Now that I have said that some devout dispensationalist will come on and kindly and extensively chastise me I am sure.

OK now that that is said here it is in simple form

(1) There are certain times in the Bible where God reveals to man something different He is doing. We all know he knows what He is doing but we don't unless He tells us.

(2) We read first of Creation to the fall. God is in control and how he ran things between creation and Adam and Eve's fall was what we would call a period of Innocence.

No sin in their lives, naked, full open fellowship with God not needing a mediator.


(2) Now they have sinned. All of a sudden they are conscience of "sin" "wrong doing" "violation of God's law" "don't eat that fruit" They are conscience of these things. It was a natural as we would call it outcome of their disobedience as they were warned.

The state they are in is the state of all mankind.

But not losing tack what did God do? He made some changes and told us about it.

OK Adam and Eve here is the deal, thorns and thistles, pain and sorrow. You can read the account for the very details of the change.

OK all this continues on until today and will up to the 1000 year kingdom yet future the 7 point in the outline


(3) Now the next big deal is the Flood - That is correct. The flood. God reveals to us a new deal. The first rainbow, the first rain, capital punishment toward animals and man. a promise not to ever again destroy the earth by water.

(1) innocence
(2) conscience which continues
(3) government - some new rules are introduced and the earth changed and they are still in effect too.

(4) We are about this and that but God tells us I am going to talk to Abram and promise him something. In this promise we see more of God's plan. So here is the forth time God has revealed more of his plan.

You see the outline is all about the plan of God as He revealed it. There is more to it than that but I am keeping it simple (keep it simple stupid) OK.

So God promises Abram (now Abraham) something and it reveals to us something new that mankind did not know up to that point. Granted only Abraham basically Knew but we are looking back at this historically and outlining it.

So far we are still in Genesis. But now we move to Leviticus for Number 5 of the outline

(5) The next biggy is the Law (no law in this sense but now law in this sense - different rules)

(6) After the law the next unfolding of new is the Birth of Christ. Now here is the Church (different and new).

(7) Then after the tribulation or the 70 week of Daniel the 1000 year kingdom

That is it in a nut shall.

Feel free to ask further questions I will try to keep it simple. No need for all the theological mobo jombo which I do like but not necessary here.

God Bless

7 Point Outline

Innocence
Conscience
Government
Promise
Law
Grace
Kingdom

This outline is a natural Biblical outline and does not violate the flow of Scripture or Theology.

It helps up see the flow of the un-folding drama of Redemption clearer. It helps to make better sense of the total picture.

It makes Daniel and Revelation more than a Mystery and places us squarely in the last days only waiting on the Rapture and then the final point in the outline the kingdom on earth.

I think it is the best way and makes the complete Bible alive. Others will disagree but that is me and my view. 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy - the first advent was literal so there is not indication that the second advent should not be literal. Non-dispensationalist see second coming passages as allegorical and spiritualize them. I use to do that.

God Bless

[JM]

Find a good Reformed Baptist Church and the rest will work itself out.

;)

[novcncy]

A little briefer overview of dispensationalism:

The way God and man interact is set up under a specific economy, or way to approach God. These economies are bounded in periods of time, called dispensations. The first one was Adam, directly communicating with God. The one we are in now is of grace, whereby we are able to approach Him through the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us. The next one will be when the Son rules with a rod of iron from the New Jerusalem during His millenial reign. Dispensationalism sees that the New Testament church and Israel are distinct entities.

The other major way of interpreting the scripture is covenant theology. The view of Covenant theologians is that the church is a new Israel, and is thus subject to the promises and covenants of God with Israel, prior to their rejection of the Messiah.

This is a big difference when considering things such as the rapture. It is clear that Israel will endure the tribulation. Thus, a covenant approach would conclude that all believers, as they are considered the new Israel, will endure the tribulation. A dispensationalist approach, considering the church to be the bride of Christ who will be protected from the wrath to come, interprets the prophecies regarding Israel as just that, and does not apply them carte blanche to the church.

I skimmed Gordon's post, and it seems to be rather comprehensive, in form of a general summary. The age of Grace did not start until Christ's substitutionary work on the cross was complete, and the changing of the dispensation was marked by the rending of the veil in the Holy of Holies, from top to bottom. A symbolical way of saying, "You are able to approach Me directly through your Eternal High Priest. No longer must you approach me through the blood of animals and a temporal priest." But Gordon's post is much more specific than my post. I tried to distill the essence of dispensationalism/Covenant theology. I hope it's helpful, and accurate, so I want to say I am not trying to misrepresent covenant theology or start an argument. Please don't construe anything I wrote in that way. If I've misrepresented something, please correct it.

[Calminaion]

Find a good Reformed Baptist Church and the rest will work itself out.

;)

Or just forget denominations (including non-denominational) all together and pray about which Church God would have you go to.

[holdon]

Find a good Reformed Baptist Church and the rest will work itself out.

