Thread: My biggest complaint of Dispensationalism.

Please post yours too.

Besides the view being Unbiblical as a whole.WHat has been bugging me the most is how Dispies reach out to the Jews and call them God`s chosen people and yet REFUSE to present the gospel to them at all.I even read on another board person who posted with joy that they invited a Rabbai to the church and he stood up and gave the pastor a hug in front of the congregation.Did he speak of the gospel being presented to him?NO!He spoke of the joy it was of having a Rabbai,one of God`s chosen people,at the church.Oh,and one more thing.Many dispensational churches are raising money to send Jews back to the land of Israel.I`ll let you figure out that one.

trust me I used to be all over the Jews. But they are flesh like us. But that would be my biggest harp.

My other biggest harp is the obssesion over the anti-christ as opposed to being obssesed with the risen Christ Jesus!!

Let's raise money to send the "Jews" "back to" "Israel" so that they can be annihiliated by the Great Tribulation!

This is a tough question to answer honestly. Painting all of dispensationalism with a big brush may cover a certain segment, but at the same time falsely splatters paint on some dear brothers/sisters who get lumped in with the whole.

Case in point, Joe Johnson (Wannabee), our 'PB resident dispy', doesn't seem to fit most of the complaints I have with dispensationalism. So as not to do a dis-service to Joe and other 'dispys' like Joe, I'm gonna hold off giving my complaint until I come up with one that includes Joe as well.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Let's raise money to send the "Jews" "back to" "Israel" so that they can be annihiliated by the Great Tribulation!

Ding Ding Ding!

Originally posted by blhowes
This is a tough question to answer honestly. Painting all of dispensationalism with a big brush may cover a certain segment, but at the same time falsely splatters paint on some dear brothers/sisters who get lumped in with the whole.

Case in point, Joe Johnson (Wannabee), our 'PB resident dispy', doesn't seem to fit most of the complaints I have with dispensationalism. So as not to do a dis-service to Joe and other 'dispys' like Joe, I'm gonna hold off giving my complaint until I come up with one that includes Joe as well.

I am not personally attacking the people themselves.This is just one of those hugely frustrating typical things wrong with this view.One of my best friend`s a dispie and he speaks of these same things.

Originally posted by Average Joey
I am not personally attacking the people themselves.This is just one of those hugely frustrating typical things wrong with this view.One of my best friend`s a dispie and he speaks of these same things.

Oh, I know you're not. Having been primarily in dispy churches (though not a dispy) pretty much since I've been saved, given the opportunity, I have the tendancy to want to lash out at them - just trying to keep myself honest.

Each of the things you said, I've seen. Yet, at the same time, I've known a good number that don't fit that mold. It doesn't take much to get me going when it comes to dispensationalism. Before I go on a rampage, I want to make sure its a controlled rampage.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by blhowes]

Here is my biggest complaint about some who are dispensationalists:

The 'givens of dispensationalism' are the starting point for Bible study, without investigating whether the 'givens' are true...Israel is not the church, the church is not Israel...the OT was written to the Jews, its not for the church...God has divided history into 7 dispensations...etc.

To think otherwise is to 'spiritualize scripture'

Originally posted by blhowes
Here is my biggest complaint about some who are dispensationalists:

The 'givens of dispensationalism' are the starting point for Bible study, without investigating whether the 'givens' are true...Israel is not the church, the church is not Israel...the OT was written to the Jews, its not for the church...God has divided history into 7 dispensations...etc.

To think otherwise is to 'spiritualize scripture'

My argument against that has always been "Spiritual still is literal even though it`s not physical."

It`s funny how they nullify Spiritual.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Average Joey]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Let's raise money to send the "Jews" "back to" "Israel" so that they can be annihiliated by the Great Tribulation!

That's what dispies do!

In another thread I listed 5 positive consequences of holding to a covenant theology. I list them again here. To get the complaints you only need to think of the inverse cuz I'm too lazy to type them out myself.

1. It encourages you to have a solid and consistent pattern for interpreting scripture.

2. You begin to see yourself as a servant/child of a victorious King.

3. You begin to see yourself as a means for furthering His kingdom. I have seen so many dispy's shut themselves off from the world. They are waiting for the rapture so Jesus will come and clean house on all their enemies. We, however, see a mission field in which we are salt (putting off decay) and light (a positive gospel influence) and the means of God's grace to the nations.

