What is "dispensationalism"?

[justsurfing]

I read a little about it on the internet... and still it was not clearly defined.

Is it outside biblical mainstream Christianity?

What does "dispensationalism" mean doctrinally?

 

[BereanTodd]

I read a little about it on the internet... and still it was not clearly defined.

Is it outside biblical mainstream Christianity?

What does "dispensationalism" mean doctrinally?

Dispensationalism is the leading theological framework for evangelicalism, including most baptists, almost all charismatics, most non-denominational churches, and a host of others.

Dispensationalism is really identified by two key issues: if you asked a dispensational scholar or theologian, these would be what we would give you as our identifying factors:

1. A consistant and complete adherance to the Literal-Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. This does not mean that we do not recognize hyperbolic language, or figures of speach, or language that is meant as symbolic (i.e. Jesus saying "I am the door"). However, unlike covenental theologians and others we do not take or make God's prophecies and promises symbollic when they are spoken as literal promises.

2. (and this is the biggest one) A distinction between Israel and the church. The church is not Israel, it has not replaced Israel, it is not spiritual Israel. God's chosen people are Israel, He has made countless promises to them throughout the OT which He swore to them to keep, not because of their obedience, but because of His name's sake.

We as the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11), and as such we are sharers in those promises, but we remain distinct from Israel, and God is not done with Israel.

That does not mean that there is salvation in any other but Christ. There is one name given by which all men must be saved, and none come to the Father but through Christ. But God still has plans for His chosen people.

If you are familiar with Chuck Swindoll, Tony Evans, James MacDonald, Ed Young, David Jeremiah, Woodrow Kroll, Charles Ryrie, Roy Zuck, John Walvoord, just as a few among countless others, they are all dispensationalists.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

I read a little about it on the internet... and still it was not clearly defined.

Is it outside biblical mainstream Christianity?

What does "dispensationalism" mean doctrinally?

1 cor 9:17

eph 3:2,9

col 1:25

are verses with the word in some bibles

dispensation .. teaches man something about man

 

[justsurfing]

Dispensationalism is the leading theological framework for evangelicalism, including most baptists, almost all charismatics, most non-denominational churches, and a host of others.

Dispensationalism is really identified by two key issues: if you asked a dispensational scholar or theologian, these would be what we would give you as our identifying factors:

1. A consistant and complete adherance to the Literal-Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. This does not mean that we do not recognize hyperbolic language, or figures of speach, or language that is meant as symbolic (i.e. Jesus saying "I am the door"). However, unlike covenental theologians and others we do not take or make God's prophecies and promises symbollic when they are spoken as literal promises.

I wonder if an unbeliever could use the same rules.

What of reliance upon and necessity of the Holy Spirit?

2. (and this is the biggest one) A distinction between Israel and the church. The church is not Israel, it has not replaced Israel, it is not spiritual Israel. God's chosen people are Israel, He has made countless promises to them throughout the OT which He swore to them to keep, not because of their obedience, but because of His name's sake.

The elect are God's chosen people in the NT... through the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ. They comprise both Jew and Gentile.

Chuck Swindoll is Calvinist. Are Calvinists "dispensationalist"??? Or just sometimes???

We as the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11), and as such we are sharers in those promises, but we remain distinct from Israel, and God is not done with Israel.

I am a Gentile by birth... yet I am Israel... but not spiritually... according to this view?

Sorry, makes no sense to me. It is only by spiritual means I was grafted into Christ. How can I be Israel any other way but spiritually? I will never be nationally Israel... nor was I born of the lineage of Abraham by natural means.

Seems contradictory to say I have been grafted into Israel, but not spiritually.. I am not spiritual Israel..., yet having been grafted into Israel I am distinct from Israel.

Inherent logical contradictions... it appears. Like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other... saying "yes" and "no" at the same time.

I would agree that God has a special plan for Israel.

That does not mean that there is salvation in any other but Christ. There is one name given by which all men must be saved, and none come to the Father but through Christ. But God still has plans for His chosen people.

Amen. God has a sovereign plan.

The "elect according to foreknowledge"... are God's chosen people in Christ. Both Jew and Gentile.

Chosen in Christ and born of Abraham naturally are 2 different things.

If you are familiar with Chuck Swindoll, Tony Evans, James MacDonald, Ed Young, David Jeremiah, Woodrow Kroll, Charles Ryrie, Roy Zuck, John Walvoord, just as a few among countless others, they are all dispensationalists.

Just Chuck Swindoll. He's Calvinist. He's pretty hard on faith healers in his ministry speaking. (They would be charismatic.)

Why are charismatics mostly "dispensationalist"?

Any other distinguishing things??

