Basically, I'd tend to agree that the sensationalists of both the eschatological and charismatic stripes are to one degree or another dispensational. However, and again, it is an abuse of a set of hermeneutic principles and cannot be painted with an all encompassing brush. Arminianism does not equal dispensationalism any more than NPP equals covenantalism.

As for your second paragraph; read my last paragraph alone and it should be clear. I meant no reference to eschatology in my final statements.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

Sorry, by "these guys" I meant Macarthur, et al. Chafer & Scofield are definitely "the old kind" of dispensaationalist. Yup, I don't care for any dispensationalism; with me it got to where I wasn't sure any passage of Scripture I read applied to me, which took the joy out of reading it.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Some history needs to be studied here. Darby's "dispensationalism" is vastly different than Scofield's. Furthermore, Scofield's follows the teaching of Watts (yes, THAT Watts - 1647-1748). He wrote "The Harmony of all the Religions which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations towards them" (what every happened to short pithy titles?). Yes, there were Arian tendencies. But the point is that the origin was long before the 1800s and did not flow through one clear stream.

Joe,

For one who has (rightly, I believe) decried the oversimplification and propogation of rumors re: Scofield and modern dispensationalists, I would not have expected the propogation of old wives tales re: Watts.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Joe,
You mentioned how vastly different Darby's and Scofield's dispensationalism are. It seems to me that differences that exist between their way of interpreting the scriptures, as well as the differences that exist between 'their dispensationalism' and the 'dispensationalism of today', make it a very challenging theology to either agree or disagree with. Author's who have tried to write against dispensationalism are said to have not done a good job because they are writing against a theology of yesteryear that people no longer believe in (for the most part) today.

From your understanding of dispensationalism, what are the common elements of dispensationalism that would tie all the variations together? Is it the discontinuity that exists between the NT/OT? Is it the distinction made between Israel and the church? Is it the literal interpretation of scripture?

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Okay, I'm going to point some things out here, but that doesn't mean that I endorse them. This is simply observation about history. I am not a proponent of any of these systems in total. Now that I've dispensed with the disclaimer:

Fred, have you read Watts' work?The outline of Watts' dispensationalism according to Ryrie is as follows:

• The Dispensation of Innocency, or the Religion of Adam at first
  The Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, or the Religion of Adam after his Fall
  The Noahical Dispensation, or the Religion of Noah
  The Abrahamical Dispensation, or the Religion of Abraham
  The Mosaical Dispensation, or the Jewish Religion
  The Christian Dispensation

Apparently Watts did not consider the Millennium a dispensation.

I'm not trying to prove that this is accurate. I'm simply providing the information I have. A source has been sited to give this credibility. Admittedly, there may be some abuse or at least a tendency to read more into it than existed. I'll leave it at that. If anyone choses to bebunk this, please make sure you use the sources and don't simply make assertions without proof.

For a comparison, Darby's is as follows:

• Paradisaical state to the Flood
  Noah
  Abraham
  Israel
  • Under the Law
    Under the priesthood
    Under the kings
  Gentiles
  The Spirit
  Millennium

I really don't pretend to fully understand all the implications and significance of this. In fact, I'm not interested in studying it much further. This is simply the information I have at hand.

Your comments carry a lot of weight here Fred. It might be constructive to provide proof, or at least sources, when claiming that someone's proposal is a "myth." That's a pretty heavy and confrontational assertion.


Bob,
I'm not an expert in this, nor have I studied it that far. I've simply pointed out errors here that I see. So, this is based on my, admittedly limited, understanding. Part of the problem is that many who "came out" of dispensationalism were caught up in the sensational aspects of it and so readily embraced what is probably a more sound alternative; or at least one that drew them into a closer walk with Christ. This results in "experts" making assertions based on their experiences with dispensationalism and how much they've learned since coming out. No stones being cast, it's simply their perspective. And considering what they've learned it's probably quite accurate in many ways. However, the statements made are usually sweeping and generalized in a way that unfairly and inaccurately portrays dispensationalism as a whole. It's tough, because almost all of the accusations are true at a certain level. But it's frustrating because the assertions are almost always made with a wide brush meant to discredit all proponents.

This same generalization, along with straw man tactics, often comes from those who set out to discredit dispensationalism. Gerstner is a clear example of this. I've tried to read his Wrongfully Dividing..., but simply get sick of his tactics. He claims to be gracious and loving, then builds a straw man so that he can stab it in the back. Having said that, I've seen dispensationalists, including Ryrie, do similar things (though to a much lesser degree).

To answer your last question/s, I'd say that a literal translation is what has prompted dispensationalism. There have been traces of it throughout church history because of this. However, systemization did not occur until that last few centuries. The same can be said of Covenantalism though. We see Calvin's writings as the source, but he did not systemetize the covenantalism we see today. The Westminster confession, as far as I know, is the first clear work in this area.