4. We see a sweet and awesome unity in the Scriptures, the humbling revelation of God's redemption of His people and the blessing of the nations. We can start reading in any book of the Bible and recognize the tripartite theme of Kingdom, Covenant and Mediator. The dramatic revelation of these elements far outshines any other epic story ever told.

5.You graduate from simply viewing Jesus as to seeing that he does indeed reign over all things. When is the last time you walked down a city street and saw a red neon sign saying "Jesus Reigns"? We are here to proclaim that transforming truth, the dispy is still waiting for Jesus to ascend his throne.

Originally posted by Average Joey
My argument against that has always been "Spiritual still is literal even though it`s not physical."

I agree wholeheartedly.

It may be just me, but another complaint I have is that at times it seems to me that the hermeneutic is inconsistent, that at times they spiritualize scripture. A strange complaint, but that's just how I see it.

I'm thinking particularly about their handling of some of the verses in Revelation.

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.
Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

When I read this, I take it to mean that John saw a door opened in heaven, the first voice John heard was like a trumpet talking with him. The voice said to John, come up here and I'll show you things that must be hereafter. Immediately John was in the spirit and John saw a throne and somebody sitting on the throne.

To me, its spiritualizing scripture to say that John here represents the church being raptured. To me, John is John.

2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

For consistency's sake, I'd have to say that Paul also represents the church (more fittingly, since he was the apostle to the uncircumcised), and would need to interpret the rest of 2 Corinthians in that light.

Another thing, and again it may just be my perception, is that with some dispensationalists, it appears that their understanding of clear portions of scripture are funneled through their understanding of the book of Revelation, particularly Rev 20. I'm sure all don't do this, but one example of something one person I know taught comes to mind:

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

He taught from this perspective:

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; ...thousand year future millenial kingdom...and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Handling scriptures like that is probably my biggest complaint.

Originally posted by BobVigneault
In another thread I listed 5 positive consequences of holding to a covenant theology. I list them again here. To get the complaints you only need to think of the inverse cuz I'm too lazy to type them out myself.

Bob,
These are some pretty serious accusations against those who hold to covenant theology. Be careful, lest somebody ask you for proof.

Just a friendly warning to be careful what you write,

Bob

Huh????? Are you being funny 'other Bob'? You did see they were 5 praises of CT and inversely critical of Dispy, right? I have a healthy level of paranoia but you're making me CRAZY! Don't make me come out there.

You know, I'm not paranoid. It's just that everyone is out to get me!

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Huh????? Are you being funny 'other Bob'? You did see they were 5 praises of CT and inversely critical of Dispy, right? I have a healthy level of paranoia but you're making me CRAZY! Don't make me come out there.

If you move towards the screen, and look carefully, you'll see the tongue in my cheek. Yes, it was yet another attempt at my dry humor. No need to come out here to straighten me out.

(Place your bets. How many of you think he literally moved towards the screen and looked? )

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by blhowes]

Originally posted by Ivan
You know, I'm not paranoid. It's just that everyone is out to get me!

"Even a paranoid has some real enemies." -- Henry Kissinger

I didn't move toward the screen because I'm paranoid that Dell is trying to radiate me as it is. I'll keep my distance thank you.

[Moderators warning: We better stop hijacking this thread or I'm going to get tough, beginning with me. Oh yeah, I'm schizo too.]

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by BobVigneault]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
[Moderators warning: We better stop hijacking this thread or I'm going to get tough, beginning with me. Oh yeah, I'm schizo too.]

Not to worry. We've been talking about interpreting the scriptures literally and I was wondering if you literally moved towards the screen, so there's a connection there.

...and now, back to the regularly scheduled programming, already in progress...

