Christian Liberty Forced me to Leave Dispensationalism

[Arthur81]

"Christian Liberty" as stated in the Westminster Confession and repeated in the 1689 Baptist Confession, reads:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it."

When I first began discussions with Amillennialists, in trying to defend my Dispensationalist views, I began to notice I was too often trying to refute an Amil's reference to a clear statement of Scripture with my idea of truth; but I began to notice I was not refuting the Amil with Scripture, but with the footnotes in a Dispensationalist study Bible. I was taking the annotations and footnotes of man's word as the truth, rather than God's word.

As a teenager, I noticed that there were no Seven Dispensations stated in the Bible and the reason given to me for them, I saw I could just as easily come up with 3 or 2 or even as many as 9; so, there was no biblical requirement to believe in the Seven. I began to question the footnotes.

The Dispensationalist told me that there was a difference between the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven", but that is only in Study Bible footnotes, not in the Scripture. Using a parallel of the gospels or harmony, I saw that Matthew usually used "kingdom of heaven", when Mark and Luke would write "kingdom of God" in the same time and context; and then Jesus used the terms interchangeably:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.'” (Matt 19:23-24 NRSV)

The conquest of the promised land began about 1450 BC, and scholars believe Joshua was written in the late 7th Century BC. If we use a date of 600 BC and count the time in years up to 1948, we have a little over 2500 years. With that in mind, did the promise to Abraham take more than 2500 years(and still counting) to be accomplished?

"Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass." (Josh 21:43-45 NRSV) See this repeated in 23:14-16

"I will not drive them out from before you in one year, or the land would become desolate and the wild animals would multiply against you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land." (Exod 23:29-30 NRSV)

Trying to stretch that "little by little" up to 2500+ years is ridiculous! Did the word of God state a lie in Josh. 21:43-45 and 23:14-16; or are the footnotes of study Bibles the actual word of God? I began to see my holding to the footnotes in contradiction to what God said, to border on blasphemy. These are just a couple of examples of how God's word itself drove me out of Dispensationalism.

 

[Rockerduck]

I agree. I don't use a study bible. I read what the bible says. I also don't let somebody use words like Dispensationalism and Amillennialism in a bible study. It is only what the bible says that matters. I use what the King James bible says, because it is the most accurate bible version, and all modern bibles are constantly updating the "mistakes" in their versions.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

When I first began discussions with Amillennialists, in trying to defend my Dispensationalist views, I began to notice I was too often trying to refute an Amil's reference to a clear statement of Scripture with my idea of truth; but I began to notice I was not refuting the Amil with Scripture, but with the footnotes in a Dispensationalist study Bible. I was taking the annotations and footnotes of man's word as the truth, rather than God's word.

Thats too bad. Before I ever picked up a theology book or owned a reference/study bible, I was told I was a dispensational 5 point believer. I had to find out what they meant!

If you wish to do a summary list of things you believe dispensationalists believe that are not biblical, maybe we can have an open discussion about it.

After 50 years and reviewing the arguments between dispensational and covenant theology, form the viewpoints of proponents of both, I am more convinced that the full dispensational theology does the least amount of harm to the Scriptures.

both views are man made hermeneutics and both have problems but I believe dispensational theology does the least harm.

 

[quietthinker]

"Christian Liberty" as stated in the Westminster Confession and repeated in the 1689 Baptist Confession, reads:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it."

When I first began discussions with Amillennialists, in trying to defend my Dispensationalist views, I began to notice I was too often trying to refute an Amil's reference to a clear statement of Scripture with my idea of truth; but I began to notice I was not refuting the Amil with Scripture, but with the footnotes in a Dispensationalist study Bible. I was taking the annotations and footnotes of man's word as the truth, rather than God's word.

As a teenager, I noticed that there were no Seven Dispensations stated in the Bible and the reason given to me for them, I saw I could just as easily come up with 3 or 2 or even as many as 9; so, there was no biblical requirement to believe in the Seven. I began to question the footnotes.

The Dispensationalist told me that there was a difference between the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven", but that is only in Study Bible footnotes, not in the Scripture. Using a parallel of the gospels or harmony, I saw that Matthew usually used "kingdom of heaven", when Mark and Luke would write "kingdom of God" in the same time and context; and then Jesus used the terms interchangeably:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.'” (Matt 19:23-24 NRSV)

The conquest of the promised land began about 1450 BC, and scholars believe Joshua was written in the late 7th Century BC. If we use a date of 600 BC and count the time in years up to 1948, we have a little over 2500 years. With that in mind, did the promise to Abraham take more than 2500 years(and still counting) to be accomplished?

"Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass." (Josh 21:43-45 NRSV) See this repeated in 23:14-16

"I will not drive them out from before you in one year, or the land would become desolate and the wild animals would multiply against you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land." (Exod 23:29-30 NRSV)

Trying to stretch that "little by little" up to 2500+ years is ridiculous! Did the word of God state a lie in Josh. 21:43-45 and 23:14-16; or are the footnotes of study Bibles the actual word of God? I began to see my holding to the footnotes in contradiction to what God said, to border on blasphemy. These are just a couple of examples of how God's word itself drove me out of Dispensationalism.

Why be in anything except God's Kingdom?
Why not be out of everything except God's Kingdom? Too short an expression? It needs to be short because in our wisdom we are flat out trying to get a fix on it....and fixing on it like a needle pointing North is the priority.

