Which one are you?

[JM]

Quote taken from: http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html

Variations Within Dispensationalism
The above features characterize the beliefs of those within the dispensational tradition. However, as Blaising writes, “Dispensationalism has not been a static tradition.” 8 There is no standard creed that freezes its theological development at any given point in history. Blaising offers three forms of dispensational thought:


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

 

[TheScottsMen]

You forgot "Hyper", "Ultra" etc..

 

[dmiller]

And then there is dispensationalism that teaches of 8 different dispensations in all.

1) Paradise ---------------- Gen 1:3-3:24 -------- out of Eden
2) Conscience ------------- Gen 4:1-7:11 ---------the Flood (Gen 7:12-8:14)
3) Civil Government -------- Gen 8:15-Ex 19:25 --- Moses on Mt. Sinai
4) Law -------------------- Ex 20:1-Acts 1:26 ---- day of Pentecost
5) Grace (the secret) ------ Acts 2:1-IIThes 3:18 - the Rapture
6) Tribulation (appearing) -- Rev 1:1-19:21 -------- The King comes to earth
7) Millenial ----------------- Rev 20:1-15 --------- Final Judgement
8) Paradise ---------------- Rev 21:1-22:21 ------ New Heavan and earth

 

[Iosias]

Hello all

I am a classical dispensationalist

 

[daveleau]

The last (progressive) sounds akin to covenantalism. Is that a correct assumption?

 

[agenes]

Progressive Dispensationalism is the closest one can be to Covenant theology and still call themselves Dispensationalists. I have long asserted that Progressive Dispensationalists have no historical basis to define their system as "Dispensational."

I'm a Textus Receptus only, pro-life, unashamed fundamentalist, against women in ministry, dispensational, premillennial, Calvinist, conservative, independent Baptist

The only issue I have with this doctrinal list, is that one cannot consistently hold to Calvinism and Dispensationalism at the same time. Maybe you are saying that you hold to the five points of the TULIP, but Calvinism and Dispensationalism are not consistently held together in tandem.

 

[JM]

You forgot "Hyper", "Ultra" etc..

I did, sorry.

 

[JM]

Progressive Dispensationalism is the closest one can be to Covenant theology and still call themselves Dispensationalists. I have long asserted that Progressive Dispensationalists have no historical basis to define their system as "Dispensational."

The only issue I have with this doctrinal list, is that one cannot consistently hold to Calvinism and Dispensationalism at the same time. Maybe you are saying that you hold to the five points of the TULIP, but Calvinism and Dispensationalism are not consistently held together in tandem.

I beg to differ, history does as well, I think you have Reformed theology mixed up. Calvinism deals with the aspect of Grace, the calling of the redeemed. Covenant theology is only part of Reformed theology, but one doesn't have to be Reformed to be a calvinist, so it is possible to hold to both dispensationalism and the doctrines of Grace. You'll soon see after reading the article linked below what I mean.

If systematic Dispensationalism is rightly understood it logically makes sense only within a theocentric and soteriologically Calvinists theology. Dispensationalism teaches that it is GOD who is ruling His household, as administered through the various dispensations of history. Though Dispensationalism, or elements of Dispensationalism have been disseminated throughout a wide diversity of Protestant traditions, this system of theology is best seen as a system of theology that views God as the Sovereign ruler of heaven and earth; man as a rebellious vice-regent (along with some angels); Jesus Christ is the hero of history as He is saves some by His Grace; history as a lesson in the outworking of God's glory being displayed to both heaven and earth. In essence, Dispensationalism is a theology properly derived from biblical study and lets God be God.

http://www.conservativeonline.org/journals/04_12_journal/2000v4n12_id01.htm

SP

 

[agenes]

I am not confused about how I am using Reformed/Covenant Theology and Calvinism. Calvinism is much more than the TULIP. If we are to be consistent with our theology, one cannot at the same time hold to Calvinism and Dispensationalism. I know you beg to differ with me, but historically, they are not compatible. Dispensationalism and Calvinism start out at fundamentally different presuppositions, and the logical implications and the logical conclusions reached by both systems are different as night and day.