Again, we're talking of a system built by a hermeneutic. Hermeneutic principles are abused by all parties, to one degree or another. I find the dispensational hermeneutic to be more clearly defined and "safer" as an interpretation method. However, as has been pointed out, it can lead some to take "literalness" to a point that is irresponsible. This usually comes from a certain laziness that fails to recognize idioms and do the work needed to properly understand the culture, language and other influences that give us a better understanding of the text.

As for a separation of Israel and the church, I'm not really sure. From my perspective it's a result, not a cause. However, I might say that it is a necessary result if one holds to the "literal" hermeneutic that is espoused by dispensationalism. For clarity, most who truly understand the hermeneutic would not espouse a "literal translation." Because there are so many influences they would prefer to propose a "clear and simple" translation based on grammar and historical influences.


I hope that was "clear and simple" enough.


Blessings
Joe

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by Wannabee]

A lot of the stuff I've seen online written against covenant theology, in favor of dispensationalism, argues that CT has as its basis two covenants, the covenant of grace and the covenant of works, neither of which are mentioned in the scriptures (explicitly). I thought it was interesting to see the covenant of grace as part of Watts' outline.

That's why I'm interested in finding the 'lowest common denominator' that makes dispensationalism dispensationalism, that which makes it unique. When somebody says "I'm a dispensationalist" or "I don't believe in dispensationalism", what are the common things that one believes and the other doesn't believe?

The impression I've often gotten from dispensationalists I've spoken with is that you have to interpret scriptures (prophecy in particular) as if you're viewing the future through a video camera. The things you're viewing are only those things that you can ascertain through your senses. Any attempt to interpret the scriptures differently, to suggest that the things mentioned represent a spiritual truth instead of a snapshot of a future event, is met with "you're spiritualizing the scriptures". I get the impression that something spiritual is somehow less literal than what we can experience through our senses.

Why? The church is mentioned and Israel is mentioned. Why would the literal hermeneutic lead somebody to assume that they are two mutually exclusive groups?

I think it was.

Bob; Why is the separation between Israel and the church a clear and simple udnerstanding?

There is only one verse that is ambiguous on this, out of 72 or 73 vv in the NT that mention Israel. Hardly conclusive. That might be a topic for a different thread though.



Thanks Bob. I'd like to give you more, but I simply can't get to it right now.

Isn't Jerry Falwell a Calvinist, as well as most of the staff of Liberty U?

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

Definitely NOT.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I never knew there were other... Types?... of Calvinism until I came to this board. I've always just called myself a Dispensationalist, but after reading many of the debates, I want to know what you all consider a Dispensationalist to be. Articles on the other "types" would be appreciated as well. Or I could just do what Pastor MacArthur does: call myself a "leaky" Dispensationalist

(Sorry for the temporary thread hijack)

__________________
Susan Anita - Clan Scott!
Member of Grace Bible Church - Bakersfield, CA www.gbcob.org

The real question here is would John Calvin agree with ANY disp. whom of the genesis of them of his time, the anabaptist, he said fracture the word of God so as to make it unrecognizable. It may seem small in today's thinking, but Calvin himself did not see it as a small thing. "Calvinist" has become a broad term and slowly loosing its meaning from its origins. John Calvin would have closer associated with Luther Lutherans than the Baptist even of our time.

I don't think John Calvin would agree that they differ in ecclesiology, but not soteriology when all things and doctrines run their course. He would not agree in the least on the issue of the sacraments which if fact go straight to soteriology and he saw as a direct assault on the the faith, assurance and even the Gospel.

So it depends on how the question is asked.

Ldh

__________________
Larry Hughes
Geologist
Tates Creek PCA
Lexington, KY
PCA

Galatians 4:29, "But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also."

Bob,

I´ve tried to do that myself. Truly!

What is the lowest common denominator, not mere labels and names, which tend to push "˜hot buttons´, rather the principles and ideas that make a dispensationalist a dispensationalist be it of the Scofield cut or more Reformed Baptist cut (e.g. AW Pink). And I realize that if one says that a reformed Baptist is dispensational that immediately raises an objection from reformed Baptist to distance themselves from the more heavy duty dispensationalist, that is indeed understandable. Yet, how does one analyze the situation without out using some kind of label? Because at the end of the day it is not the name that is important but the paradigm or ideal that we are trying to find out. What makes a reformed person reformed and why are the truer reformed closer to Luther than say Reformed Baptist. What makes that crucial break in church structure, the sacraments and ultimately one´s view of faith and salvation?