My gripe with the Dispies I've encountered is that one either takes their hermeneutic seriously, e.g. parts of the Bible aren't for gentile Christians, or one is labelled "anti-Semitic"; but if I take it seriously, I have trouble really believing that God is my God as well as Abraham's.

back on topic girls,
the biggest complaint in my lifetime is the date setting of the rapture/tribulation. Prior to my birth, 1914, 1925, 1939, 1948 were all times the rapture was prophesied to happen. since my birth, 1967, 1975, 1981(Lindsey's late, great planet earth), 1988, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2000, 2030. I remember watching the movie of the late, great planet earth when I was 12 in 79 and thinking I will never get out of high school, let alone have kids and get married. (sometimes I wish i were still single, haha.) Always talking about the last days for over 100 years has damaged the church in ways I can't imagine. I was troubled in the late 80's by the whole movement for sometime when I took a class on revelation called revelation and common sense. It took a partial preterist view. We read josephus, days of vengeance, and several others. each verse we had 6 or 7 different authors viewpoints, including dispensational which most of the time seemed to ridiculous compared to the other views.
what disturbs me is that when these dates pass, the authors never apologize but keep on writing their books. they never ask if maybe if their entire viewpoint is wrong. Any other viewpoint is labeled as heresy and villified as anti-semitic. Doesn't the Bible say that false prophets are to executed? Maybe they should be excommunicated.

I can relate to that Jonathan. My friend Ed and I were called to Christ about the same time (age 15, 1970) and we saw that movie together. We actually prayed together and begged the Lord to hold off until we were able to find the right girls and marry. You know what? He did!

There's a great book, _The Day and the Hour_, which lists as many of the past (and future!) predictions of when the Apocalypse is/was supposed to happen as the author could find. It's a bit numbing to read cover to cover (think: date followed by anecdote, over and over) but the historical information is interesting. And this from one who doesn't like history.

Joe,

You're creating a caricuture of dispensationalism. It is not wise to define a theological system by its extremes. And is dispensationalism truly unbiblical? I was a dispensationalist for 25 years. I would not be in a rush to say that dispensationalim is unbiblical as much as I would say it is misguided.

Bill

I read through that and sadly wondered what the point of this thread is other than lumping Dispensationalists into one big ball based on the extreme views.

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by ~~Susita~~]

Dispensationalists of Hagee's ilk think a Jew is so precious every time one farts God and all his angels dance with glee. paraphrase of Luther

Originally posted by BobVigneault
I didn't move toward the screen because I'm paranoid that Dell is trying to radiate me as it is. I'll keep my distance thank you.

[Moderators warning: We better stop hijacking this thread or I'm going to get tough, beginning with me. Oh yeah, I'm schizo too.]

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by BobVigneault]

Crackin' me up.

Thanks for showing a bit of restraint Bob.

I'm surprised at just how unedifying a thread can be. Susan's is probably the most observant and accurate (not to mention responsible) post so far. This is more akin to mob mentality than any representation of godliness.

The list of five reasons to be Covenantal would be about the same as the list of five reasons to be dispensational. Another classic example of straw man tactics that focus on certain segments in order to discredit any who hold to the basic hermeneutic.

Read anything from NPP lately? You'll get my point.

[Edited on 5-26-2006 by Wannabee]

For those who have read my posts I am not given to losing my temper. But the more I read this thread, the more my level of indignation begins to rise. There is a wide assortment of quacks within the dispensationalist camp. That is not arguable. However, the strawman that Gerstner makes of dispensationalists (Gerstners "A Critique of Dispensationalism") is the minority opinion within dispensationalism. Does anyone really believe that Dever or MacArthur would act in accordance with the OP? Darbyism is not the mainstream.

I have no problem with attacking dispensational theology. Go for it. Exegete the text and prove where it is wrong. But the anti-dispensational attitude that resides with some on this board seems to have a different agenda than searching for the truth of scripture. I sense a mixture of pride, arrogance and self-righteousness.

As I said in my previous post, I recently abandonded my dispensationalist theology. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the portrait of dispensationalism that was painted in the OP is the minority view with the dispensationalist camp. It is often found in fundamentalist and pentecostal/charismatic churches.

I mean no disprespect to any individual poster.

I don't have much time to post this as I have to chaperone a bus trip to Philadelphia in 30 minutes but allow me to say a little here.

No one was a hard core dispensationalist as I was. I lived, and breathed the stuff. That being said, I feel very well suited to speak out against it strongly because I know it leads to great errors outside of eschatology.

I also know that many who hold to it are wonderful Christians that should not be disqualified because they hold to this belief. All of my family are dispensational and I KNOW they are God fearing Christians.