Didn't I read somewhere that there claims of "gnosticism" against dispensationalists??

(That term can be thrown around loosely and slanderously, imo. I didn't really identify with the label.)

But what do you say about gnosticism??

God bless,

js

 

[justsurfing]

1 cor 9:17

eph 3:2,9

col 1:25

are verses with the word in some bibles

dispensation .. teaches man something about man

But do you believe there are special times and seasons in which there are special dispensations of God's grace?

Like various times in which God releases "x"... and the Bible can be understood by viewing God's pattern of "dispensing" grace during certain ages?

Is that part of "dispensationalism"?

I believe there are specific ages in the Bible... and varying levels of God releasing grace.

Most obvious... Old Testament and New Testament.

Different ages/dispensations.

I kind of thought that was "dispensationalism"... but wonder???

God bless,

js

 

[BereanTodd]

I wonder if an unbeliever could use the same rules.

What of reliance upon and necessity of the Holy Spirit?

Absolutely. The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit is absolutely vital to the issue of illumination of it to us. 1 Cor tells us that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to natural man.

Chuck Swindoll is Calvinist. Are Calvinists "dispensationalist"??? Or just sometimes???

I actually am not sure if Chuck Swindoll is calvinist. I think he really leans more towards free grace in my experience personally. The term Calvinist is a tough one though. For many (Presbyterians, other reformed theologians) the term Calvinist is synonymous with Reformed theologian (ala R.C. Sprohl if you are familiar with him).

Dispensatoinalists are absolutely not Reformed theologians, we are polar opposites in many things (not that we are enemies, there are many lines of agreement, and at the core both are conservative theologies, which stand against the tide of liberalism). However, if by "Calvinist" you simply mean to refer to soteriology and soteriological issues, then I would say that many Dispensationalists are calvinist, and many Dispensationalists are not. Pretty much all of us would hold to Security of the Believer, but on some of the other points, there are those on both sides of the fence. Personally though I call myself a "Calvinistic dispensationalist", so you know where I come from.

I am a Gentile by birth... yet I am Israel... but not spiritually... according to this view?

You are a Gentile by birth, if you are a believer in Christ then you have been grafted into Israel. However, there are those (reformed and RCC and others) who say that physical Israel has been utterly and forevermore cast away, and that the church is "spiritual Israel" and has either replaced physical Israel, or is the fulfillment or continuation of physical Israel. Neither is true. God's promises to Israel remain, He has sworn to keep them, and He is faithful and just to fulfill them.

I would agree that God has a special plan for Israel.

If you agree that God still has plans for Israel, then you are part way in the dispensational camp at least. I would recomend you pick up some good books on the subject, Ryrie has one titled "Dispensationalism" or even his "Basic Theology" would be a good read for you I would think.

Just Chuck Swindoll. He's Calvinist. He's pretty hard on faith healers in his ministry speaking. (They would be charismatic.)

Again I don't see Swindoll as a Calvinist, though perhaps he could be. However, yes he is hard on the charismatics. He is a cessasionist. While I am not one myself, I do agree with him on many things, and have some sympathies for some of his thoughts.

Why are charismatics mostly "dispensationalist"?

Why is the sky blue? It just so happens that most of them hold to that sort of theological framework. They are not as consistent in their interpretations as the more scholarly or conservative arms of the movement, and they tend to run fast and loose with some interpretations because of that. But at the heart of it they are futurist, pre-millenial, pre-tribulational believers who see a distinction between Israel and the church, and that is enough to consider most of the dispensational.

Notice though that there are different flavors or camps within dispensationalism (as with any theology - there are conservatives and liberals within reformed theology as well, and all manner and scope in between). But for instance, whereas DTS (Swindoll's seminary, and one of the leaders of conservative, evangelical dispensationalism) and charismatics are both dispensational, they are very unfriendly to one another, and at odds on many issues.

Any other distinguishing things??

We are futurist, pre-millenialists. Not all pre-millenialists are dispensational, but all dispensationalists are pre-millenial. But that comes out of the other two distinctives, so it is not really a new one.

Didn't I read somewhere that there claims of "gnosticism" against dispensationalists??

Not that I've seen, and if so the person making such claims was an idiot (excuse my language).

But what do you say about gnosticism??

One of many ancient heresies.

 

[justsurfing]

Absolutely. The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit is absolutely vital to the issue of illumination of it to us. 1 Cor tells us that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to natural man.

Hi Berean, ,

Amen.

I actually am not sure if Chuck Swindoll is calvinist. I think he really leans more towards free grace in my experience personally. The term Calvinist is a tough one though. For many (Presbyterians, other reformed theologians) the term Calvinist is synonymous with Reformed theologian (ala R.C. Sprohl if you are familiar with him).