As I read much on Luther´s two kingdoms, theology of glory Vs. cross and then Calvin and later works. Luther and Calvin were not as far apart as many would think, they just spoke differently. And the one single thing that emerges different from ALL reformed from Luther through Calvin and ALL forms of baptistic and even Roman Catholic doctrine boils down to one common denominator. For neatness I put Lutherans and Reformed on one side and Baptist and Roman Catholic on the other side, not as a way of derision but rather to show this principle lowest common denominator difference that appears no matter what name you give it, and again it varies in magnitude. This common denominator seems to govern everything in both major categories from a group´s denominational/church level right down to the psychological level of the individual believer under each of the two major blocks of teachings. For the Reformed/Lutheran I will call Group A and for the Credo/Roman I will call Group B.

The is the whole tension between the "œnow"� and "œnot yet"� nature of the reality of the kingdom of God (the church including the individual believer) and that of the kingdom of the earth. Group A tends to maintain this distinction and leaves the "œnot yet"� part in tact more fully and thus faith in the Gospel/Christ is the highest in these groups. They call baptism and the Lord´s Supper sacraments that give the Gospel and promise in some form or another. Group A see the primary function of the Sacraments as communicating heave to earth, that is God in mercy giving. Group A sees the earthly church as mixed, Group A. Group A primarily sees the objectivity of Christ as paramount to the believer´s need. Group A most strongly maintains the Law and Gospel distinction (it is notable here that Luther derived his L/G distinction from Scripture primarily seeing the difference between the Theology of Glory in opposition to the Theology of Cross, in the later the Cross of Christ is primary not the suffering which is derivative, group B confuses even this.). In Group A the "œnow"� and "œnot yet"� goes hand in hand perfectly with faith which receives from Christ. The "œnot yet"� tension is maintained throughout Group A´s doctrines: The church is "œnot yet"� pure this awaits Christ´s return, the individual is fully "œnot yet"� sanctified and mostly struggles with sin (Romans 7), the "œnot yet"� tension also serves to magnify the objective work of Christ rather than the subjective inward man, the church is continuous from the OT and not wholly new. This plays out in the administration of holy Baptism for children in continuity with circumcision. The church is "œnot yet"� final but is now in redemptive history in the millennial 1000 "œnot yet"� rule of Christ awaiting consummation. Regeneration and election are not primary in Group A but the cross of Christ is. In Group A baptism is God´s baptism and so constituted upon His name and not "œmy faith"�, and so is the Lord´s Table. When an individual in these churches struggle with assurance, being themselves in a state of "œnot yet"�, they are not turned in to themselves or prayer or works of imagination or inward deriving faith, but unto the objective holy Word of Gospel, holy Baptism (Gospel) and holy Supper (Gospel). The "œnot yet"� of the church and the individual believer is strengthened objectively by these.

Group B tends to collapse the "œnot yet"� into "œconsummation"�, arrival, or "œthe NT church is a drastically different constitution of the church than the OT"�. This of course varies in degree from sub-group to sub-group. Rome for example collapses the "œnot yet"� into "œnow"� by confusing the two kingdoms of earth and God. Thus, Rome sought and seeks political power with the State. The church is "œperfect"� in Rome´s view and this is not unlike "œregenerate church only"� thinking which too has collapsed the "œnot yet"� component of the kingdom of God with the kingdom of earth. On the individual level all Group B groups tend to so collapse this "œnot yet"� component both on the church level and individual level that their congregations become highly subjective in seeking assurance. Thus other "œmeans of grace"� (ways to assurance) are invented. The real means of grace, unlike group A, become law driven and not means of grace but something done due to some perfection or subjective rebirth within that allows them to partake. If you don´t have this "œsomething/regeneration"� then you cannot possibly partake. The sacrament or ordinance of baptism, for example, become constituted not by God´s Word and Name but by the church herself or upon "œfaith"� present YET proved by sight/experience (which negates the former). The "œnot yet"� on the personal level is removed and usurped by sight/experience (the thing proving faith supposedly) and this removes faith.