Lastly, even though I risk coming on too strong, I cannot sit by and allow the junk that is taught to innocent people prosper in any way due to my tolerance of it. I was harmed by that nonsense and I watch others continue to be harmed by it and darn it...it upsets me. Same thing with Arminianism, it's a lie and while many who hold to it may be "saved" I am not going to tolerate it to "be nice".

One doesn't need straw men to defeat Arminianis or Dispensationalism. One only needs to take the blinders off. As Bill said

I mean no disprespect to any individual poster.

Gotta run, if I can connect on my laptop on the bus I will.

Originally posted by houseparent
I don't have much time to post this as I have to chaperone a bus trip to Philadelphia in 30 minutes but allow me to say a little here.

No one was a hard core dispensationalist as I was. I lived, and breathed the stuff. That being said, I feel very well suited to speak out against it strongly because I know it leads to great errors outside of eschatology.

I also know that many who hold to it are wonderful Christians that should not be disqualified because they hold to this belief. All of my family are dispensational and I KNOW they are God fearing Christians.

Lastly, even though I risk coming on too strong, I cannot sit by and allow the junk that is taught to innocent people prosper in any way due to my tolerance of it. I was harmed by that nonsense and I watch others continue to be harmed by it and darn it...it upsets me. Same thing with Arminianism, it's a lie and while many who hold to it may be "saved" I am not going to tolerate it to "be nice".

One doesn't need straw men to defeat Arminianis or Dispensationalism. One only needs to take the blinders off. As Bill said

I mean no disprespect to any individual poster.

Gotta run, if I can connect on my laptop on the bus I will.

Bill,
In regards to Gerstners treatment; taken to it's furthest conclusion, dispensationalism is accurately handled by Gerstner. The problem I see you having is that you refuse to get onboard for the full ride with the road he travels in his interpretation.

Adam,
Anyone whom holds to Arminianism cannot be saved; it is another gospel totally.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Thanks for showing a bit of restraint Bob.

You're welcome, but don't take that to mean that I'm not still trying to think of a comment that'll include you as well! (jk)

Originally posted by Wannabee
I'm surprised at just how unedifying a thread can be. Susan's is probably the most observant and accurate (not to mention responsible) post so far. This is more akin to mob mentality than any representation of godliness.

I'm reminded of a mob situation where the mob mentality lasted at least two hours. The town clerk came in, reasoned with the crowd, and they dispersed and went calmly to their homes (Acts 19:30-41). I think this thread hasn't yet reached the fevered pitch of that mob situation, so maybe you can play the part of the town clerk, reason with the mob, and regain a more godly tone to the thread.

Originally posted by Wannabee
The list of five reasons to be Covenantal would be about the same as the list of five reasons to be dispensational. Another classic example of straw man tactics that focus on certain segments in order to discredit any who hold to the basic hermeneutic.

You hold to, and are very knowledgeable about dispensationalism. Let's say as part of a seminary class your assignment was to argue against dispensationalism from the CT perspective, without raising up any straw men. How would you go about doing that? It seems like, no matter what argument is raised against dispensationalism, it could always be said that the argument doesn't represent all who call themselves dispensationalists, and therefore would be considered a straw man.

Originally posted by believer
Average Joey ............your a near constant on rapture- ready board..........why?? evidently you enjoy the odor of intestinal gas nearly as much as all us dispensational heretics.......... you guys(some) with all your education just don't have a clue, honestly you don't.......if you could lay aside your predjuduce for a moment you might just hear the still small voice of God instead of the blatherings of man.........

Believer,
You hear Gods voice?

Gerstner's tactics are ludicrous, to say the least. His argumentation is against an abomination that is unknown to me. I'm sure it exists in the rabid dispy camp, but his presenation is far beyond respectable. If anyone buys his version of dispensationalism then you'd have to argue against it. Houseparent presents a similar position.


Bob, you're assignment would be fair. The problem is that you would have to start with the hermeneutic behind dispensationalism. In order to do that you have to understand it. The mentality I'm seeing here is that theology is read into Scripture. Whenever an avowed dispensationalist does that he departs from his own hermeneutic. That's why I could honestly say I'd use the same argument presented for CT for Dispensationalism. However, I find myself struggling with terminology here. Perhaps dispensationalism (the hermeneutic) should be separated from "Dispensational Theology" as it's understood by many. I wouldn't know how to re-label them though.

