Calling all dispensationalists!

[premilldispensationalist]

Hi I was just wondering who here was a dispensationalist!

Regards,
Richard Sherratt

[Lynn73]

Better give the definitions of a classified, revised, and progressive dispensationalist. I don't know what each of those mean. Give me the definitions and I can vote on which one I might be.

[premilldispensationalist]

Better give the definitions of a classified, revised, and progressive dispensationalist. I don't know what each of those mean. Give me the definitions and I can vote on which one I might be.

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s)
Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition. 9

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The “heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.” 10

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption. 11 In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer


2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985)
Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present)
What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another. 12 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13

“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.” 14

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

[JM]

I believe with all my heart that dispensational theology makes the most sense, but I have to admit, at times I may jump in and out of the three views. I'm mostly a classical dispensationalist....so maybe that'll be my vote.

[JM]

Hi I was just wondering who here was a dispensationalist!

Regards,
Richard Sherratt
Richard, what about hyper dispensationalism aka Bullingerism?

[Lynn73]

I'd have to say that I'm a dispensationalist but I'm still confused about the different views even after reading the explanations. Guess I'm dense.

[TheScottsMen]

Richard, what about hyper dispensationalism aka Bullingerism?
Yeah, what about us Mid-Acts Dispens and how about those Acts 28 dispens?

Bullinger, Pastor C.R. Stam , etc...

[TheScottsMen]

I was classical dispen for a long time, but had problems with classicals bringing stuff from the OT into the NT that didn't belong in the NT and interpreting stuff for that Church that didn't belong to the Church, so that when I found mid-acts

http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/

TSM

[JM]

Those parts highlighted with colour are quoted, DT=dispensational theology.

More to consider: Numerous things in the Bible indicate that God has employed different dispensations or ways of administering His rule throughout history. For example, before the Noahic Flood God did not institute capital punishment for murderers (Gen. 4:9-15), but He did institute it after the flood (Gen. 9:5-6). Between the giving of the Mosaic Law and the death of Christ, God commanded that adulterers in Israel be put to death (Lev. 20:10; Dt. 22:22; Jn. 8:5), but since the death of Christ God does not so command (1 Cor. 6:9-11). While the Mosaic Law was in effect, God required Jews to worship on Saturday (Ex. 20:8-11), but since the death of Christ God does not so require (Rom. 14:4-9; Col. 2:13-17). God's people today do not offer animal sacrifices for sins, but people before Christ's death were required to do so.

I'd like to state this again: The first systematic expression of dispensationalism was formulated by J. N. Darby sometime during the late 1820s and 1830s in the British Isles. Darby stressed the most literal approaches to Bible interpretation in history and a theology which distinguishes God's plan for Israel from God's plan for the church. The most well known feature of dispensational theology is the much-debated pretribulational rapture doctrine. (Keeping in mind that it is the most well known, not the only aspect of DT)

"The Moody Handbook of Theology" by Paul Ennis lists the following as early historical contributors to DT.

Writings of Justin Martyr, (A.D. 110-165)

Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)

Augustine (A.D. 354-430)

Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)

John Edwards (1637-1716)

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)

All the saints and elect of God are gath­ered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which over­whelms the world because of our sins. -Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

DT Hermeneutics

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense." Such normal or plain interpretation is primary, and should be adhered to...unless the nature of the statements, in their context and literature-type, force the reader to take them in a symbolic or figurative way.

Main points are: Three groups are spoken of in the NT, those being the gentile (the unsaved pagan), Israel (the Jews who rejected Jesus) and the Church (the believers: Jew and gentile.) Nothing can be further from the truth to say that DT theology is anti-semtic, in fact, DT is often accused of being Zionist...wanting a home for Israel because we believe it is important for the Jew to be returned and stay in Israel.

A reader should initially take everything in the Bible in its normal ("literal") sense, like any piece of explanatory informative literature, ---while taking into consideration the people (& culture) and time it was written, and the grammar, usage and type of literature.

Salvation: No matter which dispensation is being talked about, there is only one way that a person can be saved, and that is through the sacrifice of Christ by the power of God --but this sacrifice was not specifically and clearly understood in the Old Covenant. In all of history, man is only saved by grace through faith alone in God plus nothing.