I believe Chuck Swindoll believes in God's sovereignty and is Calvinist. I'll check. Affiliated with Dallas Theological Seminary. This is posted on their website about "dispensations" (if you care to read it... it does say "dispensations" in the title:

Article V—THE DISPENSATIONS

We believe that the dispensations are stewardships by which God administers His purpose on the earth through man under varying responsibilities. We believe that the changes in the dispensational dealings of God with man depend on changed conditions or situations in which man is successively found with relation to God, and that these changes are the result of the failures of man and the judgments of God. We believe that different administrative responsibilities of this character are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entire history of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under the respective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom. We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive.
We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.
We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).
We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7).

Dispensatoinalists are absolutely not Reformed theologians, we are polar opposites in many things (not that we are enemies, there are many lines of agreement, and at the core both are conservative theologies, which stand against the tide of liberalism). However, if by "Calvinist" you simply mean to refer to soteriology and soteriological issues, then I would say that many Dispensationalists are calvinist, and many Dispensationalists are not. Pretty much all of us would hold to Security of the Believer, but on some of the other points, there are those on both sides of the fence. Personally though I call myself a "Calvinistic dispensationalist", so you know where I come from.

I may be a "dispensationalist" on some matters.

I hold to Calvinist soteriology... but not limited atonement... though I do believe in the doctrines of election and reprobation, that salvation is wholly by God's grace/man is totally unable. I hold to eternal assurance of salvation.

You are a Gentile by birth, if you are a believer in Christ then you have been grafted into Israel.

Spiritually I am grafted. Therefore, there is a spiritual Israel that is the NT Israel. The former Israel is the OT Israel... but the OT Israel, imo, has not been "replaced" by the NT spiritual Israel. I believe God continues to have certain favor upon the OT Israel... though they may be hardened for a season.

All Israel shall be saved. I believe that all who are predestined to be saved are predestined to become spiritual Israel... and that does include all OT Israel. Therefore "all Israel" is "all Israel"... .

The "children of the bondwoman" are "children of the flesh". We were all "children of the flesh" and we shall all become "spiritual Israel".

I don't believe the lake of fire is punitive. I see that as a "dispensation"... which is why I wonder if I am a "dispensationalist".

(I'd be a "Calviuniversalist dispensationalist".. if I'm a dispensationalist... not sure I've clearly defined the term yet.)

However, there are those (reformed and RCC and others) who say that physical Israel has been utterly and forevermore cast away

No, can't agree with those. All Israel will be saved. They are loved for the patriarchs sake. Israel still holds special divine favor in God's sight tracing back to the promises He made to Abraham, etc.

., and that the church is "spiritual Israel" and has either replaced physical Israel, or is the fulfillment or continuation of physical Israel.

The church is spiritual Israel (can be no less) but this does not mean there is "competition" between OT Israel.

Neither is true.

I don't agree with either either.

God's promises to Israel remain, He has sworn to keep them, and He is faithful and just to fulfill them.

Amen.

If you agree that God still has plans for Israel, then you are part way in the dispensational camp at least. I would recomend you pick up some good books on the subject, Ryrie has one titled "Dispensationalism" or even his "Basic Theology" would be a good read for you I would think.

Where is Jesus in "dispensationalism"? Having seen the last dispensation of grace... the "lake of fire" Christians are the "11th hour Christians" imo.

Matthew 20:7-13 (New International Version)

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?

Again I don't see Swindoll as a Calvinist, though perhaps he could be. However, yes he is hard on the charismatics. He is a cessasionist. While I am not one myself, I do agree with him on many things, and have some sympathies for some of his thoughts.

Well, I believe I've heard him teach God's sovereignty. I like Swindoll. I don't limit God the way he seems to sometimes.

Why is the sky blue? It just so happens that most of them hold to that sort of theological framework. They are not as consistent in their interpretations as the more scholarly or conservative arms of the movement, and they tend to run fast and loose with some interpretations because of that.

I don't have a great appreciation for their theological pinnings. (I didn't think they had too many. jk) But, they are members and bring gifts to the body.

But at the heart of it they are futurist, pre-millenial, pre-tribulational believers who see a distinction between Israel and the church, and that is enough to consider most of the dispensational.

I don't know the "futurist, pre-millenial" terms either. I'm not a pre-tribber myself.

Notice though that there are different flavors or camps within dispensationalism (as with any theology - there are conservatives and liberals within reformed theology as well, and all manner and scope in between). But for instance, whereas DTS (Swindoll's seminary, and one of the leaders of conservative, evangelical dispensationalism) and charismatics are both dispensational, they are very unfriendly to one another, and at odds on many issues.

