When I first began looking into dispensationism I read a lot of the apologetics on the net against it. The theological system that they persented as dispensationalism was a horrid system lead by Darby and Larkin. It cut up the Bible, had people being saved in different manners and so forth...I decided therefore that the system was wrong, very wrong and opposed it. I still hold to this opposition of those things I listed, but thats not what dispensationalism is today. If when dispensationalsim is being discussed what is being discussed is the classical form embraced by Darby and Larkin and Standford then I think the various Reformed writtings on the intnert persent a wonderful case against it. The fact is however very few people embrace that form of dispenationalsim anymore.

The best example is MacArthur; "I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation. I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church. I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue."

Is what he embraces dispensationalsim? Is there anything really wrong with his view anymore then there is between every Christian on less essencial issues? I'm really having a hard time as I read more and more with people who lump all "dispensationalists" together and persent really a straw man argument againist them were they attack the "old-school" dispensationalsts. I'm not saying I agree with Macarthur's view, but I from what I have read it seems that dispys are being attacked for things they don't believe anymore.

I am the only one who has begun to think this way?

Bryan
SDG

__________________
Bryan Neufeld
Faith Community Church
Manitoba, Canada

Bryan, a few thoughts. You are correct, to an extent. Much of the critique today is against old (classic) dispensationalism. There does need to be more interaction with progressives like MacArthur. But do not be deceived regarding how many classic dispensational churches are still around. There are many. In addition, there is much that MacArthur did not mention, not the least of which is two different peoples of God. Does he think that God has two different types of people? I did not see that in his quote.

Moreover, have you ever wondered why MacArthur preaches from the New Testament and not the old (I am speaking of his commentaries. To be fair, I read him saying that he does that because that's what the apostles did.)? Just food for thought.

__________________
Bobby Gawthrop, V.D.M.
licensed, ordained SBC, licensed PCA
Ph.D. student (Whitefield Theological Seminary)
"Every minister in those days had a V.D.M. degree: Verbum Dei Minister. When, therefore, I became a teacher of apologetics it was natural for me to think, not only of my Th.M. and my Ph.D., but above all of my V.D.M. The former degrees were but means whereby I might be true to the latter degree." Cornelius Van Til

[b:c2b785bd72]Bryan wrote:[/b:c2b785bd72]
I still hold to this opposition of those things I listed, but thats not what dispensationalism is today. If when dispensationalsim is being discussed what is being discussed is the classical form embraced by Darby and Larkin and Standford then I think the various Reformed writtings on the intnert persent a wonderful case against it. The fact is however very few people embrace that form of dispenationalsim anymore.

I was glad to read your post indicating that the trend is away from classic dispensationalism. That's encouraging. But I agree with Bobby when he wrote: "But do not be deceived regarding how many classic dispensational churches are still around. There are many."

There are many churches that still hold to classic dispensationalism. Wouldn't you know my "luck" - that's the only kind of dispensational church I've come across.

From what you've read, what are the main differences between classic dispensationalism and what many dispensationalists believe now?

Bob

__________________
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.

I still think this is to coarse a distinction between the types of dispensationalism. The Classic dispensationalism of Darby and Larkin is still alive but has become the minority and is generally correctly labeled as outside orthodox Christianity. The dispensationalism that thrives today would be better labeled revised dispensationalism, that of Charles Ryrie, Dallas Theological Seminary (the part that is not progessive), Moody Bible institute. They also don't believe in two ways of salvation, salvation by works in the OT, or two ultimate destinies for the nation of Israel and the Church. They do, though, still believe that the sermon on the mound is ultimatly for the future, and that the prophecies of the millinium are not being fullfilled at all in the church. Finnally, you have the progressive dispensationals, the kind that are really half way between CT and dispy, who believe in the future literal kingdom for Israel but also believe the propheicies have began to be fullfilled in the church and the Christ is reiging right now. The is the dispensationlism of Bock et all, and MacArthur fits this camp really well though I don't think he has ever indentified himself specifially with that term.

Poythress has a good discussion of these three types of dispensationalism in his book, "Understanding Dispensationalists "

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by Pete Richert]

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by Pete Richert]

__________________
Pete Richert
member, Dayspring Chapel
Austin ,TX

My problem with progressive dispensationalism is that in an effort to appease both classical dispensationalists and covenant theologians they have set up various systems depending on the school or theologian holding the view that are very loosely tied together under the title of "progressive dispensationalism." A perfect example would be Ryrie's work "Dispensationalism" compared to what many profs at DTS are teaching today. Both are considered progressive, but modern DTS profs strongly emphasize the role of covenant. A guy that I work with who is in school over there was telling me how one of his professors is basically a pre-millenial covenant guy who calls his theology "progressive dispensationalism" to appeal to the school's leadership.