This seems to be the main difference this "œnot yet"� reality or confusion between the two main groups. The "œnot yet"� either on the church level, the eschatological level or even individual level is crucial. Because the "œnot yet"� in ANY of these and more is the reason and necessity for FAITH in Christ alone in this life. Assurance at ANY level church as a group or individual NEVER arises above this faith that sits in tension in this "œnot yet"�. But if a group or individual attempts to resolve this tension be it at the church level, eschatological level or individual level, then faith is usurped by a kind of "œfalse sight"� in this life. Resolution either at the church level or individual level can never be until we die and are in glory or Christ returns. Any attempt to resolve that in the "œnow"� wars with faith and thus the Cross. Do I rest in faith in spite of myself and struggles primarily in the objective cross of Christ. Or does that become at best a secondary issue and I can "œreally"� rest if I can find proof of my regeneration and faith by secondary causes such as fruits? If the later then the "œnot yet"� falsely becomes resolved and I´m not living by faith but by sight. Similarly on the church level, does the church set out to pick out the tares among her endangering the wheat with our inability to do so in order to resolve the "œnot yet"� as the Apostles asked Jesus "œif they should do it."� Keep in mind they too where speaking of the kingdom of God coming and where too zealous for the final resolution which will be at Christ´s return. Rome in her assertion of being the only true church and her members too only those who can be saved, at least mostly in the old days, is not unlike "œregenerate only"� church thinking "“ there is that false purity and attempt to resolve the "œnot yet"� at the church level, eschatological level and individual level. Because if your view is some form of resolving the "œnot yet"� tension, then you must set up some system to go about doing it, a form of earthly purification of the members and purging of those you think which may or may not be true. But if your view is that the "œnot yet"� must be maintained, then Gospel and the Cross of Christ are highest in everything you do, be it ministry of the Word or Sacraments. If you attempt to resolve the "œnot yet"� then the pure ministry of the Word suffers (law and gospel confusion) and the sacraments take the back seat "“ then "œnew"� inventions come along and begin to develop in order to "œpurify the church and individual"� to get the "œnot yet"� resolved.

So in a nut shell the most common denominator I´ve found is the "œnow"� and "œnot yet"� tension difference (this too is where the strong reformed Baptist differ in reading Jer. 31, they attempt to bring resolution (tear out the tares from among the wheat so to speak concerning the kingdom of God, the church) to the "œnot yet"�).

Ldh

The Debate: John Nelson Darby vs. D.L. Moody
Topic: Calvinism

I guess a real debate took place [around 1872] between the two over the Calvinist issue. At one point during an exchange Moody quote John 3:16 "for God so loved the world", Darby replied with Romans "it is not man who runs or wills but God who has mercy" closed his Bible and walked off stage.

The details I found were sketchy. It could have been Darby who quoted Romans first and Moody responded with John 3, either way, Darby was there standing up for Calvinism.

j

__________________
J. M. Esq., P.V.P.M.P.C. [Perpetual Vice-President--Member Pickwick Club]
Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor - The Orthodox Catechism

Darby was called upon by a Genevan church to defend the doctrine of grace. Unfortunately the British Brethren are no longer Calvinistic.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

In Canada [and in general I've learned] the Exclusives are, but the Open Brethren are not. If I'm not mistaken, the Exclusives had a few hypers in the early days.

Re: Calvinistic dispensationalists and their organizations, you have Erwin Lutzer (and many at Moody Bible Institute), Bruce Ware (and many others at SBTS), John Hannah (from DTS, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals council member), John MacArthur (and those from The Master's Seminary), Lance Quinn (and some others in FIRE Fellowship), and the Fellowship of Grace Brethren (and Grace Theological Seminary). Some Calvinistic (progressive?) dispensationalists founded Cornerstone Seminary.

I think that just about covers all the major groups with a substantial number of dispensational Calvinists. There are probably some at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School or the other Southern Baptist seminaries as well.

Al Mohler has a historical premillennial eschatology, and thus is not dispensational.

__________________
[IMGL]http://x79.xanga.com/144c6b7b05d37172179798/w130772988.gif[/IMGL]

[IMGL]http://x18.xanga.com/b8cc2b4341633172177963/w130771430.gif[/IMGL][URL="http://www.harborpc.org/"]Harbor Presbyterian Church[/URL] (PCA)
[IMGL]http://x18.xanga.com/b8cc2b4341633172177963/w130771430.gif[/IMGL]San Diego, CA
[IMGL]http://x18.xanga.com/b8cc2b4341633172177963/w130771430.gif[/IMGL][url]http://www.xanga.com/elnwood[/url]

I am particularily sensitive to the preteristic amillenial position (not pantalist).

I see DT as being very invasive to the two age system. Not to mention the fact that by putting so much prophecy into a future perspective, it seemingly lends to the jewish dillema of non acceptance of Christ as a possible messiah. In other words, because dispensationalism by virtue of a Jew / Church distinction; makes two seperate plans of God, it also makes two distinct economies under the current "dispensation", and therefor Jews have no real incentive to accept Christ. Of all of the prophecy regarding Christ, the fulfillments of these prophecies are cleary seen in the New Testament. If any portion of the Old Testament prophecies pertains to this day and are still unfolding in the New Testament, then the Jews rightfully have grounds to argue against the Messiah, and under that scenario may not have even come yet.

Read the whole Chapter of Rev. 12 and we then see that to read Rev. linearly from start to finish as a narrative then by virtue of this prophecy being future, then Christ in fact is not yet come, because we as dispensationalists are still looking for these two witnesses who preceed Chapter 12! Which teaches Christ!

Just my

If dispensationalism is correct, how is Christ a stumblingblock for the Jews? After all, all they have to do is wait and He'll show up as a political Messiah, just like they thought He would.