Heresy hunting has that effect... becomes adversarial.

We are futurist, pre-millenialists. Not all pre-millenialists are dispensational, but all dispensationalists are pre-millenial. But that comes out of the other two distinctives, so it is not really a new one.

Let me look up "pre-millenialist". I looked. Not clear to me. I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. Is that related?

Something about prophecy being future and literal??

Obviously, prophecy would be pointless if it were not going to be fulfilled. To say it has already been fulfilled... then why are we still here?

I don't believe the book of revelation has already been fulfilled (I've heard some believe that) Even though a "shadow" of it may have been fulfilled in a type of "mirror image"... it was not the reality that is coming, imo.

The law was a "shadow" of what was to come: Jesus Christ..

If anything was fulfilled in 70 AD (I've heard some say)... it was just a shadow of what is to come.

I believe all of history proves itself somewhat cyclical... and building to the apex of the "mother of all cycles".

In other words, we'll know a Harley Davidson... when we see it.The others were mere shadows... Kawasaki's or something. Speaking... metaphorically... humorously... or a very weak effort at same.

Not that I've seen, and if so the person making such claims was an idiot (excuse my language).

No problem. "Idiot" was a term within my comprehension.

(Open door on that one.... )

God bless,

js

 

[BereanTodd]

I don't know the "futurist, pre-millenial" terms either. I'm not a pre-tribber myself.

futurist is a term to describe one who sees the prophecies of Revelation and such as future events. Pre-millenial is a related term, but specifically with reference to the Millenial Kingdom of Christ which is spoken of in Revelation. There are three views:

Pre-millenial - there will be a future, earthly, 1,000 year reign of Christ upon the earth.

Amillenial - essentially (this is a big group, so this definition is a bit dumbed down) the millenial reign is symbollic and is what we are experiencing now, it refers to the church age we are going through now.

Post-millenial - like Amils they spiritualize the millenial passages, but post-mills essentially feel that the world will be remade through our Christian effort and that, it will be CHristianized, and at the end of this reign of Christianity on earth that will bring the return of Jesus.

Let me look up "pre-millenialist". I looked. Not clear to me. I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. Is that related?

Pre-mill again refers to the future millenial reign of Christ. Pre-trib has to do with the timing of the rapture; there will be a rapture that is clear and almost none will take issue with that - but will it be pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib, or if you are not a futurist, then will it merely happen at the second coming?

Pre-trib is definately the leading view of dispensationalists, but there are those who hold to all three views. I personally am torn between pre-trib and post-trib, and do not personally care to pin myself down to a particular view on that at this point.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

But do you believe there are special times and seasons in which there are special dispensations of God's grace?

Like various times in which God releases "x"... and the Bible can be understood by viewing God's pattern of "dispensing" grace during certain ages?

Is that part of "dispensationalism"?

I believe there are specific ages in the Bible... and varying levels of God releasing grace.

Most obvious... Old Testament and New Testament.

Different ages/dispensations.

I kind of thought that was "dispensationalism"... but wonder???

God bless,

js

in the bible there are three different dispensations listed
law .....ex 19 to cross
grace .... pentacost acts 2- rapture rev 4
1000 yr reign of Christ
yet there are 4 other that I reconized thru scripture

 

[heymikey80]

Dispensationalism is the leading theological framework for evangelicalism, including most baptists, almost all charismatics, most non-denominational churches, and a host of others.

Dispensationalism is really identified by two key issues: if you asked a dispensational scholar or theologian, these would be what we would give you as our identifying factors:

1. A consistant and complete adherance to the Literal-Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. This does not mean that we do not recognize hyperbolic language, or figures of speach, or language that is meant as symbolic (i.e. Jesus saying "I am the door"). However, unlike covenental theologians and others we do not take or make God's prophecies and promises symbollic when they are spoken as literal promises.

2. (and this is the biggest one) A distinction between Israel and the church. The church is not Israel, it has not replaced Israel, it is not spiritual Israel. God's chosen people are Israel, He has made countless promises to them throughout the OT which He swore to them to keep, not because of their obedience, but because of His name's sake.

We as the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11), and as such we are sharers in those promises, but we remain distinct from Israel, and God is not done with Israel.

That does not mean that there is salvation in any other but Christ. There is one name given by which all men must be saved, and none come to the Father but through Christ. But God still has plans for His chosen people.

If you are familiar with Chuck Swindoll, Tony Evans, James MacDonald, Ed Young, David Jeremiah, Woodrow Kroll, Charles Ryrie, Roy Zuck, John Walvoord, just as a few among countless others, they are all dispensationalists.

