Thread: Is Dispensationalism considered Orthodox?

Originally Posted by ReformedWretch

are my posts showing? (lol)

Yes....I think there were 3 volleyballs on the court simultaneously

Originally Posted by ReformedWretch

are my posts showing? (lol)

lol

Yea, I commented on your observations Adam.

Blessings,

A question. Isn't it true that the view of a future conversion of a great host of ethnic Israel at the Second Advent was held by a number of prominent reformed teachers through the years? At issue is whether their conversion is seen as placing them in the church. If they are a separate people of God outside the church, then dispensationalism is in fact dividing the people of God.

The dispensationalism I know does indeed see Israel and The Church as two people groups. Now, and in eternity.

Originally Posted by PastorTim

"and Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom,..." Matt 4:23

Is denying this kingdom a denial of this gospel?

Haven't we been down this road before?

After denying that recognizing dispensations is part of the sine qua non of dispensationalism, along with premillennialism, Ryrie has typically been cited as the definitive spokesperson for the definition of dispensational hermeneutics. In his book of the same title, he says:

The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism
What, then, is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.

1 A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that "the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity." A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God. Chafer summarized it as follows:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity. . . . Over against this, the partial dispensationalist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely, the general separation of the good from the bad, and, in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people; that the earthly program must be given a spiritual interpretation or disregarded altogether.

This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.

Though God's purpose for Israel and God's purpose for the church receive the most attention in Scripture, God has purposes for other groups as well. He has a purpose and plan for the angels, which in no way mixes with His purposes for Israel or the church (2 Peter 2:4; Rev 4:11). He has a purpose for those who reject Him, which also is distinct from other purposes (Prov 16:4). He has a plan for the nations, which continues into the New Jerusalem (Rev 22:2), and those nations are distinct from the bride of Christ. God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purpose for the church than He does about the other groups.

Progressive dispensationalists seem to be blurring this distinction by saying that the concept is not in the same class as what is conveyed by the concepts of Gentiles, Israel, and Jews. What this means is not completely clear. (See the more complete discussion in chapter 9.) However, it does seem to imply that the classic Israel /church distinction is less clear.

2 This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.

Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation of Scripture. And it is this very consistency - the strength of dispensational interpretation - that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule. To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is. This does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation.

3 A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter that will be discussed more fully later (see chapter 5). It concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world. The covenant theologian, in practice, believes this purpose to be salvation (although covenant theologians strongly emphasize the glory of God in their theology), and the dispensationalist says the purpose is broader than that; namely, the glory of God. Progressives have a Christological center, apparently to undergird their emphasis on the Davidic covenant and on Christ as the already reigning Davidic ruler in heaven.

(from Dispensationalism, Copyright © 1995 by Charles C. Ryrie. All rights reserved.)

Yes, Dennis, this is the sort of dribble that I have read when I studied dispensationalism. It's always good to read this doctrine from the horse's mouth. Ryrie lays out plainly why I very much disagree with dispensationalism. I'm not sure why he can't read his own writings and sees the horridness of it all.

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

There are various camps under the larger umbrella of dispensationalism. Especially in its early forms, there was some heretical teachings of dispensationalism; e.g., Jews were saved by works, Christians by faith in Christ. That is certainly heretical. However, most modern dispensationalists have moved away from that and are certainly orthodox. Obviously, their teachings don't align with the confessions, but that doesn't necessarily make them unorthodox (depending on what point they disagree). Even the animal sacrifices thing in the rebuilt temple, which is a commonly held belief, is not a blood atonement as in the old testatment (as far as I know). I'm not sure what purpose it serves in their system (beyond fulfilled prophecy), but it is not a redemptive sacrifice.

The dispy's explanation of the animal sacrifices at the rebuilt temple are as a memorial to Christ's sacrifice at Calvary...which is wierd in itself since the Ezekiel passage it comes from says the sacrifices are for sin. Plus, if Christ is physically present in Jerusalem (as they believe will be the case during the millennium) - physically sitting on the throne of David (wounds and all) - why is there any need for memorial animal sacrifices...especially for sin? What happened to once for all? As a matter of fact, why do we even need the Temple if Christ is present? The thing that irks me the most about dispy's is their arrogant ignorance. Most know nothing of any other eschatological viewpoint. If it ain't in the Left Behind series, it's heresy. I even have a dispy friend whose belief that animals go to heaven is solely based on the fact that Revelation speaks of Christ riding on a horse. Talk about "literal!" YIKES!!

I've heard all of that before Jim, frequently.