'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness.....' Jesus (Matt 6:33)

 

[Arthur81]

Why be in anything except God's Kingdom?
Why not be out of everything except God's Kingdom? Too short an expression? It needs to be short because in our wisdom we are flat out trying to get a fix on it....and fixing on it like a needle pointing North is the priority.

'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness.....' Jesus (Matt 6:33)

Yes, and it is God's word that tells us about His kingdom and our righteousness from or in Jesus Christ. Amen

 

[WPM]

"Christian Liberty" as stated in the Westminster Confession and repeated in the 1689 Baptist Confession, reads:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it."

When I first began discussions with Amillennialists, in trying to defend my Dispensationalist views, I began to notice I was too often trying to refute an Amil's reference to a clear statement of Scripture with my idea of truth; but I began to notice I was not refuting the Amil with Scripture, but with the footnotes in a Dispensationalist study Bible. I was taking the annotations and footnotes of man's word as the truth, rather than God's word.

As a teenager, I noticed that there were no Seven Dispensations stated in the Bible and the reason given to me for them, I saw I could just as easily come up with 3 or 2 or even as many as 9; so, there was no biblical requirement to believe in the Seven. I began to question the footnotes.

The Dispensationalist told me that there was a difference between the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven", but that is only in Study Bible footnotes, not in the Scripture. Using a parallel of the gospels or harmony, I saw that Matthew usually used "kingdom of heaven", when Mark and Luke would write "kingdom of God" in the same time and context; and then Jesus used the terms interchangeably:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.'” (Matt 19:23-24 NRSV)

The conquest of the promised land began about 1450 BC, and scholars believe Joshua was written in the late 7th Century BC. If we use a date of 600 BC and count the time in years up to 1948, we have a little over 2500 years. With that in mind, did the promise to Abraham take more than 2500 years(and still counting) to be accomplished?

"Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass." (Josh 21:43-45 NRSV) See this repeated in 23:14-16

"I will not drive them out from before you in one year, or the land would become desolate and the wild animals would multiply against you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land." (Exod 23:29-30 NRSV)

Trying to stretch that "little by little" up to 2500+ years is ridiculous! Did the word of God state a lie in Josh. 21:43-45 and 23:14-16; or are the footnotes of study Bibles the actual word of God? I began to see my holding to the footnotes in contradiction to what God said, to border on blasphemy. These are just a couple of examples of how God's word itself drove me out of Dispensationalism.

Amen. I was brought up similar. My struggle from when I was young was: where was the biblical passage that taught what Scoffield was teaching. I could not find one single passage in Scripture that taught a rapture of the Church, followed by seven year tribulation, followed by a third coming. It is simply not there. It has to be foisted upon Scripture.

 

[quietthinker]

Yes, and it is God's word that tells us about His kingdom and our righteousness from or in Jesus Christ. Amen

I find God's Kingdom exemplary in Jesus' reality, both his living and dying.....and I figure when this awareness dawned on the disciples after the Jesus' resurrection, they were an unstoppable force.......and I will add, this awareness is becoming a clearer reality to me in my journey through this 'valley of death'

 

[Arthur81]

I find God's Kingdom exemplary in Jesus' reality, both his living and dying.....and I figure when this awareness dawned on the disciples after the Jesus' resurrection, they were an unstoppable force.......and I will add, this awareness is becoming a clearer reality to me in my journey through this 'valley of death'

I too embrace the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ. His life gave us righteousness, His righteousness imputed to the believer. The believer's faith is not his righteousness, Jesus Christ is his righteousness.

Active/Passive Obedience of Christ | Monergism

Related: Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness"...the Lord Christ fulfilled the whole law for us; He did not only undergo the penalty of it due unto our sins,

www.monergism.com

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I have found when trying to learn, or discuss things. Leave terms like Amil. Premil. and their ideas out. and just look to the word.

Dispensations are just period of time. We use these things all the time, every time you do a study, or prepare for a teaching, and make an outline of the points you want to make a subpoints in a means to break things up so you can understand them, and help others.

this is in effect what those who break history down into dispensations do.

Sadly. Like with many things. people twist what it really means. there are some who believe it who pervert it and make it unbelievable. and then still others who do not know what it means, and just hate it because they have been taught how wrong it is..

 

[Arthur81]

I have found when trying to learn, or discuss things. Leave terms like Amil. Premil. and their ideas out. and just look to the word.

Dispensations are just period of time. We use these things all the time, every time you do a study, or prepare for a teaching, and make an outline of the points you want to make a subpoints in a means to break things up so you can understand them, and help others.

this is in effect what those who break history down into dispensations do.

Sadly. Like with many things. people twist what it really means. there are some who believe it who pervert it and make it unbelievable. and then still others who do not know what it means, and just hate it because they have been taught how wrong it is..

EG, the way I understand Paul, there are two dispensations in his mind, inspired by the Spirit. There is Pre Law, The Old Covenant of Law, and the New Covenant, the gospel. Now, I believe in a similar way as you, the way God deals with his people over time fall into time periods. So, when I study, I am inclined to think "Pre Law, Law, Gospel". I seem to understand 3 basic dispensations or administrations of God how he deals with his people and that does fall into times in history.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

EG, the way I understand Paul, there are two dispensations in his mind, inspired by the Spirit. There is Pre Law, The Old Covenant of Law, and the New Covenant, the gospel. Now, I believe in a similar way as you, the way God deals with his people over time fall into time periods. So, when I study, I am inclined to think "Pre Law, Law, Gospel". I seem to understand 3 basic dispensations or administrations of God how he deals with his people and that does fall into times in history.