New Covenant theologians would beg to differ with your definition of dispensationalism here. Most don't consider themselves dispensationalists. But all hold to the two tenets you just proposed.

John Reisinger would probably be the chief representative to research there.

 

[BereanTodd]

New Covenant theologians would beg to differ with your definition of dispensationalism here. Most don't consider themselves dispensationalists. But all hold to the two tenets you just proposed.

John Reisinger would probably be the chief representative to research there.

I've never heard of such a theology, and we dispensationalists have defined ourselves by those two tennets since long before any "New Covenant" theology came along.

 

[heymikey80]

I've never heard of such a theology, and we dispensationalists have defined ourselves by those two tennets since long before any "New Covenant" theology came along.

Ultimately, you can resort back to Scofield's footnotes to demonstrate that this isn't the center of dispensationalism. It's a claim made by dispensationalists against covenantalists. But even it's not really true. A brief check of OP Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" demonstrates as much.

And a quick check of the promises made in Genesis 17 & 22, along with its interpretation in the New Testament, poses a number of consistency questions about this method anyway.

Is God the God of the circumcised? Can a person approach God in this way, today (and could he, before Christ)? If this covenant is an everlasting covenant as the Old Testament asserts, how does dispensationalism deal with the exclusiveness of salvation in Christ?

It's been very interesting to me to listen to literal theologians grapple with the Apostles saying we're the sons of Abraham, we're the circumcised, we're citizens of the nation of God, brothers of the family of God, co-heirs with them. How are these things consistently interpreted in a literal Biblical historical method?

 

[Biblewriter]

I agree with BereanTodd, but would add that dispensationalism is the doctrine that God has dealt with man in different ways at different times in the past, and will deal in yet different ways in the future. Each of these different time periods is called a dispensation.

According to dispensationalism, each of these periods is a demonstration of man's utter failure under different approaches. Most dispensationalists divide these different approaches into seven groups, largely from the idea that the number seven represents perfection, and that thus man's failure under seven different trials is a perfect demonstration of his failure under all situations.

This doctrine is grossly misrepresented by its detractors. They typically say that we believe that in each of these dispensations God tried an experiment to see if a given approach would work with man. But dispensationalists do not see these periods as experiments, but as demonstrations. That is, the different approaches were not to see what would happen, but to demonstrate what would happen, as God knew from the beginning what the outcome would be.

As to a relationship between gnosticism and dispensationalism, that is like attempting to demonstrate a relationship between Republicans and medical doctors. That is, there is no relationship whatsoever.

The enemies of dispensationalism (as opposed to those who simply do not think it is correct) typically fight mainly against just one part of the doctrine. That part is the belief that God will again take up the nation of Israel and bless it above all other nations.

The real agenda of these militant anti-dispensationalists can be seen from their hatred of this part of the doctrine. They want to claim the ancient promises to Israel for themselves. Many of them go so far as to demonstrate an actual hatred of today's nation of Israel.

But many of the explicit prophecies of the Old testament cannot be true if God will not restore the nation of Israel. These detractors totally miss the fact that if Israel will never be restored, God made promises He never intended to keep.

This is not so much a matter on disbelief, although that is involved, as it is a matter of ignorance of what has been promised. There is not space here to cite all the express promises, but they include a specific restoration, not only of the people, but of the land of Israel. And a return to that land, not only of some of the ancient nation, but of all of it. Now it is obvious that all of Christendom could never be brought back to that tiny piece of real estate. But all of Israel can, and will be. Otherwise, the express promises of God were not true.

 

[JDS]

It's been very interesting to me to listen to literal theologians grapple with the Apostles saying we're the sons of Abraham, we're the circumcised, we're citizens of the nation of God, brothers of the family of God, co-heirs with them. How are these things consistently interpreted in a literal Biblical historical method?

Dispensationalists do not say we are the circumcised nor do we say we are citizens of the nation of God. However, we do say we are the children of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ and joint heirs with him because that is what the bible teaches. However, we are not Israel, nor are we the spiritual Israel, nor are we the Israel of God, nor are we Israel in any way. The believers of Israel only are the Israel of God.

Christ happens to be the Son of God and we who believe in him are the children of God having been born again of his Spirit into his family. However, Christ is the firstborn son of God according to Ro 8:29 and all the rest of us have been predestinated to be in his image. That means we are not presently in his image. Now, he is said to be the firstborn, not from the manger, but from the grave. There is a world of difference!

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn FROM THE DEAD; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Now, two things are said about Jesus Christ in regards to his sonship.