Basically, I think that it is VERY hard to define progressive dispensationalism. God progressively reveals Himself through dispensations (where he also cuts a covenant at the beginning, and where they are no longer completely separate but built upon each other), and certain prophecies refer to national Israel while some refer to spiritual Israel (but there appear to be no set distinctions between which refer to which; leaving this to the interpreter). I haven't read but maybe two or three books on progressive dispensationalism, but it's too confusing and contradictory for me. I think this is because they care so much about being the middle ground between covenant guys and old school dispensationalists.

__________________
Ranger
SBC, but personally confess the 1689 LBCF
Yunnan, China

"If we regularly beheld the glory of Christ, our Christian walk with God would become more sweet and pleasant, our spiritual light and strength would grow daily stronger and our lives would more gloriously represent the glory of Christ. Death would be most welcome to us." - John Owen

[quote:38ade1b994]
and that the prophecies of the millinium are not being fullfilled at all in the church
[/quote:38ade1b994]

Actually some of them do. It's kinda up to the interpreter. Some progressives say that Christ is spiritually reigning in heaven right now over the church, while others still hold that He isn't reigning at all right now.

In the theme of "already, not yet," some of them hold that the church is currently experiencing limited aspects of the millenial lifestyle, but that the ultimate fulfillment will come in the millenium.

[b:d94500cbf7]Bryan wrote:[/b:d94500cbf7]
Dispensationalism - Why So Bad?

It may be comparing apples and oranges, but its interesting to compare the CT with dispensationalism.

The Westminster confession was written around 400 years ago and we can still go back to the confession to define what CT is and what Presbyterians believe. There is a standard that we can go back to that we can count on. When churches fall away from the Westminster confession, they don't become the standard.

Dispensationalism is just the reverse. A little over 150 years ago, dispensationalism came on the scene with their rediscovered truths that were radically different from what people had believed up to that point. The Scofield bible was written and propagated, dispensational schools sprang up all over the place, and dispensationalism became the dominant view. To some it became the standard by which orthodoxy is judged. Unlike CT, the new and improved rediscovered truths have gone by the wayside and now there's a new standard for dispensationalism. Can't help but wonder if its a good thing to try and figure out today's dispensationalism. Has the theology stabilized, or will the standard change again?

Bob

[quote:ea422b287d]
A perfect example would be Ryrie's work "Dispensationalism" compared to what many profs at DTS are teaching today. Both are considered progressive, but modern DTS profs strongly emphasize the role of covenant.
[/quote:ea422b287d]

Your getting your terms confused. Ryrie is not in the "progressive" dispensational movement. Indeed, in the very book you quoted he has a chapter refuted such. Ryrie however is also not classical in the sense of the theology of 150 years ago. That is why Poythress in his book choses the term "revised" to describe the main stream dispensationalism of our time. It is not either progressive or Larkin, indeed, the majority of dispensationals don't fall into these catagories.


[quote:ea422b287d]
Actually some of them do. It's kinda up to the interpreter. Some progressives say that Christ is spiritually reigning in heaven right now over the church, while others still hold that He isn't reigning at all right now.
[/quote:ea422b287d]

You confused my qoute. I was refering to the revised dispensationals, not the progessive group. Yes, indeed, the progressive groups see many of the prophecies began in the church, just not compltly fullfilled for all details. The "already not/yet of the system mirrors historic premillienism in many ways, yet they still see the promises fullfilled literally in a national Israel made up of ethnic Jews.