If we are looking at paul. yes I would agree

But we can look further.

The age of innocence (from creation until the fall)

The best way to look at it is dispensationalists split history into different sections. As you showed. we are in the age or dispensation of grace right now. It has its own characteristics which separates it from other dispensations.

Another way to think of it in terms of why it is different. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. even Abraham believed and was counted as righteous.. But the age of grace is a separate term or dispensation. It is not how people are saved (as some insist it is and falsely accuse) it is just a different age..

 

[Arthur81]

EG, a thought: Man was not created "innocent", coming from the hand of the Father who described His creation as good. I am convinced man had to be created "holy", not innocent. He, as created, was fallible not infallible; but he was not in a neutral state of innocence.

Paul spoke of the "old covenant" -
"but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth unlifted; which veil is done away in Christ." (2Cor 3:14 ERV)

Paul also spoke of the "new covenant" -
"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Cor 3:6 ERV)

The NRSV, instead of "dispensation" uses the words "plan" or "commission". The Greek translated "dispensation" is oikonomia and Luke uses the word three times where it is translated by "stewardship" in the AV/ERV: Luke 16:2,3,4.

The AV uses the word "dispensation" 4 times and the ERV 5 times. The 5 from the ERV: Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25 and 1 Tim. 1:4. It is clear Paul uses the word in reference to the "new covenant", the gospel. If you have a "new covenant", logic itself dictates there must be an "old covenant", "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." (Heb 8:13 ERV)

I strive to adhere to the strictness of God's word usage based on -

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." (1Cor 4:6 KJV)

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6 ERV)

Darby or Scofield came up with the idea of a "dispensation of innocence" and I believe man was created good, or holy; not merely innocent. I find this is the problem when straying from the plain written word, our understandings vary among men, where God's word is the rock-solid standard. I searched the Classical Greek Lexicon LSJ and the BDAG and cannot find "age" as a definition or synonym. I find the following words:

"management and responsibility of management, husbandry, administration, arrangement, stewardship, plan, order, program of instruction being a plan."

Once you leave the rule of adhering to the explicit word of scripture, you can end up "reading into" God's word. A perfect example is:

"Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John 21:21-23 ERV)

The idea that spread among the brethren sounded logical or plausible, but it was not what God in the flesh said!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

EG, a thought: Man was not created "innocent", coming from the hand of the Father who described His creation as good. I am convinced man had to be created "holy", not innocent. He, as created, was fallible not infallible; but he was not in a neutral state of innocence.

Just keep it simple

was adam created holy? yes

Were they created in sin? No

were they guilty of any sin in this time? No

hence they were "innocent"

That's all this means.. If one wants to call it the age of holiness. this would be fine too. Both would fit..

In any case. it is vastly different than any other time on earth.. that is the point being made.

Paul spoke of the "old covenant" -
"but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth unlifted; which veil is done away in Christ." (2Cor 3:14 ERV)

Paul also spoke of the "new covenant" -
"who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Cor 3:6 ERV)

The NRSV, instead of "dispensation" uses the words "plan" or "commission". The Greek translated "dispensation" is oikonomia and Luke uses the word three times where it is translated by "stewardship" in the AV/ERV: Luke 16:2,3,4.

The AV uses the word "dispensation" 4 times and the ERV 5 times. The 5 from the ERV: Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25 and 1 Tim. 1:4. It is clear Paul uses the word in reference to the "new covenant", the gospel. If you have a "new covenant", logic itself dictates there must be an "old covenant", "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." (Heb 8:13 ERV)

The word used in the NT is the word you showed. It can be translated to represent stewardship (Ie the age of Israel or the church age) where the stewardship of Gods word and business is arranged by Israel, or the church

It can be used to represent a purpose, or a scheme or a plan or arrangment. As in the age of innocence or holiness before the fall.

I strive to adhere to the strictness of God's word usage based on -

so do I

"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." (1Cor 4:6 KJV)

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6 ERV)

I do not see how people who put history down in an outline is causing division. If it is taken in its form.

Again, I have seen people take this innocent idea and make it something that is divisive (like those who say people are saved different in each dispensation) But in generality. its helps more than it divides.

Darby or Scofield came up with the idea of a "dispensation of innocence" and I believe man was created good, or holy; not merely innocent.

Schematics. Your going to fight and cause division yourself based on a word that was used?

Unless Adam and eve was guilty of sin before the fall. Then there is absolutely no reason to reject that they were innocent. and use it to define a period of time on the earth.

Again, if you want to call it the age of hooliness or whatever thats fine. But is it really worth arguing over?

I find this is the problem when straying from the plain written word, our understandings vary among men, where God's word is the rock-solid standard. I searched the Classical Greek Lexicon LSJ and the BDAG and cannot find "age" as a definition or synonym. I find the following words:

You can't find the word trinity either. But it is a word used to help differentiate a truth about God..

"management and responsibility of management, husbandry, administration, arrangement, stewardship, plan, order, program of instruction being a plan."

Once you leave the rule of adhering to the explicit word of scripture, you can end up "reading into" God's word. A perfect example is:

Where hs dispensational thinking (mainstream) done this. If you can show me an example. I may be able to see..

"Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John 21:21-23 ERV)

The idea that spread among the brethren sounded logical or plausible, but it was not what God in the flesh said!

I do not understand what your saying here. Can you explain?