This is one of the problems with threads like this. Most of those who came out of dispensationalism never understood anything about the hermeneutic behind it. That's probably because those who were doing the teaching had departed from it and followed the sensationalists and others who'd compromised. Others who bash dispensationalism haven't ever bothered to really get to know what's behind the hermeneutic, so their arguments are based on observations from afar and tainted by the lime-light dispies who dominate their televisions. Let's face it, dispy sensational eschatology sells. People like it and pay money for it. This makes those people popular. But it doesn't make them represent dispensationalism any more than Federal Headship represents Covenant Theology.

If you want to present your idea on another thread, I'm all for it. U2U me if you do so that I don't miss it. Also, while you're at it, it would be nice if someone could present the basic hermeneutical principles behind covenantalism.

Bill,
In regards to Gerstners treatment; taken to it's furthest conclusion, dispensationalism is accurately handled by Gerstner. The problem I see you having is that you refuse to get onboard for the full ride with the road he travels in his interpretation.

Scott, no....I am on board with Gerstners treatment of (what I call) Darbyism. My contention is that the majority of dispensationalists today are not pure in their dispensationalism. Gerstner was myopic in his view of dispensationalism. In his younger days Darbyism was the majority view. Written against Darbyism, Gerstners book is an excellent critique. The OP seemed to view dispensationalism from the Darby persuasion. Would you consider MacArthurs brand of dispensationalism to be Darbyian? Would Gerstners critique accurately reflect what MacArthur believes? Not the extreme but the reality of what he believes.

Would Gerstners critique accurately reflect what MacArthur believes? Not the extreme but the reality of what he believes.

I believe so, yes, and I LOVE MacArthur (other than his eschatology).

My FWIW; Gerstner's critique is probably dated and was probably never meant to describe PD (e.g.MacArthur). However, radical Classical Dispensationalism is still to be found. Miles Stanford wrote a critique of the critique, which I'm sure Wannabe wouldn't agree with, or MacArthur or Dever. It's here for the curious.

I don't find MacArthur to be PD...

Gerstner's critique is nowhere near addressing any semblance of MacArthur's position. It's nowhere addressing anyone I know personally. It sits on my shelf as possibly one of the worst buys I've made in regard to theological books (I said "one of" because it sits next to Lindsey). The one good thing about it is that I can speak from experience against it. His work is simply irresponsible.



I really don't understand the lack of charity witnessed here. Many throw out silly misinterpretations that dispies have made and nail them to the wall as if it makes their point, or them holier. But nobody really stands for anything in these statements. "United Against the Dispies" seems to be the war cry. But I really have to wonder how long it would be before these same people would be at each other's throats if they weren't able to conjure up a common "enemy" to launch there diatribes at. And I really have to wonder if there are any dispies out there that are as rabid against their covenantal brothers. Ah, but then many CTs don't accept anyone who doesn't believe as they do as brothers. How charitable would it be for all CTs to be lumped into that camp?

For clarity, there are a couple of CTs here that I would enthusiastically welcome to preach from the pulpit God has entrusted to me. Also, the only pastor that I've befriended in the town where I'll be pastoring is a Presbyterian. And God gave me the opportunity, through the generosity of this pastor and his elders, to preach in his church on Resurrection Sunday. While I obviously disagree with CT, I don't bash CTs. Those who truly love Jesus and claim Him as their Lord are my brothers, and I'd rather fight with them than against them.

Draw your lines where you will brethren. Today you look for your enemy and find that "it is us." Maybe tomorrow will find you entrenched in the right battle, with one you called "enemy" defending your back.


For our King,
Joe

My problem with dispensationalists.

"There is a tendency ... for dispensationalists to get carried away with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they can make unbiblical distinctions. An almost obsessive desire to categorize everything neatly has led various dispensationalist interpreters to draw hard lines not only between the church and Israel, but also between salvation and discipleship, the church and the kingdom, Christ's preaching and the apostolic message, faith and repentance, and the age of law and the age of grace."







John MacArthur, "The Gospel According to Jesus".