Thanks Dennis. The quote is helpful. We must guard ourselves from seeing this as a division in a soteriological sense though, which is implied in statements accusing dispensationalism of "dividing God's people." Dispensationalism neither necessitates more than one means of salvation nor more than one group who is saved. In the same book Ryrie asserts,

The positive teaching of dispensational writers is that salvation is always through God's grace. Chafer asserted this position clearly:

Are there two ways by which one may be saved? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific character is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. This is to assert that God never saved any one person or group of persons on any other ground than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is, therefore, but one way to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ.

In the latter years of his life Chafer was charged with teaching "various plans of salvation for various groups in various ages" by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. In reply to the charge Chafer asserted in no uncertain terms,

The Editor has never held such views and... he yields first lace to no man in contending that a holy God can deal with sin in any age on any other ground than that of the blood of Christ. The references cited by the Committee from the Editor's writing have no bearing on salvation whatever, but concern the rule of life which God has given to govern His peole in the world. He has addressed a rule of life on the ground that they are His covenant people. Observing the rule of life did not make them covenant people.

... William Pettingill, another older dispensationalist, also declared clearly, "Salvation has always been, as it is now, purely a gift of God in response to faith. The dispensational tests served to show man's utter helplessness, in order to bring him to faith, that he might be saved by grace through faith plus nothing."
...
The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation. When Adam looked upon the coats of skins with which God had clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the cross of Calvary.
...
The charge of the covenant theologian that dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation is often based on what he thinks ought to be the logical teaching of dispensationalism rather than what is the actual teaching of dispensationalism. It is a charge that arises partly from the antithetical nature of the Mosaic period and the period of grace and truth through Jesus Christ. However much a the covenant theologian might wish to put every dealing of God into the straitjacket of his covenant of grace, he himself admits taht there is an antithetical dealing of God in the administration of the law. Whereas dispensationalists may have overemphasized the differences between law and grace, the covenant man has failed even to admit differences.
...
If by "ways" of salvation is meant different content of faith, then dispensationalism does teach various "ways" because the Scriptures reveal differing contents for faith in the progressive nature of God's revelation to mankind. But if by "ways" is meant more than one basis or means of salvation, then dispensationalism most emphatically does not teach more than one way, for salvation has been, is, and always will be based on the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.
...
If the dispensational emphasis on the distinctiveness of the church seems to result in a "dichotomy," let it stand as long as it is a result of literal, historicl-grammatical interpretation. There is nothing wrong with God's having a purpose for Israel and a purpose for the church and letting these two purposes stand together within His overall plan. After all, God has a purpose for angels, for the unsaved, and for nations that are different from His purposes for Israel and the church. Yet no antidispensationalist worries about a "dichotomy" there. The unifying principle of Scripture is the glory of God as revealed in the variegated purposes revealed and yet to be revealed. To pick out one of these purposes and force everything else into its mold is to warp the revelation of God. That is the error of the nondispensationalist.

pp. 107-142

I am not proposing that all of this is biblically accurate. However it is good to let Ryrie speak for himself. Now, as I was going back over this, I found something rather confusing. It is possible that Ryrie does indeed divide God's people. I hate to admit it, because I had not seen this before. And, I'm not sure that, in light of the quotes above, he is actually stating so. But, though he obviously sees salvation as only through Christ, he may be revealing a perspective that divides God's people in this statement. And it would be dishonest of me not to include it in light of our discussion.

The redeemed in the Body of Christ, the church of this dispensation, are the continuation of the line of redeemed from other ages, but they form a distinct group in the heavenly Zion (Heb. 12:22-24).

p 142

So, is he dividing God's people? Perhaps. Is this necessary for dispensationalism? I still don't think so. Is this the straw between progressive and Ryrie's dispensationalism? I don't know. But, at the very least, I am left with at least a doubt of the eternal nature of the church as seen through the eyes of Ryrie. Am I shaken? Not in the least. My views remain the same. But my understanding of Ryrie's dispensationalism does not.

I commend his Plea, chapter 12, to everyone.


Blessings,

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

It is also ironic that a literal reading of the classic NT "rapture" passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, actually excludes a pre-trib position. It is anything but secret (what with the shouting, the trumpet, the voice of the archangel), both the living and the dead are caught up, and the Lord is coming to earth in victory, accompanied by His saints (there is no seven year pause mentioned), immediately. You have to read a pre-trib rapture into the text.

My dumb email notifications never work, so I did not realize you had replied. The answer to your question is, I kid you not, there are two aspects to the Second Coming: the Rapture and the Return.

Again, I used to scratch my head and say, "Uh, aren't we literalists?"