;)

Ah, here we go with the proselytizing?

Divide, divide, divide, till there is nothing left.

[GordonSlocum]

I have always loved the theme William G. Scroggy (sp) placed on the Bible, "The Unfolding Drama of Redemption" You can't go wrong with that.

God Bless

[christian73]

A little briefer overview of dispensationalism:

The way God and man interact is set up under a specific economy, or way to approach God. These economies are bounded in periods of time, called dispensations. The first one was Adam, directly communicating with God. The one we are in now is of grace, whereby we are able to approach Him through the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us. The next one will be when the Son rules with a rod of iron from the New Jerusalem during His millenial reign. Dispensationalism sees that the New Testament church and Israel are distinct entities.

The other major way of interpreting the scripture is covenant theology. The view of Covenant theologians is that the church is a new Israel, and is thus subject to the promises and covenants of God with Israel, prior to their rejection of the Messiah.

This is a big difference when considering things such as the rapture. It is clear that Israel will endure the tribulation. Thus, a covenant approach would conclude that all believers, as they are considered the new Israel, will endure the tribulation. A dispensationalist approach, considering the church to be the bride of Christ who will be protected from the wrath to come, interprets the prophecies regarding Israel as just that, and does not apply them carte blanche to the church.

I skimmed Gordon's post, and it seems to be rather comprehensive, in form of a general summary. The age of Grace did not start until Christ's substitutionary work on the cross was complete, and the changing of the dispensation was marked by the rending of the veil in the Holy of Holies, from top to bottom. A symbolical way of saying, "You are able to approach Me directly through your Eternal High Priest. No longer must you approach me through the blood of animals and a temporal priest." But Gordon's post is much more specific than my post. I tried to distill the essence of dispensationalism/Covenant theology. I hope it's helpful, and accurate, so I want to say I am not trying to misrepresent covenant theology or start an argument. Please don't construe anything I wrote in that way. If I've misrepresented something, please correct it.

One question. The Bible doesn't really say that the Bride of Christ will be petected from the Tribulation, or does it? I used to think we would be protected, but I recently had an evangelist show me otherwise. Gordon, this is for you also.

[novcncy]

One question. The Bible doesn't really say that the Bride of Christ will be petected from the Tribulation, or does it? I used to think we would be protected, but I recently had an evangelist show me otherwise. Gordon, this is for you also.

I think you'll find that consistently, the Bible teaches and shows that God will preserve His people from judgement. From Noah, to Lot, to the passover, there are countless examples. Also there are various passages that directly teach this, and then there are passages which connote it, without speaking directly to it. If you will give me some time to properly prepare the response, I would be happy to get it ready, but I surely don't want to compromise it by a hasty and less than thorough answer. I'm also afraid it may hijack the thread, so perhaps we should start another? Another problem is that this will surely become a rapidly enflamed issue, and a constructive dialogue may not be possible. Perhaps we should go so far as to set up some sort of forum which can be regulated, like with a moderator or something, to ensure that points are lucidly and comprehensively discussed in an orderly fashion??? Let me know. I've found that arunma may be an excellent person to bring into the discussion from a Covenant theology side.........anyway, if you're interested, new thread??

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

Thanks for all of the replies. There is much knowledge to be found here, I am sure. However, it is sort of proving the quandry that our church seems to be in now. My point is just this....these don't seem to be ESSENTIAL doctrine, to me anyway. Can't we all just say we are saved through Christ and the rest is stuff that does not have to be agreed on?

[Calminaion]

Thanks for all of the replies. There is much knowledge to be found here, I am sure. However, it is sort of proving the quandry that our church seems to be in now. My point is just this....these don't seem to be ESSENTIAL doctrine, to me anyway. Can't we all just say we are saved through Christ and the rest is stuff that does not have to be agreed on?

*Tackle hug*

Well, to a point at least. We have to agree on WHO Christ was, but Romans says it pretty clear:

Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.

^_^ :clap: :thumbsup::amen:

CAN I GET AN "AMEN" SOMEBODY?!

[holdon]

I think you'll find that consistently, the Bible teaches and shows that God will preserve His people from judgement. From Noah, to Lot, to the passover, there are countless examples. Also there are various passages that directly teach this, and then there are passages which connote it, without speaking directly to it. If you will give me some time to properly prepare the response, I would be happy to get it ready, but I surely don't want to compromise it by a hasty and less than thorough answer. I'm also afraid it may hijack the thread, so perhaps we should start another? Another problem is that this will surely become a rapidly enflamed issue, and a constructive dialogue may not be possible. Perhaps we should go so far as to set up some sort of forum which can be regulated, like with a moderator or something, to ensure that points are lucidly and comprehensively discussed in an orderly fashion??? Let me know. I've found that arunma may be an excellent person to bring into the discussion from a Covenant theology side.........anyway, if you're interested, new thread??