 

[TheScottsMen]

I did, sorry.

No worries!

I'm a Acts 9 Dispey

 

[agenes]

TheScottsMen, I used to be a Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

 

[Tractor1]

I'm a Christian who studies the Bible from a dispensational point of view.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[TheScottsMen]

TheScottsMen, I used to be a Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

What happen?!?! J/k!

 

[@@Paul@@]

TheScottsMen, I used to be a Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

Me too!!

 

[Iosias]

Me too!!

Not me

 

[TheScottsMen]

Am I the only mid-acts here? AV is Acts 2 I believe and Paul is Acts 28 I think. Any mids in here?

 

[@@Paul@@]

Am I the only mid-acts here? AV is Acts 2 I believe and Paul is Acts 28 I think. Any mids in here?

For the record...

I'm more MID than LATE; but,, i do believe Israel was NOT set aside until Acts 28, which opened the door for the introduction of the "ONE NEW MAN"...

Before Act 28 there was simply "Two Witnesses" running around.

 

[TheScottsMen]

For the record...

I'm more MID than LATE; but,, i do believe Israel was NOT set aside until Acts 28, which opened the door for the introduction of the "ONE NEW MAN"...

Before Act 28 there was simply "Two Witnesses" running around.

I think all mid-acts believe that the Jewish nation was not completely set aside until Acts 28, but starting in either Acts 9, 13, etc.. the Church was formed, and like what you said above, there were two witnesses until rejection happen.

 

[Iosias]

Something of interest:​

THE APOSTASY OF THE SUCCESSIVE DISPENSATIONS

by John Nelson Darby​

...​

The last we have to notice, in a humbled sense of sin in us, is the present, where we are apt to take our ease in the world, as necessarily secure, but which, and the sin of which, the Lord sees and recognises, takes as much notice of, though not openly, as of others — the dispensation of the Spirit.​

Much has been said, with strong objection to it, as to the apostasy or failure of this dispensation.​

The results are but too plain. If we believe that the exhibitions of the Spirit's power and presence, in the second and fourth chapters of Acts, were gladsome and well-pleasing to the Lord, if the blessed Spirit was right in these effects — and who blasphemingly and in the darkness of his own soul dare to say He was not? — then is the present picture of Christendom just as opposite as one thing well can be from another. They have not kept their first estate. The patience and mercy, and sure grace of God has still kept up a witness to Himself through the mediation of Christ, it is true. So it was in every dispensation; but this did not alter or prevent the result of the apostasy. And the facts shew us that it was ever at the outset the failure or apostasy took place; and that it was patience and grace, which bore with and carried it on, but never undid the result of the first failure.

So to our shame has it been in Christianity. The state of the seven churches, I think, would shew this sufficiently to have been the case, and the way in which John was left at the close, to awaken the threats of judgment against a declining church. Where was Paul to hold all in vigour and beauty for the coming of the Lord, presenting every man perfect in Christ Jesus? He had to confess at the close of his career, "I have none likeminded who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."​

Such was the result of apostolic labour; and the history of the book of Revelation, the testimonies of Peter and Jude, as well as the warnings of John and Paul, also shew that this would be the result of Christianity, according to the solemn sentence of the apostle,​

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; on thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

But we may trace the immediateness of this failure more actually and definitely in circumstances to which the attention of the church seems little directed. When the Lord was parting from the disciples, He gives them the commandment, "Go ye and disciple all nations." Where is the fulfilment of this by the apostles whom He had chosen? This was their special commission from Him, as risen and having all power in heaven and earth. The principle and value of the dispensation could not be altered. But where is the fulfilment by the twelve apostles? Scripture affords it not. There is no account of the twelve in Scripture going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature: nothing which Scripture recognises as the accomplishment of this command. This in itself would be sufficient to show that the command on which the dispensation hung was, in the revealed testimony of God, unfulfilled by those to whom it was committed.
​