[quote:80759094e5]Moreover, have you ever wondered why MacArthur preaches from the New Testament and not the old (I am speaking of his commentaries. To be fair, I read him saying that he does that because that's what the apostles did.)? Just food for thought. [/quote:80759094e5]Actually MacArthur began a series on Genesis several years ago. Because of his method of preaching it took him a long time to get through the first dozen or so chapters. Since he's better with the Greek and wanted to complete his work in one area he chose to go with the NT. From what he's said about it his decision had nothing to do with theology, but more to do with his area of expertise and a desire to be able to finish the NT in his lifetime. He's recently said that he thinks he's got about ten years to go in order to finish. He challenges others to do with the OT what he's attempted to do with the NT.[quote:80759094e5]When churches fall away from the Westminster confession, they don't become the standard.[/quote:80759094e5]Brother Bob, what about the Bible? To fall back on the confession is to miss the source by a little over 1500 years. I'm not claiming that dispies have the inside scoop on God's Word. Your statement seems to reveal a bent towards traditionalism though. [quote:80759094e5]A little over 150 years ago, dispensationalism came on the scene with their rediscovered truths that were radically different from what people had believed up to that point.[/quote:80759094e5]Actually dispensationalism has been around a lot longer, it's just the label that's new. Furthermore, the people and theological system you're referring to here is ultra-dispensationalism. [quote:80759094e5]Has the theology stabilized, or will the standard change again?[/quote:80759094e5]The standard never changed. It's always been the Scriptures. Theological systems aid us in systemetizing our doctrine, but they aren't supposed to be the standard. In the 1500's there were a lot of people killed because they were changing the standard. Were they wrong?
Tyndale?
Wycliffe?
Huss?
Others who's theology we might agree on, but who hardly had a chance to develope it better as they ran from the RCC, and even from other protestants, because their views didn't fit the traditional mold.
The confession is merely an aid, not a standard.
Start with the text, work with the text and finish with the text.

:wr50:

In Christ
Joe

__________________
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

Well, said brother! You are no longer a "wannabe."

[b:2458b9316b]Joe wrote:[/b:2458b9316b]
Brother Bob, what about the Bible? To fall back on the confession is to miss the source by a little over 1500 years. I'm not claiming that dispies have the inside scoop on God's Word. Your statement seems to reveal a bent towards traditionalism though.

I definitely have to work on my writing skills. The Bible is the standard, for sure. Unfortunately, you can't just understand either system by simply saying "They teach the Bible". Although the statement is true, saying it doesn't help me understand them.

The point I was making is that with CT, I can go to the Westminster confession and have a good idea what CT means, based on the statements made and the scriptures given. I can't do that with dispensationalism.

[b:2458b9316b]Joe wrote:[/b:2458b9316b]
Furthermore, the people and theological system you're referring to here is ultra-dispensationalism.

Ultra-dispensationalism? Is that the same as classic dispensationalism? Just wondering, though, who is it that coined the term "ultra-dispensationalist"? I suppose I came out of the ultra-dispensational type of background, but I've never heard it called that before. All the books I've read just refer to dispensationalism as dispensationalism.

[b:2458b9316b]Joe wrote:[/b:2458b9316b]
Start with the text, work with the text and finish with the text.

Agreed.

BTW, I haven't seen you around for a while. How ya been?

Bob

My bad on confusing the progressives with the revised. That must be part of why it appears to me that there is such diversity. My copy of "Dispensationalism" doesn't have a chapter on or titled "Progressive Dispensationalism" so I guess that was a later addition or expansion to earlier copies of the book. I just assumed that Ryrie fell into this group since much of what Dr. Blaising (at Southwestern Seminary) and much of what I have read of Ryrie seem very similar. Dr. Blaising focuses on the theme of the kingdom of God more though and spiritualizes many verses, but doesn't seem consistent in his hermeneutic since he insists a literal interpretation of many verses that I believe to be figurative.

[quote:a838fbd5ec]
The "already not/yet of the system mirrors historic premillienism in many ways
[/quote:a838fbd5ec]

Basically, progressives seem like historic premillenialists who believe in a rapture and tribulation. At least that is all I get out of Dr. Blaising and Kennedy at SWBTS.

[quote:ce34d8eb34]BTW, I haven't seen you around for a while. How ya been?[/quote:ce34d8eb34]I've been tremendously blessed. Thanks for asking. Part of the blessing is that I'm just plain busy. It's tough to get on the board very often any more. I check in on the prayer requests from time to time and that's usually about it.
In case you missed it, we're heading to Italy on a mission trip in June. If you click on my web site below and follow the Italy link toward the bottom of the home page you can read about it (the info about the trip itself is toward the bottom).

You're right about the dispies not being able to go back to a confession to state their creed, so to speak. I'm not credal, so it doesn't bother me in the least. Plus, the plain fact of it is that the majority of the best theology writing of the past has been from the covenant theologians. Seems to be pretty mixed these days though.

I don't know who coined ultra-dispensationalism. It's sort of like hyper-calvinism. They take a good thing (my opinion) and just go way too far with it. The theology that Gerstner and guys like that write against is ultra-dispensationalism, although some of them would deny it. I came out of the typical ultra-dispensational arminian background myself. My "conversion" was mainly in my undrestanding of God's sovereignty and grace though. I never bought into the whole segregated dispensations idea that was taught. But as I've shared here from time to time, I can't buy the CT perspective either.