Do not go to the Dispensationalism forum elsewhere on this site, as that thread has been quasi taken over by MAD people. (MAD = Mid Acts Dispensationalist). While it can be useful to learn something there, it does not represent the regular (classical) dispy point of view. It's something quite different.

[novcncy]

Do not go to the Dispensationalism forum elsewhere on this site, as that thread has been quasi taken over by MAD people. (MAD = Mid Acts Dispensationalist). While it can be useful to learn something there, it does not represent the regular (classical) dispy point of view. It's something quite different.

I'll take that advice. I was actually thinking that the vein this discussion has found shows potential, both for constructive discourse, but also for destructive rhetoric.....Man, this is so frustrating......

[JM]

Do not go to the Dispensationalism forum elsewhere on this site, as that thread has been quasi taken over by MAD people. (MAD = Mid Acts Dispensationalist). While it can be useful to learn something there, it does not represent the regular (classical) dispy point of view. It's something quite different.


For once I whole heartedly agree with holdon.

[Calminaion]

So as I understand it, dispensationalism is the idea that history is a series of acts of God that He controlled?

If so, I would say He allowed them to happen, but I wouldn't say that God caused events like the Holocaust. Sorry to hijack the thread.

[holdon]

So as I understand it, dispensationalism is the idea that history is a series of acts of God that He controlled? Can you think of any act by God that is not controlled by Him?

If so, I would say He allowed them to happen, but I wouldn't say that God caused events like the Holocaust. Sorry to hijack the thread.

I wouldn't say that either....

[GordonSlocum]

:clap: :clap: :clap:
:amen:

[christian73]

I think you'll find that consistently, the Bible teaches and shows that God will preserve His people from judgement. From Noah, to Lot, to the passover, there are countless examples. Also there are various passages that directly teach this, and then there are passages which connote it, without speaking directly to it. If you will give me some time to properly prepare the response, I would be happy to get it ready, but I surely don't want to compromise it by a hasty and less than thorough answer. I'm also afraid it may hijack the thread, so perhaps we should start another? Another problem is that this will surely become a rapidly enflamed issue, and a constructive dialogue may not be possible. Perhaps we should go so far as to set up some sort of forum which can be regulated, like with a moderator or something, to ensure that points are lucidly and comprehensively discussed in an orderly fashion??? Let me know. I've found that arunma may be an excellent person to bring into the discussion from a Covenant theology side.........anyway, if you're interested, new thread??
Sure, I'll even start the thread. I know there's a possibility of this discussion getting heated. I can assure you that I'm not starting this to spark a debate, I've just never been exposed to these terms.

I'll get the thread started and then wait for your response.

[JPPT1974]

You are saved only throught
The grace of Jesus Christ
If you see Him, you see God In
And through Him!

[eldermike]

So, I am not trying to "open a can of worms" with this. Here is our situation. We have belonged to mostly SBC churches until the last year. We moved back to KS after living in CO for 8 years. When we moved back, we couldn't find a SBC church with a preacher just preaching the Word. We found lots of "topic" preaching, never expository which is what we like. Anyway, in the end we joined a Bible church. Our pastor was recently called to a church in TX and now the church is looking for a new senior pastor.

Here is where the issue comes up. This church is rigidly attached to dispensationalism. Our former pastor was not, even though he was a Dallas Theological grad (THE school for dispensational training, we are finding). He just approached preaching the Word with much prayer and study. I never heard him preach anything that we felt was unbibliccal. My DH and I don't really subscribe to any "theological system" (ie. dispensationalism, covenant, etc.), we just feel like we pray to the Lord for wisdom and understanding to interpret what His Word is teaching us. Not that we think that God doesn't place many good teachers in our path, He does and for that we are thankful!! However, this issue coming up in our church is causing a division which I fear may split our church. My thinking is, we all believe there is one true God who sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross and be resurrected 3 days later. This act took care of my sin and cleans me, as long as I accept it. I believe you only have to accept it once (which is a done deal!) and that after that you turn your life over to Him and follow Him. You are one of His believers. Isn't it that simple, or must we suscribe to a theological system?

Sorry, this is LONG!! It has been a frustrating time at our church. Much prayer is needed:prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: . Thanks for reading.
I have never seen a Theology discussion bring people together. I mean never. In my opinion you should state what you believe as a fellowship and keep it out of Theological boxes unless you know fully everything that's in that box. I am not a dispensationalists. I also have some issues with covenant Theology. I am a personal relationship bible believer.

To find a pastor stick to the basics. Use your mission statement and your statement of faith. That's all you need.

Bring your fellowship back together on what you believe.
Just my opinion

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

I have never seen a Theology discussion bring people together. I mean never. In my opinion you should state what you believe as a fellowship and keep it out of Theological boxes unless you know fully everything that's in that box. I am not a dispensationalists. I also have some issues with covenant Theology. I am a personal relationship bible believer.

To find a pastor stick to the basics. Use your mission statement and your statement of faith. That's all you need.