But I further find (contrary to the word, "when they persecute you in one city, flee ye to the next") that on the persecution which arose about the matter of Stephen, they were all scattered abroad except the apostles. But the testimony is not merely negative, for I find, in extraordinary grace, a new arrangement entirely made—an apostle of the Gentiles raised up, entirely distinct: "one born out of due time"; "not of man, nor by man"; who was neither apostle with them, nor from them, but asserts, as he proved, his own independent qualifications. And the Acts of the Apostles, as to ministry, are the acts of Peter, as one in whom God was mighty to the circumcision, and it was agreed that he should go to the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles; and so the acts of Paul, as one in whom the same God was mighty towards the uncircumcision. That is, we find an express special office of apostle to the Gentiles, and whatever work was done of the commission, "Go ye into all nations" (Gentiles) was done, as presented to us in Scripture, actually by somebody else specially and extraordinarily raised up for the purpose. Thus, whatever grace and power from Him that was glorified might effect, this dispensation as well as any other failed and broke off in the very outset; and in point of fact the gospel has never been preached in all the world, nor all nations discipled to this day, but the church which was gathered has departed from the faith of the gospel, and gone away backward, so as to be as bad or worse than the heathen.

But the point which is proved in this is not merely that it is in a bad state now, but that like all others it broke down in the commencement — no sooner fully established than it proved a failure. This does not touch upon the faithfulness of God, but exalts it, as in the case of the Jews, where their lie abounded to the glory of God. The remnant have been preserved all through, and according to the measure of grace and faith have prospered, or have been raised up from depression according to the counsels of God; but the dispensation was gone. We belong to a better glory. Nor, this being brought in as the object of desire, can the believer seek other or old things and earthly arrangements. And as he cannot desire, so neither does Scripture present the restoration of a dispensation; it never justifies its actual condition; and though grace and faith may, as I have said, effect revivals during the long - suffering of God, the dispensation, as such, is actually gone, that the glory of the principle contained in it may shine forth in the hands of Messiah. The attempt to set this dispensation on another footing, as to its continuance, than those dispensations which have failed already, not only shews ignorance of the principles of God's dealings, for the calling of God was always by grace true (and if it were it never could make way for that which is to come under Messiah), but it is actually negatived by the assertion, that it stands on the same ground as to this with the Jewish — "if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off." (Romans 11).​

When He is come who can bind Satan himself, so that his power in the world shall be set aside, and not merely the testimony of the Lord's power maintained there, then shall there be continuance, until, for the accomplishment of the purposes of God, and the final separation of evil and good, he be let loose again for a little season. And the close of all dispensation, and the end of all question and title of authority shall come, and, all being finished, God shall be all in all without question and without failure. How the glory of God and our consequent blessing in these things is increased and enhanced might be very plainly shewn, as it is indeed just declared by the apostle; but if the fact be recognised and its truth established as before the Lord, it may suffice now.​

Reference to the second chapter of Galatians will confirm and establish the point historically as to the present dispensation, where not only is the fact stated of Paul having the ministry of the Gentiles, as Peter of the circumcision; but it was actually agreed on their conference, consequent upon the grace given, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcision; and James, and Cephas, and John should go to the circumcision. And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all, and even after this he would not eat when certain came from James. In fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did, so did they.​

________________________________​

[1] Prophecy was in fact evidence of the failure of the dispensation as well as of God's patience under it. Blessed to a remnant, it recalled to Moses and prophesied of Messiah. (See the last verses of Malachi.)​

​

​

From: http://www.biblecentre.org/topics02ff/topics_jnd_apostasy_of_successive_dispensations.htm​

​

 

[Iosias]

I think all mid-acts believe that the Jewish nation was not completely set aside until Acts 28, but starting in either Acts 9, 13, etc.. the Church was formed, and like what you said above, there were two witnesses until rejection happen.

For the record: I believe that the church began in Acts 2 but Israel was not set aside fully until Acts 7.