1) He is said to be the ONLY begotten son of God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Now what do all these verses have in common? Answer: They all deal with the coming of Christ into the world. They deal with his taking on the human nature. They deal with his being born in the flesh. They deal with Bethlehem and the manger in mind. Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh. There are no others.

2) He is said to be the "FIRSTBORN" Son of God from the grave. That means there are more than one son of God but he is the firstborn. There could have not been any children of God before him or one of them would have been the firstborn and the statements about Christ being the firstborn would have been an error.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Now we are told here that Christ has many brethren and that he is the firstborn among them but there are many more children of God besides him, he is only the firstborn. However, they are not like him yet but they will be because that is the destination God has predetermined in his foreknowledge. More on that in a moment.

Now, if Jesus Christ is said to be the firstborn from the dead and not the only begotten from his birth in Bethlehem, does that mean that he received a birth at his resurrection that was different and separate from his birth at bethlehem? If so, what kind of birth was it? Was it a physical birth? Was it a spiritual birth? Yes, a spiritual birth!

See both births here!

Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
This is the birth into the human family, particularly the Davidic family, at Bethlehem



4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This is his born again birth into the family of God at his resurrection. One must understand that the spirit of holiness is the Holy Spirit.

5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Now does the fact that Jesus Christ is said to be born of the Spirit mean that he was a sinner. Of course it does not but it does mean that OUR SINS that he took upon himself as a substitute resulted in the same experience for him that they would have for us had he not been so merciful towards us. They caused both spiritual and physical death. That is what the wages of sin is. Death is separation. Physical death is separation of the soul from the body and spiritual death is separation of the soul and body from God. That is why there is a hell. It is the only place the omnipresent God chooses not to be.

That is what happened on the cross when Jesus suffered alone on the cross for my sins and yours.That is the reason the world turned black. The body of Christ went to the grave, The Spirit went to God who gave it and the soul went to paradise but three days later Christ arose by the power of the Spirit of God with a GLORIFIED body and that is his image that we are predestinated to. The redeemed soul, the Holy Spirit, and the glorified body, a trinity fit for heaven. Those of us who have been saved have a redeemed soul, and we have the Holy Spirit, but we await the glorified body. This is the difference between us and Jesus Christ in our sonship today. This is what we lack being in his image.

Ro 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Ro 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.
Ro 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it].

Php 3:20 For our conversation (Citizenship) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
1 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Now, I said all that to point out your grievious error concerning the children of Abraham and you distortion of dispensational theology without which one cannot be mature in the faith of Jesus Christ!

Ga 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

In other words, the blessings to the whole world did not go through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, whose name became Israel and one of his twelve sons who are Israelites. It went through Abraham and one other, Christ, which gives the Christian no connection to Jacob at all.
but it does fulfil the promise of the Abrahamic covenant that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him. In this sense, even the Jews who believed were CHILDREN OF GOD through faith in Christ. This does not mean there is not an Israel after the flesh whom God intends to save in the future because he has made 4 covenants with them wherin he has promised to save them and perpetuate them as an eternal nation, family and people. Israel remains Israel though, the children of Jacob and the church of Jesus Christ remains the church of Jesus Christ, the children of God, and they are not the same!

Only a dispensationalist would know these things and at once illustrates why none of you nay sayers have a clue about bible eschatology nor the unconditional covenants of God and are completely ignorant about the doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ.

Please pardon my being so blunt!

 

[heymikey80]

Y'know, I think I should probably just leave you to your own devices rather than put this to the Biblical historical questions I have. I think it'd be too much.

Enjoy your excursion.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I read a little about it on the internet... and still it was not clearly defined.

Is it outside biblical mainstream Christianity?

No. All dispensationalists are evangelical - i.e., Biblical Christians. There are no "liberal" Christian dispensationalists, its all within the circle of evangelicalism.

What does "dispensationalism" mean doctrinally?

At its core, dispensationalism is a specific eschatological (end-times) option. There is a wide range of beliefs in most other areas, including Soteriology (Arminian/Calvinism).

Chuck Swindoll is Calvinist. Are Calvinists "dispensationalist"??? Or just sometimes???

Some Calvinists are dispensationalists. Others are not, and some of these Calvinists are very hostile toward dispensationalism. Some of the Presbyterian and Reformed groups even exclude dispensationalists from their pulpits. This hostility is due to a complicated history involving the struggle of modernism/fundamentalism as well as the "purity" of the Reformed traditions. The history of dispensationalism itself is interwoven with Calvinists and Calvinist oriented groups and denominations.

Seems contradictory to say I have been grafted into Israel, but not spiritually.. I am not spiritual Israel..., yet having been grafted into Israel I am distinct from Israel.