Bring your fellowship back together on what you believe.
Just my opinion


Thank you, this is a spectacular post which quite accurately sums up what I think!!:clap: :clap: :amen:

[GordonSlocum]

Thank you, this is a spectacular post which quite accurately sums up what I think!!:clap: :clap: :amen:
Outline of the Bible
I. Creation to Fall ---------------------------------------- Innocence
II. Fall to Flood ------------------------------------------ Conscience
III. Flood to Promise -------------------------------------- Government
IV. Promise to The Giving of the Law ---------------------- Law
V. The Giving of the Law to first coming of Christ-------- Church age
VI. From Christ to the Second Coming ------------------- 1000 Yr. Kingdom
The above is Dispensationalism in a nut shall plane and simple
It is the exact outline of all the Bible with respect to “Dispensations” and it is a no brainer.

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

Outline of the Bible
I. Creation to Fall ---------------------------------------- Innocence
II. Fall to Flood ------------------------------------------ Conscience
III. Flood to Promise -------------------------------------- Government
IV. Promise to The Giving of the Law ---------------------- Law
V. The Giving of the Law to first coming of Christ-------- Church age
VI. From Christ to the Second Coming ------------------- 1000 Yr. Kingdom
The above is Dispensationalism in a nut shall plane and simple
It is the exact outline of all the Bible with respect to “Dispensations” and it is a no brainer.

Okay, I am not sure how this applies to my reply to eldermike. Anyway, yes, I have all of this information. Just not sure that I buy into the dispensation system, even if it is a "no brainer". I thought that the point he made was great. Actually, I thought that you had sorta made the same point earlier in the thread, that the main thing was the biblical teachig, not so much the non-essentials. So not real sure where this post from you came from. Anyway, thanks for the info.:wave:

[GordonSlocum]

Okay, I am not sure how this applies to my reply to eldermike. Anyway, yes, I have all of this information. Just not sure that I buy into the dispensation system, even if it is a "no brainer". I thought that the point he made was great. Actually, I thought that you had sorta made the same point earlier in the thread, that the main thing was the biblical teachig, not so much the non-essentials. So not real sure where this post from you came from. Anyway, thanks for the info.:wave:

"
A re-statement. Don't read anything into it. Just a re-statement for the sake of emphasis.

For me dispensationalist is - yes again - a No-brainer.
Some try to make it so hard and confusing and all that it is - is a simple outline of the unfolding drama of God's word.

It never ceases to amaze me that this is hard to understand.

I suspect the flurry of theological terms surrounding the system (or any system for that matter) that are thrown out in to the discussion confuses the issue to some. And some use the terms not really knowing the connection and or meaning.

Simple is always good. I have always liked simple, because you can say it simply.

If we have a can full of words that sound different but mean the same thing and one of the words are commonly used among the largest number of people then that word will educate much faster than the use of the others. The word that is most common is best.

Redundant as it sounds "is it water or is it one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Both are correct. Which way will the largest group understand. "Water" That is correct the first “Water”.

[christian73]

Some try to make it so hard and confusing and all that it is - is a simple outline of the unfolding drama of God's word.


Hey, Gordon, I like simple too. :)

[rkymtnjesusfreak]

"
A re-statement. Don't read anything into it. Just a re-statement for the sake of emphasis.

For me dispensationalist is - yes again - a No-brainer.
Some try to make it so hard and confusing and all that it is - is a simple outline of the unfolding drama of God's word.

It never ceases to amaze me that this is hard to understand.

I suspect the flurry of theological terms surrounding the system (or any system for that matter) that are thrown out in to the discussion confuses the issue to some. And some use the terms not really knowing the connection and or meaning.

Simple is always good. I have always liked simple, because you can say it simply.

If we have a can full of words that sound different but mean the same thing and one of the words are commonly used among the largest number of people then that word will educate much faster than the use of the others. The word that is most common is best.

Redundant as it sounds "is it water or is it one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Both are correct. Which way will the largest group understand. "Water" That is correct the first “Water”.




I know, that is very true. We have friends who have an apologetics ministry and they are dispensational. However, it seems they are very confrontational and speak way above people's heads (not simply at all) and it just seems to push to the background what the basic truth of Christianity really is. And if that part is lost, really what is the point of going on to anything else on the subject? I truly get what dispensation is, and quite frankly a lot of it makes sense. There are just parts that I don't agree with. But for me that's fine! You are a staunch dispensationalist, but you are still my brother in Christ. That is the problem I have had as of late, that there are some that actually will QUESTION someones salvation because they don't buy into one theological system or the other (I am NOT saying that you have done this, just making the point). This I don't get and I see as very legalistic.

Anyway, you have been very amiable in your presentation of your belief on dispensation, I appreciate it. Some people can't seem to stay very civil when talking about these issues. Actually, everyone in the thread stayed nice and friendly! Thanks everyone!!:clap: :clap:

And Happy Birthday Gordon!!