Variations

Classical Dispensationalism Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition. Key theologians: John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Revised or Modified Dispensationalism Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity. Key theologians: John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

Progressive Dispensationalism What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another. Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” Key theologian: Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy.

Ultradispensationalism The most common dispensationalism finds the beginning of the church in Acts 2 with the Spirit's coming at Pentecost. From the standpoint of Acts 2 dispensationalism two other views seem extreme, or "ultra." According to Acts 13 dispensationalism the church began when Paul started his mission to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:2). According to Acts 28 dispensationalism the church began toward the end of Paul's ministry with his reference to Israel's rejection of the kingdom of God and the sending of God's salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 28:26 - 28). Key theologians: E. W. Bullinger, J C O'Hair, C R Stam, and Charles F Baker. http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultradispensationalism-ironside.htm (http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultradispensationalism-ironside.htm)

[TheScottsMen]

Progressive Dispensationalism What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another. Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” Key theologian: Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy.

Ultradispensationalism The most common dispensationalism finds the beginning of the church in Acts 2 with the Spirit's coming at Pentecost. From the standpoint of Acts 2 dispensationalism two other views seem extreme, or "ultra." According to Acts 13 dispensationalism the church began when Paul started his mission to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:2). According to Acts 28 dispensationalism the church began toward the end of Paul's ministry with his reference to Israel's rejection of the kingdom of God and the sending of God's salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 28:26 - 28). Key theologians: E. W. Bullinger, J C O'Hair, C R Stam, and Charles F Baker. http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultradispensationalism-ironside.htm (http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultradispensationalism-ironside.htm)
I find it ironic that you post a link against Ultradispensationalism but do not do so with others. Little bit of bias there?:)

[TheScottsMen]

Also, Bullinger was Acts 28, didn't believed in eternal hell, believed in soul sleep, and many other doctrines that Mid-Acts and Late Acts do not believe.

[JM]

Also, Bullinger was Acts 28, didn't believed in eternal hell, believed in soul sleep, and many other doctrines that Mid-Acts and Late Acts do not believe.
ScottsMen,

Could you go into a little detail about how Mid/hyper Acts dispensationalists come to their conclusions?

[TheScottsMen]

ScottsMen,

Could you go into a little detail about how Mid/hyper Acts dispensationalists come to their conclusions?
Hey! I would not do justice to mid-acts dispens (which im studying like nuts) so I'll let the Berean Bible Society do it for me.

http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/

TSM

[TheScottsMen]

Also, there is a good book by C.R. Stam (a father of Mid-Acts Dispen) called, "Things That Differ". You can get it on Amazon of course, but you can also read it online;)

http://www.bijbel.nl/things_that_differ.htm

TSM

[richardsherratt]

Yeah, what about us Mid-Acts Dispens and how about those Acts 28 dispens?

Bullinger, Pastor C.R. Stam , etc...
I have a copy of The Companion Bible on order which will be arriving this week! I can't wait!!

[TheScottsMen]

I have a copy of The Companion Bible on order which will be arriving this week! I can't wait!!
Great Bible. I first heard of Bullinger when I was studying Dakes. I was looking through Dakes sources and found he used A LOT of Bullingers notes. Both are very good Bibles though, with the exception of a few doctrines (Bullinger = Soul Sleep ] Dakes = View on the trinity, OT saints Born Again, etc..)

[wobbly]

Hate to be picky ( but I am a hyper-dispensationalist (HD) so I guess its expected)

Bullinger and all the HD's I know of (which are English and Australian) don't think the soul-sleeps, it ceases to exist while the body and spirit are separated in between death and resurrection.

Count me down as a vote for Acts 28 which I guess makes me classical.

Martin

[Harry the Heretic]

I went with #1, as sreet preacher said, it seems to make the most sense to me also, but I do struggle with certain aspects of the "consummation". Mainly, if Christ conquered the devil, and death on the cross, why is a second conquering needed? I have not answered this myself satisfactorily. Of course death still reigns, so.....