Here is how most dispensationalists would define the terms. There are two distinct groups: Israel and the Gentiles. Israel consists of Jews only - some are believing Jews and the remainder are unbelieving Jews. Dispensationalists believe the church began in Acts 2. The church consists of only believers - some are believing Jews, and the rest are believing Gentiles. Believing Gentiles are not Israel, and unbelieving Jews are not of the Church.

Why are charismatics mostly "dispensationalist"?

Fairly early in their history, most Pentecostal groups adopted dispensationalism as their eschatological view. As the Pentecostal groups spread and grew.

Any other distinguishing things??

Yes, there is a lot of diversity in dispensational beliefs. Dispensationalism is not centralized. That is, there isn't any one person, group, or creed that dictates what dispensationalists should or ought to believe. As a result there are different "pockets" of dispensationalists that often have little or no interaction with one another. For example, there is little to no interaction between Pentecostal dispensationalists and cessionist dispensationalists such as Swindoll and Dallas Theological Seminary.

Didn't I read somewhere that there claims of "gnosticism" against dispensationalists??

(That term can be thrown around loosely and slanderously, imo. I didn't really identify with the label.)

Yes, there are a few who claim that dispensationalism is gnostic or neo-gnostic. One is a Reformed (Calvinist) professor who really should have known better. Its a ridiculous charge, but it also serves as an obvious point that many critics of dispensationalism really don't know dispensationalism and badly misrepresent it. Their emotions toward a subject get in the way of their objectivity.

But what do you say about gnosticism??

Well, as dispensationalists, we can't tell you any of our secrets.

Seriously though, Gnosticism is worlds apart from Christianity. Gnostics are just not Christians, much less evangelical Christians. So either one must "water down" Gnosticism to make it fit an evangelical option, or be prepared to declare many evangelicals - dispensationalists - as not Christians. The former means the person doesn't know Gnosticism, and the latter means that there are grave implications for the many organizations, churches, evangelistic efforts, Bible translations and so forth that dispensationalists have participated or heavily influenced.

I hold to Calvinist soteriology... but not limited atonement... though I do believe in the doctrines of election and reprobation, that salvation is wholly by God's grace/man is totally unable. I hold to eternal assurance of salvation.

Most dispensational Calvinists also do not hold to limited atonement.

I don't know the "futurist, pre-millenial" terms either. I'm not a pre-tribber myself.

Futurist is a term related to one's view of the book of Revelation. A Futurist sees most of the events in Revelation as future; a preterist sees most of the events as past; a historical view sees the events as being fulfilled throughout history, while a symbolic view sees the events as well, symbolic.

The different millennial views are amillennial - one holds that there will not be a future millennial kingdom after Jesus' return; premillennial - the view that holds that there will be a future millennial kingdom on earth after Jesus' return; and postmillennial - the view that the millennial kingdom will precede Jesus' return.

All dispensationalists are premillennialists, but not all premillennialists are dispensationalists. Also the majority of dispensationalists are pretrib; there are midtrib and posttrib views as well.


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

New Covenant theologians would beg to differ with your definition of dispensationalism here. Most don't consider themselves dispensationalists. But all hold to the two tenets you just proposed.

John Reisinger would probably be the chief representative to research there.

I remember reading that Reisinger said he rejected the "literal" approach and favored incorporation of typological interpretations. Also while New Covenant Theologians heavily emphasized the beginning of the Church in Acts 2, they minimize Israel itself and seem pretty ambivelent toward the future of Israel. So although NCTers bill themselves as a "halfway" point between dispensationalism and CT, their assumptions - and conversations - are largely concerned with and among the CT views.

With dispensationalism, its not the only view to emphasize the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, or the only view to emphasize a future for ethnic Israel. The uniqueness is in the assumptions and the priorities of the elements, just as it is with other Christian points of view. For dispensationalists, we heavily emphasize progressive revelation in a historic progressive sense. This forms the framework by which we then make certain conclusions regarding God's promises, especially to Israel.

LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Ultimately, you can resort back to Scofield's footnotes to demonstrate that this isn't the center of dispensationalism. It's a claim made by dispensationalists against covenantalists. But even it's not really true. A brief check of OP Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" demonstrates as much.

In the past, both dispensationalists and covenantalists have polemized the debate between the two groups. That acerbic polarization was never helpful, and overshadowed a lot of similar statements.

And a quick check of the promises made in Genesis 17 & 22, along with its interpretation in the New Testament, poses a number of consistency questions about this method anyway.

Is God the God of the circumcised? Can a person approach God in this way, today (and could he, before Christ)?