[InDeoHonorium2]

I am not into Labels
SO I am not sure if I could use a theological label to describe myself.....Maybe "Cafeteria Christian" I like that one
Or deist maybe

[christian73]

I am not into Labels
SO I am not sure if I could use a theological label to describe myself.....Maybe "Cafeteria Christian" I like that one
Or deist maybe
I agree with you. I'm not much into labels either.

[DeaconDean]

The whole of dispensationalism is found rooted sqaurly in the teachings of one J.N. Darby:

"This idea is a relatively modern theory in the history of doctrine that was initially developed and popularized by J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the father of dispensational thought. Darby was meditating on the fact that the true Christian through the baptizing work of the Spirit is in union with Christ and thus is seated with Christ in the heavenlies. With this on his mind, Darby read in Isaiah 32:15-20 about a prophesied outpouring of the Spirit upon Israel that would bring earthly blessings upon the people of God. Darby took this Scriptural data and concluded it to imply a strong contrast between earthly blessings prophesied for Israel and heavenly blessings promised to the Christian in the New Testament. From this came Darby's theory that God has two peoples, an earthly people and a heavenly people. The seed of Abraham that is to number more than the dust of the earth is the earthly people, the Jews; and the seed of Abraham that is to number more than the stars of the heavens is the heavenly people, the church. The earthly seed will inherit the new earth for eternity while the heavenly seed will inherit heaven for eternity. Thus there are two peoples of God, two purposes in history, and two eternal destinies for the saints, according to Darby. These two peoples were also viewed as living under different economies of salvation: the Jews under an economy of law in the Old Testament and in the millennium, and the Christians under an economy of grace in the church age."

Dispensationalism is wrong in this line of thought for one simple reason:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." -Jn. 10:16

God is not a respecter of persons. If one follows a dispensational line of thought, God has two people, the Jews which will be blessed here on earth, and a heavenly people who will inherit heavenly blessings.

And most are right about visiting the dispensational threads. I personally have seen one person say flat out that they put no stock "in the earthly words of Jesus who spoke to an earthly people." And if you venture into the dispensational threads, you will find that unless the apostle Paul said it, it's not true. Just beware of this area.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[novcncy]

The whole of dispensationalism is found rooted sqaurly in the teachings of one J.N. Darby:

"This idea is a relatively modern theory in the history of doctrine that was initially developed and popularized by J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the father of dispensational thought. Darby was meditating on the fact that the true Christian through the baptizing work of the Spirit is in union with Christ and thus is seated with Christ in the heavenlies. With this on his mind, Darby read in Isaiah 32:15-20 about a prophesied outpouring of the Spirit upon Israel that would bring earthly blessings upon the people of God. Darby took this Scriptural data and concluded it to imply a strong contrast between earthly blessings prophesied for Israel and heavenly blessings promised to the Christian in the New Testament. From this came Darby's theory that God has two peoples, an earthly people and a heavenly people. The seed of Abraham that is to number more than the dust of the earth is the earthly people, the Jews; and the seed of Abraham that is to number more than the stars of the heavens is the heavenly people, the church. The earthly seed will inherit the new earth for eternity while the heavenly seed will inherit heaven for eternity. Thus there are two peoples of God, two purposes in history, and two eternal destinies for the saints, according to Darby. These two peoples were also viewed as living under different economies of salvation: the Jews under an economy of law in the Old Testament and in the millennium, and the Christians under an economy of grace in the church age."

Dispensationalism is wrong in this line of thought for one simple reason:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." -Jn. 10:16

God is not a respecter of persons. If one follows a dispensational line of thought, God has two people, the Jews which will be blessed here on earth, and a heavenly people who will inherit heavenly blessings.

And most are right about visiting the dispensational threads. I personally have seen one person say flat out that they put no stock "in the earthly words of Jesus who spoke to an earthly people." And if you venture into the dispensational threads, you will find that unless the apostle Paul said it, it's not true. Just beware of this area.

God Bless

Till all are one.
"Shall be" is future tense...

Darby doesn't define all dispensationalism. It might be convenient to make that characterization, so that the entire doctrine is built on such an obvious fallicy, and therefore summarily dismissed. That's a big mistake, but such tactics are nothing new.

[holdon]

Dispensationalism is wrong in this line of thought for one simple reason:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." -Jn. 10:16

Interestingly, Jn 10 would support dispensationalism rather than anything else. The "fold" is Israel. The "sheep of the fold" are Jewish christians. They are led out of that fold by the true shepherd:Jesus. So, they are no longer in the fold: no longer in Israel.
Jesus has also other "sheep which are not of this fold", that is they are not Jewish, but these are the Gentile believers.
Then He says that these two groups: Jewish christians and Gentile christians, are to become one flock (different word!) with one shepherd. Remark, that the word "flock" is different from the word "fold". The "Flock" is the Church that Jesus announced He would build. In that there is no Jew or Greek. See the teachings on the Church in the epistles.
The "fold" is the old Israel. The "fold" is a place with a wall: Israel under the Law.
The "flock" is the ensemble of the sheep: the entire group composed of individuals. They are being led out freely to abundant life. (as opposed to being locked up in the fold)

There is no other satisfactory way to explain Jn 10 other than in this dispensational light.