 

[Arthur81]

Just keep it simple

was adam created holy? yes

Were they created in sin? No

were they guilty of any sin in this time? No

hence they were "innocent"

That's all this means.. If one wants to call it the age of holiness. this would be fine too. Both would fit..

In any case. it is vastly different than any other time on earth.. that is the point being made.

The word used in the NT is the word you showed. It can be translated to represent stewardship (Ie the age of Israel or the church age) where the stewardship of Gods word and business is arranged by Israel, or the church

It can be used to represent a purpose, or a scheme or a plan or arrangment. As in the age of innocence or holiness before the fall.



so do I

I do not see how people who put history down in an outline is causing division. If it is taken in its form.

Again, I have seen people take this innocent idea and make it something that is divisive (like those who say people are saved different in each dispensation) But in generality. its helps more than it divides.

Schematics. Your going to fight and cause division yourself based on a word that was used?

Unless Adam and eve was guilty of sin before the fall. Then there is absolutely no reason to reject that they were innocent. and use it to define a period of time on the earth.

Again, if you want to call it the age of hooliness or whatever thats fine. But is it really worth arguing over?

You can't find the word trinity either. But it is a word used to help differentiate a truth about God..

Where hs dispensational thinking (mainstream) done this. If you can show me an example. I may be able to see..

I do not understand what your saying here. Can you explain?

I spent the first 30 years of my life in Scofield dispensationalism. One problem that began to appear noticeable to me, was an aversion for the Christian to apply a Psalm to himself for comfort, because it was of course, the Old Testament, Law. Then the extreme distinctions made between the church and Israel was a problem when the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible only uses the synonyms, congregation or assemble for God's people in both OT and NT. The word "church" is not a literal translation of any Greek in the NT. This contradiction between Israel and the church became so strict as to remove the OT as examples for us. Then there was the major idea of inventing a 7-year tribulation period preceded by a rapture of the church, leaving the rest behind. When the dispensationalist rejected and outright denied that God gave Israel all the land he promised to Abraham, and Israel did indeed possess that land given.... not just started and we must wait 2500+ years for the verse to be true, really struck me as a serious error see Josh 21:43ff and 23:14ff. Then there is the projection of David's prophecy of the Messiah to sit upon his throne over God's people, and say that has not as yet happened, when Peter in Acts 2:29-35 said that David was speaking of Christ's ascension to the throne beside his Father. Jesus Christ reigns as king NOW. The kingdom of God/heaven came in the 1st century at the first advent.

When you begin inventing all of these odd distinctions in dispensationalism, the system becomes a convoluted combination of ideas that no Christian man reasonably would come to see in study of the Bible for himself. When you must go to the gnostic writings to invent the idea that Jesus was speaking of Israel with the "olive tree", I shun that; this on top of completely rejecting the timing of Matt. 24:34 as being the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. I do not know why you could not understand the clear example of 'reading into' God's word as in the illustration I gave from John 21:19ff. The disciples interpreted the words of Jesus out of the perspective of their own minds and read it into his words; when as the verse says, it was NOT what Jesus said, it was what the disciples projected into his words that was wrong.

It is true that just the idea of more than two dispensations is not new in Christian theology, all the entanglements that seem to come forth from that as presented in Dispensationalism are the problem. The idea that Ezekiel 40-48 is a future kingdom, with literal temple worship repeated including sacrifices, I find that to border on blasphemy when Christ died once, and he was the full, complete sacrifice. Trying to say it is a memorial is odd, when Jesus is literally present there with the scars in his hands. Why would you memorialize the sacrifice of Christ, when supposedly that crucified Christ is standing there with you? Maybe I will give the list of scriptures that I began to see that the dispensationalist either outright denied or ignored. As time permits, I'll try to post the list in the next few days.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I spent the first 30 years of my life in Scofield dispensationalism.

what was so aweful about it

One thing I have noticed (not accusing you. i do nto know) is that most people who fight against what scofield said do not even understand it.. They will say things like they can not follow it. because scofield said this or that, when in reality, he never said anything even like it.

Again, I learned dispensations in the format I did not through scofield.. I had never even heard of scofield until long after I heards the term first used.

One problem that began to appear noticeable to me, was an aversion for the Christian to apply a Psalm to himself for comfort, because it was of course, the Old Testament, Law.

so because of this we should just throw it out.

lol. Sorry my friend, I have never heard anyone say this, Well wait. I did here one person in chatroom say things like this.. But this person was not representative of any true dispensational thinking person.

Just because people can take something and destroy it, or use it to do something else. does not make it wrong.

Then the extreme distinctions made between the church and Israel was a problem when the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible only uses the synonyms, congregation or assemble for God's people in both OT and NT. The word "church" is not a literal translation of any Greek in the NT. This contradiction between Israel and the church became so strict as to remove the OT as examples for us.

God made a distinction between the church and Israel.. Israel was a group of people. who were given a law. and told how to live.

The church is a separate entity and not bound to many of those laws.

but non of this really matters,

Any person who is saved old or new is part of Gods church (ekklesia or an assembly or gathering) in fact the OT church was Israel..

Then there was the major idea of inventing a 7-year tribulation period

It is not an invention. It is biblical

preceded by a rapture of the church, leaving the rest behind.

Not all dispensational people believe in a pre-trib rapture.. As a dispensational person you would think you knew this.. why did you not know this?

When the dispensationalist rejected and outright denied that God gave Israel all the land he promised to Abraham, and Israel did indeed possess that land given....

Who denys this? What kind of people did you grow up with. No person I have ever met denies that God gave them all the land. it is in scripture he did.

not just started and we must wait 2500+ years for the verse to be true,

lol.. What verse?