Well, back to the books. We're writing a book review on James White's "The King James Only Controversy." It's fun, especially since that was part of my background too.

Sorry, I'm rambling. It's good to talk to you.

Dispys don't think the new covenant was made to Christians.

We benefit, but we are not 'in' the covenant. Otherwise, Hebrews 8 would nullify the rest of their theology.

__________________
Grace and Peace in Christ,

Brett Rader
Member
Redeemer Presbyterian(PCA)
Austin, TX

The Classical and Revised positions also need to lose that "carnal Christian" affliction. Ryrie still believes it, which is why Gerstner said he was teaching antinomianism unintentionally. They get it from Lewis Sperry Chafer's dalliance with certain late 19th-Century holiness teachers.
Fortunately, John MacArthur has completely lost this problem if he ever had it. He has spent at least 2 sermon series lately pointing out that true Christianity has no halfway point like that. Hopefully, he's managed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable!

__________________
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?

You're not alone, Bryan.

I'd consider myself probably closer to progressive than covenant, but I'm no longer revised. I ranted a while back on this very subject in two different threads, most recently:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d.php?tid=4322

By the way turnmeric, Classical dispensationalism was never stuck with the 'carnal Christian' teaching. Go read some old works by Ironside and others from the early 1900's and you'll hear them sounding quite reformed in this aspect. MacArthur documents it well in one of the appendix sections of 'Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles'. While the hermeneutic can cause the problem of 'carnal Christian' (only when you disregard the remainder of scripture in one aspect), it is not inherent in the system, nor was it taught actively until Chafer. I disagree with Ken Mathison and others here when they say that antinomianism is inherent to dispensationalism. They are WRONG.

Raderag - my old pastor sat under Ryrie. He taught me that the New Covenant offered in Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in Christ and was made to Christians. Can you show me a quote from a revised dispensationalist which states what you have said ?

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by OS_X]

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
Sunday School Teacher (Elementary 2), Grace Communion Church (EFCA) formerly Gaithersburg Community Church
http://www.gchurch.org
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
The Upcoming CD: The Definition

[quote:c877c4db98][i:c877c4db98]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:c877c4db98]

Raderag - my old pastor sat under Ryrie. He taught me that the New Covenant offered in Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in Christ and was made to Christians. Can you show me a quote from a revised dispensationalist which states what you have said ?

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by OS_X] [/quote:c877c4db98]

Yes.

The Ryrie study Bible is one example(commentary on Heb 8), but I'll have to get it later.

I also have gleaned this buy discussing the issue with many dispensationalist.

I will say that Ryrie at least admits that some of the new covenant is for the CHurch, but he stops short of admitting that it is TO the Church.

The critism of my original post in regards to there being many who still hold to classical disp is probley true. I just don't run into these people much in an average day. Thats not to say I haven't.

As can be seen from this thread the lines between the different theological camps are not always clear cut. One of the reasons I posted this was becasue of some of the frustration I've come across when trying to somewhat systmatize my theology. Being a Baptist I cannot hold to all of Covenant theology, so that means there are some things in the dispensational camp that I believe are correct. Yet I disagree with classical dispensationalism and to a degree with MacArthur (but I need to read him more).

It's tough discerning the truth at the best of times, it's even harder when dispensationalsim means something different to everyone.

Bryan
SDG

[quote:1bdde90ebf][i:1bdde90ebf]Originally posted by raderag[/i:1bdde90ebf]
[quote:1bdde90ebf][i:1bdde90ebf]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:1bdde90ebf]

Raderag - my old pastor sat under Ryrie. He taught me that the New Covenant offered in Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in Christ and was made to Christians. Can you show me a quote from a revised dispensationalist which states what you have said ?

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by OS_X] [/quote:1bdde90ebf]

Yes.

The Ryrie study Bible is one example(commentary on Heb 8), but I'll have to get it later.

I also have gleaned this buy discussing the issue with many dispensationalist.

I will say that Ryrie at least admits that some of the new covenant is for the CHurch, but he stops short of admitting that it is TO the Church. [/quote:1bdde90ebf]

Also, are there any good dispy commentaries on the web?

The problem with saying the NC is to the church is that it is 'literally' addressed to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. That isn't dispensationalism. Ryrie basically says that the Church fulfills it with Christ's mediation, but Israel fulfills the rest of it.