[DeaconDean]

Interestingly, Jn 10 would support dispensationalism rather than anything else. The "fold" is Israel. The "sheep of the fold" are Jewish christians. They are led out of that fold by the true shepherd:Jesus. So, they are no longer in the fold: no longer in Israel.
Jesus has also other "sheep which are not of this fold", that is they are not Jewish, but these are the Gentile believers.
Then He says that these two groups: Jewish christians and Gentile christians, are to become one flock (different word!) with one shepherd. Remark, that the word "flock" is different from the word "fold". The "Flock" is the Church that Jesus announced He would build. In that there is no Jew or Greek. See the teachings on the Church in the epistles.
The "fold" is the old Israel. The "fold" is a place with a wall: Israel under the Law.
The "flock" is the ensemble of the sheep: the entire group composed of individuals. They are being led out freely to abundant life. (as opposed to being locked up in the fold)

There is no other satisfactory way to explain Jn 10 other than in this dispensational light.

I would almost agree with you but for the fact that Jn. 10:16 says "other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:" the other sheep of course being the Gentiles. And as since we are now in "the fold" we all are under one shepherd.

Remember what Paul taught about "ingrafting into the vine?"

God Bless

Till all are one.

[holdon]

And as since we are now in "the fold"

Apparently you didn't read my post very well, nor did you study the subject. We are not in "the fold", but in "the flock". Consult another version if you use KJV.

[DeaconDean]

Apparently you didn't read my post very well, nor did you study the subject. We are not in "the fold", but in "the flock". Consult another version if you use KJV.

So we aren't part of the vine?

The walk (verse 4) is sometimes quite difficult, but Paul provides encouragement and hope in Romans 6:5-6. As difficult as our march from slavery might be at times, the glory of the resurrection and the complete putting off of the flesh lies before us.
The word "united" ("planted" in the King James) in verse 5 draws our attention because it is elsewhere translated "grafted" or "engrafted." In John 15, Christ describes Himself as a vine, and we are its branches. In Romans 9, Paul compares converted Israelites to natural branches and Gentiles as unnatural branches grafted into the same vine. Union is achieved with all sharing a part. All are receiving of the same source, and all are striving to produce the same fruit.
But how do we know we are attached to that Vine?
Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. (I John 2:3-5)
You have your version, I have mine. I'm part of the fold. I'm part of the flock. I'm the lost sheep that Jesus left the ninety and nine and came to find.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

From John Gill's Commentary on the New Testament:


John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John 10:16
And other sheep I have…
Not distinct from those for whom he laid down his life, but from those who were under the Old Testament dispensation, and who heard not the thieves and robbers that were before Christ, (John 10:8 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=joh+10:8)) ; others besides the lost sheep of the house of Israel, or the elect among the Jews, to whom Christ was sent; and by whom are meant the chosen of God among the Gentiles, who were sheep, though not called and folded, for the reasons given: (See Gill on John 10:3 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=joh&chapter=10&verse=3)). These, though uncalled, belonged to Christ; he had an interest in them, they were given him by his Father; he had them in his hands, and upon his heart; his eye was upon them, and they were under his notice, inspection, and care:
which are not of this fold,
of the Jewish nation and church, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise; were as sheep going astray, and were scattered about in the several parts of the world; and were to be redeemed out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation:
them also I must bring;
out of the wilderness of the world, from among the men of it, their former sinful compassions, from the folds of sin and Satan, and the pastures of their own righteousness; to himself, and into his Father's presence, to his house and ordinances, to a good fold and green pastures, and at last to his heavenly kingdom and glory: and there was a necessity of doing all this, partly on account of his Father's will and pleasure, his purposes and decrees, who had resolved upon it; and partly on account of his own engagements, who had obliged himself to do it; as well as because of the case and condition of these sheep, who otherwise must have eternally perished:
and they shall hear my voice;
in the Gospel, not only externally, but internally; which is owing to his powerful and efficacious grace, who quickens them, and causes them to hear and live; unstops their deaf ears, and gives them ears to hear; and opens their hearts, to attend to his word, and gives them an understanding of it. The Arabic version reads this in connection with the preceding clause, thus, "and I must bring them also to hear my voice"; as well as the rest of the sheep among the Jews, and therefore the Gospel was sent among them: and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd;
one church state, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles; the middle wall of partition being broke down, these two coalesce in one, become one new man, and members of one and the same body; for though there may be several visible Gospel churches, yet there is but one kind of church state, and one general assembly and church of the firstborn, one family to which they all belong; for what reasons a church is comparable to a fold, (See Gill on John 10:1 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=joh&chapter=10&verse=1)). And over this fold, or flock, there is but one shepherd, Jesus Christ; who is the rightful proprietor, and whose own the sheep are; and who knows how to feed them, and does take care of them; though there are many under shepherds, whom he employs in feeding them; in the original text the copulative "and" is wanting, and the words stand thus, "one fold, one shepherd"; which not only expresses a peculiar elegance, but answers the proverb delivered in the same form; and to which agree the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, which render them, "and there", or "they shall be one fold of one shepherd"; or one flock which belongs to one shepherd only; see (Ezekiel 34:23 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+34:23)) (37:24 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+37:24)) .

From Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible:


Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible
Chapter 10

Christ is the shepherd, v. 11, etc. He was prophesied of under the Old Testament as a shepherd, Isa. 40:11; Eze. 34:23; 37:24; Zec. 13:7. In the New Testament he is spoken of as the great Shepherd (Heb. 13:20), the chief Shepherd (1 Pt. 5:4), the Shepherd and bishop of our souls, 1 Pt. 2:25. He is acquainted with those that are hereafter to be of this flock (v. 16): Other sheep I have, have a right to and an interest in, which are not of this fold, of the Jewish church; them also I must bring. Observe, [ a. ] The eye that Christ had to the poor Gentiles. He had sometimes intimated his special concern for the lost sheep of the house of Israel; to them indeed his personal ministry was confined; but, saith he, I have other sheep. Those who in process of time should believe in Christ, and be brought into obedience to him from among the Gentiles, are here called sheep, and he is said to have them, though as yet they were uncalled, and many of them unborn, because they were chosen of God, and given to Christ in the counsels of divine love from eternity. Christ has a right, by virtue of the Father’s donation and his own purchase, to many a soul of which he has not yet the possession; thus he had much people in Corinth, when as yet it lay in wickedness, Acts 18:10. "Those other sheep I have,’’ saith Christ, "I have them on my heart, have them in my eye, am as sure to have them as if I had them already.’’ Now Christ speaks of those other sheep, First, To take off the contempt that was put upon him, as having few followers, as having but a little flock, and therefore, if a good shepherd, yet a poor shepherd: "But,’’ saith he, "I have more sheep than you see.’’ Secondly, To take down the pride and vain-glory of the Jews, who thought the Messiah must gather all his sheep from among them. "No,’’ saith Christ, "I have others whom I will set with the lambs of my flock, though you disdain to set them with the dogs of your flock.’’ [ b. ] The purposes and resolves of his grace concerning them: "Them also I must bring, bring home to God, bring into the church, and, in order to this, bring off from their vain conversation, bring them back from their wanderings, as that lost sheep,’’ Lu. 15:5. But why must he bring them? What was the necessity? First, The necessity of their case required it: "I must bring, or they must be left to wander endlessly, for, like sheep, they will never come back of themselves, and no other can or will bring them.’’ Secondly, The necessity of his own engagements required it; he must bring them, or he would not be faithful to his trust, and true to his undertaking. "They are my own, bought and paid for, and therefore I must not neglect them nor leave them to perish.’’ He must in honour bring those with whom he was entrusted. [ c. ] The happy effect and consequence of this, in two things:— First, "They shall hear my voice. Not only my voice shall be heard among them (whereas they have not heard, and therefore could not believe, now the sound of the gospel shall go to the ends of the earth ), but it shall be heard by them; I will speak, and give to them to hear.’’ Faith comes by hearing, and our diligent observance of the voice of Christ is both a means and an evidence of our being brought to Christ, and to God by him. Secondly, There shall be one fold and one shepherd. As there is one shepherd, so there shall be one fold. Both Jews and Gentiles, upon their turning to the faith of Christ, shall be incorporated in one church, be joint and equal sharers in the privileges of it, without distinction. Being united to Christ, they shall unite in him; two sticks shall become one in the hand of the Lord. Note, One shepherd makes one fold; one Christ makes one church. As the church is one in its constitution, subject to one head, animated by one Spirit, and guided by one rule, so the members of it ought to be one in love and affection, Eph. 4:3-6. b. Christ’s offering up himself for his sheep is another proof of his being a good shepherd, and in this he yet more commended his love, v. 15, 17, 18. ( a. ) He declares his purpose of dying for his flock (v. 15): I lay down my life for the sheep. He not only ventured his life for them (in such a case, the hope of saving it might balance the fear of losing it ), but he actually deposited it, and submitted to a necessity of dying for our redemption; tithemi — I put it as a pawn or pledge; as purchase-money paid down. Sheep appointed for the slaughter, ready to be sacrificed, were ransomed with the blood of the shepherd. He laid down his life, hyper ton probaton , not only for the good of the sheep, but in their stead. Thousands of sheep had been offered in sacrifice for their shepherds, as sin-offerings, but here, by a surprising reverse, the shepherd is sacrificed for the sheep. When David, the shepherd of Israel, was himself guilty, and the destroying angel drew his sword against the flock for his sake, with good reason did he plead, These sheep, what evil have they done? Let thy hand be against me, 2 Sa. 24:17. But the Son of David was sinless and spotless; and his sheep, what evil have they not done? Yet he saith, Let thine hand be against me. Christ here seems to refer to that prophecy, Zec. 13:7, Awake, O sword, against my shepherd; and, though the smiting of the shepherd be for the present the scattering of the flock, it is in order to the gathering of them in. ( b. ) He takes off the offence of the cross, which to many is a stone of stumbling, by four considerations:—