He gave them the land, and they possessed it.

Question. How long did he give them this land for?

really struck me as a serious error see Josh 21:43ff and 23:14ff.

The error is you thinking we believe God did not give them all the land..

Then there is the projection of David's prophecy of the Messiah to sit upon his throne over God's people, and say that has not as yet happened,

It has not.

when Peter in Acts 2:29-35 said that David was speaking of Christ's ascension to the throne beside his Father. Jesus Christ reigns as king NOW. The kingdom of God/heaven came in the 1st century at the first advent.

1. Actually OT prophets say Jesus will sit on davids throne Davids throne is in jerusalem, not in heaven
2. The OT prophets said he will rule the nations with a rod of Iron. I have looked at the last 2000 years. i see no evidence of this. and if he is doing it. He is not doing a very good job of it..
3. The OPT prophets say the nations will come each year to worship jesus, and if they do not come, he will punish them by not sending rain to them

yes, the kingdom of God is now and has been.

But the future kingdom has not yt appeared. it will appear when the word sees the return of Chris in the clouds.

This is one positive of dispensational thinking, it helps us to seperate the different kingdoms. and understand them

When you begin inventing all of these odd distinctions in dispensationalism, the system becomes a convoluted combination of ideas that no Christian man reasonably would come to see in study of the Bible for himself.

Or we can just ignore many of them, and of itself make the bible a distorted mess of false promises and false prophecies.

When you must go to the gnostic writings to invent the idea that Jesus was speaking of Israel with the "olive tree", I shun tha

do what?

t; this on top of completely rejecting the timing of Matt. 24:34 as being the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Its not. there was no abomination of desolation in 70 AD.. There was no great tribulation immediately following which would be so great that all flesh would be killed. causing the trutn of Christ, and Christ did not return in 70 AD.. I can go on and on and on if I need to to show it was not in 70 AD..

do I add it to make it true and make the bible fit my belief . or do I use the bible to fit my belief

I do not know why you could not understand the clear example of 'reading into' God's word as in the illustration I gave from John 21:19ff. The disciples interpreted the words of Jesus out of the perspective of their own minds and read it into his words; when as the verse says, it was NOT what Jesus said, it was what the disciples projected into his words that was wrong.

Because it did not prove what I have said about dispensational thinking and what it does. so really has no bearing on our conversation

It is true that just the idea of more than two dispensations is not new in Christian theology, all the entanglements that seem to come forth from that as presented in Dispensationalism are the problem.

If you disagree with a doctrine, disagree with the doctrine. don;t attack a whole group of people because you do nto like a few things they say.

The idea that Ezekiel 40-48 is a future kingdom, with literal temple worship repeated including sacrifices, I find that to border on blasphemy when Christ died once, and he was the full, complete sacrifice. Trying to say it is a memorial is odd, when Jesus is literally present there with the scars in his hands. Why would you memorialize the sacrifice of Christ, when supposedly that crucified Christ is standing there with you? Maybe I will give the list of scriptures that I began to see that the dispensationalist either outright denied or ignored. As time permits, I'll try to post the list in the next few days.

ez 43: 6 Then I heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me. 7 And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their [d]harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high places. 8 When they set their threshold by My threshold, and their doorpost by My doorpost, with a wall between them and Me, they defiled My holy name by the abominations which they committed; therefore I have consumed them in My anger. 9 Now let them put their harlotry and the carcasses of their kings far away from Me, and I will dwell in their midst forever.

can you tell me when these things happened?

Feel free to post the list. I look forward to the challenge of responding to everything.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hey, just wanted to say... I like the tone of this conversation (at least so far). Wish that could be the case all the time on here... <smile>

I have found when trying to learn, or discuss things. Leave terms like Amil. Premil. and their ideas out. and just look to the word.

Not a bad thought, but I think it's more dealing with people's close identification of themselves to one of those terms. In other words ~ and how many things out there can we say this about... <smile> ~ if you speak negatively about the system, then they are personally insulted, as if you are attacking their person. And that is sin rearing its ugly head, particularly pride and even idolatry. The terms themselves are only descriptive, and aptly descriptive at that. I'm not really asking you this, but, "How do you understand the millennium of Revelation 20? What is its nature?" Well, some say Jesus is coming back before the millennium, some say after, and some say the millennium is not a literal 1000-year period and some say it is. "Premillennialism," "Postmillennialism," "Amillennialism" (also called "Nuncmillennialism," meaning 'now'), and "Preterism" are just terms that aptly describe the views of different folks regarding the millennium, what will be or is happening in it, and when Jesus's return is in relation to it. Again, the problem is with people intensely identifying with one of those... "camps," as it were. In speaking negatively about any one of them, folks in that "camp" take it as a personal attack, and it should not be so.

Dispensations are just period of time.

Well, yes, but dispensationalism says that God, through those dispensations, has dealt with people differently from one dispensation to the next. Which I think you agree with, I'm just saying, but I'll say this, too: Dispensationalism can be described in a sort of tongue-in-cheek manner as "God's series of Plan Bs." <smile> In other words, That however many times (because there is disagreement on the number even among dispensationalists), the thought is, "Well, God tried 'A,' and it didn't work, so He decided to do try 'B' instead..." ... Many, many passages, Old Testament and New, could be pointed out here to argue against dispensationalism, but the clearest and most succinct to me is Hebrews 13:5... "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." <smile>

EG, the way I understand Paul, there are two dispensations in his mind, inspired by the Spirit. There is Pre Law, The Old Covenant of Law, and the New Covenant, the gospel.