OS_X, is that right? I'm glad Harry Ironside didn't go for that nonsense I mentioned. I got the impression that Chafer was one of the architects of Classic Dispensationalism, but haven't given it the study I should. I read MacArthur's appendix and I know he's not into that at all. I still know some Dispensationalists personally who are - they think it's perfectionistic to say the "carnal Christian" cannot be, when actually that very notion came from a kind of perfectionism. Hmmm! Anyway, around PB I'm sure it's a

In college I was planning on attending DTS, and was a big fan of what I knew of dispensationalism. My friend gave me a set of Chafer's "Systematic Theology." He was definitely a classical dispensationalist, and it was this work that made me begin doubting the system.

[quote:39169088ca][i:39169088ca]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:39169088ca]
You're not alone, Bryan.
Raderag - my old pastor sat under Ryrie. He taught me that the New Covenant offered in Jeremiah 31 is fulfilled in Christ and was made to Christians. Can you show me a quote from a revised dispensationalist which states what you have said ? [/quote:39169088ca]

From the Ryrie Study Bible:

Commentary on Heb 8:6

[quote:39169088ca]
The covenant Christ mediates is a better covenant, since it is enacted on better promises. In vv. 6-13, the new covenant is contrasted with that first covenant(v. 7); i.e., the Mosaic law (Ex. 19:5). Christ's blod is the basis of the new covenant (Matt 26:28); Christians are ministers of it(2 Cor 3:6); and it will yet have an aspect of its fulfillment in the relation to Israel and Judah in the millennium ( as predicted in Jer 31:31-34).
[/quote:39169088ca]

He gives lip service to Christian's ministering the covenant, but not that it is fulfilled in the Church, rather Israel.

He is one of the more Orthodox, classical or 'revised'. IOW, revised is still classical.

What is amazing is how the system came about in the first place. Of course it's been refuted and abandoned. But while in its heyday, everyone believed it to be the truth. What turned this around? New Light? No.

Old light.

Much of it has been cast aside for progressive beliefs or total rejection. What makes me wonder is why it seemed like it was worthwhile to begin with.

Brother Joe, I know you don't want to hear this, but the Westminster Confession, aside from the few points you don't agree with as you hold to the LBCF, has not been refuted or abandoned, but still stands as a pretty good definition as to what is to be believed in the best Reformed churches.

If catechesis and wholesale apostacy from the standards had not taken place, if toleration would not have been the norm, if doctrinal subscription had been enforced, we would have never seen dispensationalism have any day.

Yet, God allowed it for purposes only He knows.

In Christ,

KC

__________________
Heb 13:20-21

Kevin C. Easterday
Member Covenant OPC, St. Augustine, FL
Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father and Teacher to Kamden (16) and Kolton (14)
Federal Theology Website
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

[quote:8cf81060ab]Brother Joe, I know you don't want to hear this, but the Westminster Confession, aside from the few points you don't agree with as you hold to the LBCF, has not been refuted or abandoned, but still stands as a pretty good definition as to what is to be believed in the best Reformed churches.[/quote:8cf81060ab]Hello Brother KC,
You are absolutely correct. I didn't mean to say anything different. My point was that it can't be held as the standard in response to Brother Bob's comment. I won't hold the LBC as the standard either. I was simply reiterating the need to hold up the Scripture as THE standard. It's the ONLY SURE written Word that we can fall back on.[quote:8cf81060ab]If catechesis and wholesale apostacy from the standards had not taken place, if toleration would not have been the norm, if doctrinal subscription had been enforced, we would have never seen dispensationalism have any day.[/quote:8cf81060ab]You know I can't agree with this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your statement seems to basically say that if it weren't for apostasy there wouldn't be dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism has been around in one form or another since long before the WCF. The problem lies not in the system, but in the abuse of it, or hyper extension of it, if you will. The disjointed version of dispensationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries was admittedly a mess. We can't declare this as the hallmark of dispensationalism though. Furthermore, you know my position in this debate is probably closer to CT than to the system in question, even though I would still have to classify myself as a dispy at this point.[quote:8cf81060ab]Yet, God allowed it for purposes only He knows.[/quote:8cf81060ab]I know you're biased, but this statement really doesn't help either. Everyone with apposing views thinks the same thing about the other. Do you think I don't wonder why God ever allowed babies to be sprinkled? I know why Calvin did it, and would sure like to have a talk with him about that. (not that it would do any good, but it'd be a fun conversation... if held in the 21st century )