Both these men agree, there will be one shepherd, and one flock. Not two.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

I believe a number of church members don't have a view either way on this subject.

What I would tell you is find a Soul winning fundamentally doctrinally sound Church and go there. If you take the SBC statement of faith and you find a SBC that is firm on those statements you will most likely find a decent place to worship and study the Bible.

I personally prefer a dispensational approach to Bible teaching because I fanatically believe it is the only way.

But, this may surprise you - my pastor is not Dispensational. I love my pastor and he does not battle the issues in the pulpit. We are SBC.

The main stream well know SBC pastors are mainly Dispensational. Dr. David Jeremiah, Dr. Charles Stanley, Dr. Farwell, (Deceased - Dr. Adrian Rogers) Dr. Richard Lee, and others are, as said, Dispensational. You will find for the most part that the pastors that are Dispensational none Calvinist Bible teachers have the most vibrant Churches in the land. Well rounded in both worship and the teaching of Scripture. There are exceptions but they are the rule.


It has been my observation over the years, more than 35, that Dispensational Believing Pastors are the more rounded in their total Biblical teaching of the Bible.
The Charismatic movement for the most part is Dispensational in Eschatology too.

Now in all of the professing Christians world from Baptist to Catholics the dominant theology is Covenant / A-millennial. Also, there is a large tendency in these belief systems to gravitate to liberalism (always exceptions) and Dispensationalist has a very good track record of remaining Conservative in its view of the Credibility of The Scripture even to a point of fanaticism, and legalism. The fanaticism and legalism are exception in this camp.

That is a personal observation in my life and experience. Again my pastor is not a dispensationalist. We have a very God fearing and loving local church and a pastor who has a passion for God's word and the lost. No chance of my local Chuch moving in the wrong direction as long as He is pastor.


Gordon.Most people who sit in the pews have no idea what they believe or why. That is because most of the men who stand behind pulpits never teach truth but give good advice messages that you could get from Dr. Phil. They are more caught up in marketing their church than glorifying God and the focus is on building churches rather than worshipping God. Truth has taken a back seat to church growth and compromise is the result. It is Christ who builds His Church not men. Our responsibility is to clearly preach the Gospel and leave the rest to God. We are to instruct and exhort and edify believers and teach them the truths taught in the Scriptures. Pastors are so caught up in administrative nonsense and visitations and pleasing the people they have little time for study and preparation for preaching the whole council of God, Christ Jesus the Lord. Church has become a business to run rather than a place where the truth is clearly and uncompromisingly proclaimed. We sure don't want to offend anyone they might not come back and give us their money. We can't build enormous buildings and have all the useless programs that people want if we do that. Plus we have to compete with the church across the street.
The fact is that truth always offends those who oppose it and there is no neutrality concerning it. You either love it or you hate it. One of 2 things always happened when Christ and the Apostles preached: folks believed or they wanted to kill those who preached. You either bow to truth or you oppose it. Those who want to ride the fence are fooling themselves and will eventually fall off on one side or the other.

[GordonSlocum]

I have acquaintances who are avid reformist. The Tulip is their every breath. They are of such a convection that everyone is so wrong that they don't go to church anywhere.

They stay at home and indulge in "self church". They have a ton of opinions.

There are extremes of all kinds.

I would call it a form of legalistic escapism.

Gordon

[novcncy]

"Shall be" is future tense...

Darby doesn't define all dispensationalism. It might be convenient to make that characterization, so that the entire doctrine is built on such an obvious fallicy, and therefore summarily dismissed. That's a big mistake, but such tactics are nothing new.
"will be" is future tense too. Just because the flocks will be joined doesn't mean that they are joined.

[JM]

Dr. John Gill has a lot to teach modern Baptists.

[christian73]

Dr. John Gill has a lot to teach modern Baptists.
Who is he?

[holdon]

So we aren't part of the vine?
Sheesh! We're discussing John chapter 10 and he comes up with: "aren't we part of the vine". Avoiding the subject?
You have your version, I have mine. I'm part of the fold. I'm part of the flock. I'm the lost sheep that Jesus left the ninety and nine and came to find.You're not part of the fold. Jesus left the fold. If you're of the fold you're without Jesus. Got that?