Is that not three, Arthur? Or maybe you're combining 'Pre Law' and 'the Old Covenant of Law'... Here is how I would state it: What Adam and Eve did in Genesis 3 did not catch God by surprise. The first statement of the Gospel ~ veiled, yes ~ was set before man in Genesis 3:15; God's eternal plan to redeem His creation through Christ and "make all things new" (Revelation 21:5), restoring it to its original state, was set before man in that one verse. And so, through what we call the "lesser covenants" (life with Adam and then Noah, land and people with Abram, the Law with Moses, and a King with David, God's one everlasting covenant was revealed in greater ways, and finally is brought to full fruition in the Person of Jesus Christ. And here again, Hebrews 13:5 is very appropriate and applicable... "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

So, when I study, I am inclined to think "Pre Law, Law, Gospel". I seem to understand 3 basic dispensations or administrations of God how he deals with his people and that does fall into times in history.

Okay, so yeah, that seems to be three rather than two... That doesn't seem to me a matter worth debating, really, but what you say here seems to presuppose that there is now no Law, and/or that the Law now serves no purpose. I'm not sure if you would actually say that or not, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with both. <smile> As you will recall, I'm sure, Jesus said:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40)​

Jesus is not saying "there is no Law anymore," or that the Old Testament Law now serves no purpose (it serves as a "mirror" that points us back to Christ), and He's likewise not saying that loving God and your neighbor has replaced the Law of the Old Testament, but rather is the greater, full, and perfect expression and manifestation of it. All of His previous "But I tell you" statements in the Sermon on the Mount illustrate this. As Paul says in Galatians 3, "the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith" (Galatians 3:24-26). And then the writer of Hebrews says, "...on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the One Who said to Him: 'The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever.”' This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant" (Hebrews 7:18-22). So again, there is not now "no Law" but the "Law of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2), which is the perfect expression of the Law.

Salvation has always been by grace through faith. even Abraham believed and was counted as righteous.

Absolutely.

But the age of grace is a separate term or dispensation.

Hmmm. Well, I would say that the "age of grace" commenced after the Fall of Genesis 3. I wouldn't call it a "dispensation." I would call it God's plan, from all eternity. God was certainly not without grace before that... <smile> Afterword, though, man (and creation) became needful of redemption, which required grace ~ unmerited favor ~ on the Creator's (God's) part. Right?

Grace and peace to both of you!

 

[Arthur81]

The scriptures that rescued me from dispensationalism

I sat under the preaching of dispensationalism for the first 30 years of my life and finally I was brought to see that much of the preaching came out of the footnotes, not the scriptures. If you are brought up on this heresy found in the footnotes, it becomes as if the footnotes are also scripture and it is very difficult to study oneself out of it. God's people in the Old Covenant were believers from the one nation of Israel; under the New Covenant, God's people Israel are believers out of all nations. Dispensationalists deny the statements I've presented below, with the scriptures that give the truth. Check the contexts and make sure these are 'proof texts', not 'spoof texts'.

Israel's land promise already fulfilled & completed: Gen. 15:18-21; Josh 21:43-45, 23:14-16; Ex. 23:27-30; Num. 34:1-12; 1 Kgs 4:20,21; 2 Chro. 9:22-28; Neh. 9:23, 24

The Jewish theocracy was ended 1st C: Mt. 21:43-45; Lk 20:16-18; Jn 4:21-23

There is only one people of God, not two: Gal. 3:7-9; Rm. 2:28-29, 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:15-16; Phil. 3:3; Col. 3:11

The church is Israel continued: Heb. 12:18-24; 1 Pet. 2:9-10; Gal. 6:15-16(RSV, NEB, REB)

OT prophecies applied to Christ & his church: Acts 3:24-26; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Acts 2:16-21, 29-36; 15:13-21; John 19:36-37; Heb. 8:1-13; Lk 1:17; Mt. 11:13-14

Kingdom of heaven and Kingdom of God are the same: Mt. 19:23-24; compare the parallel passages in the synoptics, Mt. 4:17, 23 with Mk 1:14-15; Mt. 5:3 with Lk 6:20; Mt. 8:11-12 with Lk 13:28-29; Mt. 13:11 with Mk 4:11

The kingdom came at the 1st Advent: Mt.12:28, 16:28; Lk 11:20, 17:20-21; Col. 1:13

Christ is King now: Jn. 1:49, 12:14-16; Acts 2:29-36; Mt. 2:2; Rv. 1:5; Lk 1:32-33

Christ reigns now: 1 Pt. 1:22; Eph. 1:20, 21; Mt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11; Acts 2:29-36;

Christians, new creation reign now: Rm. 5:17, 8:17; Eph. 2:6; Rv. 1:6;

Satan is bound now: Mt. 12:28-29; Jn 12:27, 31; 16:11; Lk 10:17-18; Heb. 2:14

1000 is frequently figurative: Psa. 50:10, 91:7, 105:8; Isa. 30:17, 60:22(KJV, NEB, REB)

The kingdom of God increases from 1st C: Isa. 9:7, 55:10-11; Mt. 16:18; 1 Co. 15:24-26; Lk 13:18; (I am postmillennial)

One general resurrection, not 3 or more: Acts 17:31-32, 24:15; Jo. 5:28-29; "on the last day", Jn. 6:39, 40, 44, 54; Daniel 12:2