From a dispensationalist perspective, there are different promises given to Abraham. In Gen 15, the type of promise is a royal (land) grant from the Ancient Near East, while in Gen 17 the type of promise is a Suzerain-vassal treaty. The former is unconditional while the latter is conditional. The thing is, God gave these promises in a specific time and place, and to a specific person and persons. Abraham nor anyone could have "enacted" the circumcision before the commands in Gen 17, and pleased God.

If this covenant is an everlasting covenant as the Old Testament asserts, how does dispensationalism deal with the exclusiveness of salvation in Christ?

We dispensationalists believe that all of the redeemed from all ages are justified through Christ. So from a dispensational perspective, comparing the Gen 17 covenant with salvation in Christ is like comparing apples and oranges.

The Genesis 17 covenant in effect "sets apart" the circumcised from the uncircumcised. That is, it is the beginning of the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles, a distinction which still exists today and even in the City of God. Circumcision however is not salvific, as its clear that God justified Abraham in Gen 15, when Abraham was still a Gentile and no such distinction was in effect.

It's been very interesting to me to listen to literal theologians grapple with the Apostles saying we're the sons of Abraham, we're the circumcised, we're citizens of the nation of God, brothers of the family of God, co-heirs with them. How are these things consistently interpreted in a literal Biblical historical method?

These things are consistent when one pays close attention to the terminology and what exactly is being said. Yes, Abraham is the father of us all (Rom 4:16-17). Who is "all?" Those who are of the law (Jews) and those who are of the faith of Abraham (believers). All through Romans Paul continually distinguished between those who were physically descended from Abraham and the believing Gentiles.

Also what does the term "co-heirs" actually mean? It means that there are two groups - believing Jews and believing Gentiles. If believing Gentiles were supposed to be a part of Israel, then Paul should have only used the term "heirs" - that the Gentiles have somehow "become" Jews and therefore become "heirs." But "co-heirs" - along with all the other CO- words Paul used - implies there are two distinct groups that inherit, not one.

LDG

 

[AV1611VET]

What does "dispensationalism" mean doctrinally?

All a dispensation is, is a unit of time.

Take the first day of time (F) and the last day of time (L), draw a line between them, then segment that line into seven [unequal] parts, and you have the dispensations.


It would look something like this:

(F) ---|-------|---|------|----------------|--------|------- (L) (not to scale)

Now give each of the seven segments (dispensations) a name:

1. Innocence
2. Consciousness
3. Human Government
4. Promise
5. Law
6. Grace
7. Kingdom

Now give each of the seven segments (dispensations) an event to touch it off, and a judgment to close it out:

1. Creation to Expulsion (from the Garden of Eden).
2. Replenishing the earth to Noah's Flood.
3. Replenishing the earth to the Tower of Babel.
4. Call of Abraham to the Egyptian Captivity.
5. Exodus to the Cross.
6. Onset of the Church (some say Pentecost) to the Tribulation.
7. Christ's Return to the Great White Throne Judgment.

Under each dispensation (unit of time), man was accountable to God under a different set of rules --- and failed each one.

As I understand the story, William Miller, back in the 19th century, twice set a specific date for the return of Christ to the earth. Both times, [many] people quit their jobs, sold their possessions, etc. and sat down to await His return.

When Christ didn't come, they were so disillusioned, they gave up on the doctrine of the Imminent Return of Christ, which is one of the key doctrines of the Christian faith.

One man, Dr. C. I. Scofield, came to the rescue and revitalized the doctrine of the Imminent Return by reviving and rejuvenating an old doctrine called Dispensationalism.

He thus singlehandedly restored the doctrine of the Imminent Return back to its place in Christian theology.

 

[Psalms 119 v 105]

Hi I am new to this website and I am very grateful for this poster’s question. I was on another thread in another forum and happen to answer a poster’s comment regarding the Jews “choosiness” status and the right to the land when I was accused of holding a dispensationalists view. I never heard of the term until a few days ago. There are so many labels on one’s beliefs it kind of gets confusing for me…I just believe what the bible says.

However, I think I might hold some of the dispensationalists views.

• I believe in the promises of the OT and NT are literal
• I believe that the church has not replaced Israel but are grafted into the Olive branch
• I believe that God promised Israel in the later days he would gather them from their nations and bring them back to the lands of their fathers and pour out his spirit and give them a new heart
• I believe that Christ will reign for 1000 years on earth
• I believe after the 1000 years, there will be a new heaven and earth
• I do believe in the rapture of the church but I don’t hold any pre-mid or post views on the matter…for I just believe what is written in my bible when Jesus says that know one knows the day or the hour but I do keep my eye on current affairs for Jesus told us to watch and pray.

Would I be considered to be holding a dispensationalist viewpoint?