One general judgment: "on the last day", Jn. 12:48; 2 Pt. 2:9, 3:7; 1 Jn. 4:17; Rv. 20:11-15

Time of 2nd coming unknown, no signs given: Mt. 24:36, 44; Lk. 12:39-40; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1-2;

Apocalyptic Language is Figurative, Symbolic as in the OT

God in clouds: Isa. 19:1; Nah. 1:3; Psa. 104:3
Sky, sun, moon, stars: Isa. 13:1, 10, 19, 20; 34:4, 5; Eze. 32:2, 7-8
Hail, fire, brimstone: Psa. 18:12-13; Isa. 28:1-2
Earthquakes, heaven: 2 Sam. 22:1, 7-16
Smoke forever: Isa. 34:5, 10
Darkness: Dt. 4:11-12

Dispensationalists don't use context to determine if a passage is literal or figurative; they decide this based on if it supports their theological scheme or not.

 

[PinSeeker]

Israel's land promise already fulfilled & completed:

To this one I would say the lesser one has been fulfilled, but not the greater one (yet). As you know, I'm sure, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5).

There is only one people of God, not two:... The church is Israel continued:

To both of these I would add Hebrews 1:1-2... "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world."

One general resurrection, not 3 or more: Acts 17:31-32, 24:15; Jo. 5:28-29; "on the last day", Jn. 6:39, 40, 44, 54; Daniel 12:2

To this one, I would say one should see it as having occurred just after the final conflict portrayed in Revelation 20:7-10 and just before the scene opened in Revelation 20:11.

Dispensationalists don't use context to determine if a passage is literal or figurative; they decide this based on if it supports their theological scheme or not.

Hmmm... well don't let any one of them hear you say that... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Arthur81.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hey, just wanted to say... I like the tone of this conversation (at least so far). Wish that could be the case all the time on here... <smile>

I usually run from these discussions because they can get out of hand, and they become knock out swing out fights..

Not a bad thought, but I think it's more dealing with people's close identification of themselves to one of those terms. In other words ~ and how many things out there can we say this about... <smile> ~ if you speak negatively about the system, then they are personally insulted, as if you are attacking their person. And that is sin rearing its ugly head, particularly pride and even idolatry. The terms themselves are only descriptive, and aptly descriptive at that.

I am more speaking about people hearing key words and assuming, Oh your a this or your a that.

I have been called calvinist because I believe in eternal security
I have been called an arminian because I believe in free will
I have been told I believe Israel was saved by law. and will return to being saved by law because I profess a believ in dispensations.
I have been called anti-catholic simply because i did a thread on John 6.
While I agree (and may be guilty myself Although I used to be extremely guilty of this when i was a full fledged baptist) we hear key words and may take offense of assume a person is this or that. but like I said, lets just get to to the word. and set our denominations aside

I'm not really asking you this, but, "How do you understand the millennium of Revelation 20? What is its nature?" Well, some say Jesus is coming back before the millennium, some say after, and some say the millennium is not a literal 1000-year period and some say it is. "Premillennialism," "Postmillennialism," "Amillennialism" (also called "Nuncmillennialism," meaning 'now'), and "Preterism" are just terms that aptly describe the views of different folks regarding the millennium, what will be or is happening in it, and when Jesus's return is in relation to it. Again, the problem is with people intensely identifying with one of those... "camps," as it were. In speaking negatively about any one of them, folks in that "camp" take it as a personal attack, and it should not be so.

so lets just look at the word..not at what a person might believe.. because even in this, (I will use premil as an example) there are alot of beliefs in this view. and not all of them even agree, so why would I want to put a label on this person. Just sit and look at the word..

Well, yes, but dispensationalism says that God, through those dispensations, has dealt with people differently from one dispensation to the next.

Yes

He did not deal with man the same before the fall and after the fall.

What did he do between the fall and the flood.. is this different than immediately after the flood until Abraham?

What happened with abraham, and who was blessed by him?

How about the one nation God called out. did he do things the same tith them, or did he do things different?

This is basically all Dispensationaism tries to differentiate in an easy way. to help people understand these different times

Which I think you agree with, I'm just saying, but I'll say this, too: Dispensationalism can be described in a sort of tongue-in-cheek manner as "God's series of Plan Bs." <smile> In other words, That however many times (because there is disagreement on the number even among dispensationalists), the thought is, "Well, God tried 'A,' and it didn't work, so He decided to do try 'B' instead..." ... Many, many passages, Old Testament and New, could be pointed out here to argue against dispensationalism, but the clearest and most succinct to me is Hebrews 13:5... "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." <smile>

Well as a dispensationalist all my life all over the country, I have never heard any of these arguments.

Again, I have heard people ( even in this chatroom) say the Israel and those under that age were saved by obeying the law.

and during the final week of this age (the 70th week) they will return to being saved by this legal system.

But they are not the norm. lets not kill a whole belief system just because of a few far right or left thinkers that do not follow the normal beliefs

Absolutely.

Hmmm. Well, I would say that the "age of grace" commenced after the Fall of Genesis 3. I wouldn't call it a "dispensation." I would call it God's plan, from all eternity. God was certainly not without grace before that... <smile> Afterword, though, man (and creation) became needful of redemption, which required grace ~ unmerited favor ~ on the Creator's (God's) part. Right?

oh I agree.

But they needed to give this time a name, some call it the church age, some the age of grace.. I prefer church age, but am not going to attack people who call it grace, unless there is something I disagree with what they say about that age..

Grace and peace to both of you!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The scriptures that rescued me from dispensationalism

I sat under the preaching of dispensationalism for the first 30 years of my life and finally I was brought to see that much of the preaching came out of the footnotes, not the scriptures. If you are brought up on this heresy found in the footnotes, it becomes as if the footnotes are also scripture and it is very difficult to study oneself out of it. God's people in the Old Covenant were believers from the one nation of Israel; under the New Covenant, God's people Israel are believers out of all nations.

see. here is my point in stone

All dispensationalsists (main stream) believe all people of all ages were saved by faith.

Under the age of Israel. Jew and gentile alike could be saved by grace (if a gentile wanted to share in israels blessings, they had to do certain things, but they were not saved by doing those things, or unsaved because they did not do them.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my views. But please, don't attack my views based on false ideas of what we actually believe. please.

Dispensationalists deny the statements I've presented below, with the scriptures that give the truth. Check the contexts and make sure these are 'proof texts', not 'spoof texts'.

Israel's land promise already fulfilled & completed: Gen. 15:18-21; Josh 21:43-45, 23:14-16; Ex. 23:27-30; Num. 34:1-12; 1 Kgs 4:20,21; 2 Chro. 9:22-28; Neh. 9:23, 24

Israels land promise was an ETERNAL PROMISE.

Gen 15 says God gave their descendents this land.
Gen 17 says he gave them this same land as an everlasting or eternal covenant.

7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in[f] which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

Eternity has no ended.. so as long as that land is there. the covenant is binding.

You can not claim God gave it to them, and he is done,, he has no more responsibility. He said he gave it forever. not based on what they did. or if they did this and that. he said it is theirs. period.. even today it is theres. But it lies desolate. why? Lev 26 answers this question. it is all in Gods hands. he continues to keep his promise..

The Jewish theocracy was ended 1st C: Mt. 21:43-45; Lk 20:16-18; Jn 4:21-23

and?? This does not mean God no longer will keep his promise to them

There is only one people of God, not two: Gal. 3:7-9; Rm. 2:28-29, 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:15-16; Phil. 3:3; Col. 3:11

As for as salvation goes. there has always been one people. not too.

But a special people God called out for a special purpose. there is only one of them. and all the rest (The OT calls them nations or gentiles)

The church is Israel continued: Heb. 12:18-24; 1 Pet. 2:9-10; Gal. 6:15-16(RSV, NEB, REB)

No it is not. God did not make the same promise to the church he made to Israel. they are seperate entities. but people from both are called Gods children and ar part of the church of God

OT prophecies applied to Christ & his church: Acts 3:24-26; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Acts 2:16-21, 29-36; 15:13-21; John 19:36-37; Heb. 8:1-13; Lk 1:17; Mt. 11:13-14

Yes

and many apply to Israel at the end, when they repent (ez 37 being one of many)

if you do not differentiate these prophecies. you risk getting confused and making God out to be a liar who can not keep his promises

Kingdom of heaven and Kingdom of God are the same: Mt. 19:23-24; compare the parallel passages in the synoptics, Mt. 4:17, 23 with Mk 1:14-15; Mt. 5:3 with Lk 6:20; Mt. 8:11-12 with Lk 13:28-29; Mt. 13:11 with Mk 4:11

The kingdom came at the 1st Advent: Mt.12:28, 16:28; Lk 11:20, 17:20-21; Col. 1:13

Christ is King now: Jn. 1:49, 12:14-16; Acts 2:29-36; Mt. 2:2; Rv. 1:5; Lk 1:32-33

Christ reigns now: 1 Pt. 1:22; Eph. 1:20, 21; Mt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11; Acts 2:29-36;

Christians, new creation reign now: Rm. 5:17, 8:17; Eph. 2:6; Rv. 1:6;

Satan is bound now: Mt. 12:28-29; Jn 12:27, 31; 16:11; Lk 10:17-18; Heb. 2:14

1000 is frequently figurative: Psa. 50:10, 91:7, 105:8; Isa. 30:17, 60:22(KJV, NEB, REB)

The kingdom of God increases from 1st C: Isa. 9:7, 55:10-11; Mt. 16:18; 1 Co. 15:24-26; Lk 13:18; (I am postmillennial)

One general resurrection, not 3 or more: Acts 17:31-32, 24:15; Jo. 5:28-29; "on the last day", Jn. 6:39, 40, 44, 54; Daniel 12:2

One general judgment: "on the last day", Jn. 12:48; 2 Pt. 2:9, 3:7; 1 Jn. 4:17; Rv. 20:11-15

Time of 2nd coming unknown, no signs given: Mt. 24:36, 44; Lk. 12:39-40; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:1-2;

Apocalyptic Language is Figurative, Symbolic as in the OT

God in clouds: Isa. 19:1; Nah. 1:3; Psa. 104:3
Sky, sun, moon, stars: Isa. 13:1, 10, 19, 20; 34:4, 5; Eze. 32:2, 7-8
Hail, fire, brimstone: Psa. 18:12-13; Isa. 28:1-2
Earthquakes, heaven: 2 Sam. 22:1, 7-16
Smoke forever: Isa. 34:5, 10
Darkness: Dt. 4:11-12

Dispensationalists don't use context to determine if a passage is literal or figurative; they decide this based on if it supports their theological scheme or not.

I am not even going to go any further, I would like to keep this peaceful.

You can disagree with me if you want. but I beg of you. don;t talk as if i am dead wrong, and you are dead right..