The Ninety-FiveTheses Against Dispensationalism

Blueridge Baptist · #1 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008, 05:45 PM

http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/

Here is the link to the website.

reformedlostboy · #2 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008, 08:23 PM

it was this topic that brought me to this board. I was looking for these kind of biblical denials of dispensational teachings. Thanks

ColdSilverMoon · #3 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008, 09:46 PM

A bit repetitive, but convincing nonetheless...

InevitablyReformed · #4 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008, 10:01 PM

Good stuff.
Thanks.

DMcFadden · #5 (**permalink**) 06-28-2008, 10:38 PM

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Any chance the crew over there with Gentry might like dispensationalism?

Gomarus · #6 (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 08:18 AM

I was saved into a dispensational church setting thru the ministry of S. Lewis Johnson in Dallas at age 30. Fortunately, the church library was full of Puritan and Reformed material which eventually led me away from dispensationalism. Dr. Johnson, a fan of the old Princeton Theologians which he endorsed in most areas, never seemed to harp on his dispensationalism, though he never left it. He always favored the doctines of grace in his preaching. He was a godly man --used by God in my life.

Jaymin Allen · #7 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 03:04 AM

Here's the issue, as with all anti-dispensational argumentation, it's difficult to decipher which points are applicable to which variation of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has gone through many fluctuations. We've got the hard and stringent old line dispensationalist (Darby, Chafer. and Scofield) that take many scriptures (Matthew 5) to be only applicable to the Jews and doesn’t have any practical implications on the Christian. We've got the classic or revised dispensationalist (Ryrie, Wallboard, Macarthur) with a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel and the "literal when possible" hermeneutic. Finally, we've got the progressives (Blasing and Saucy) with only four progressive dispensations and one people of God. Then there are those dispensationalist that will take some points from each of these fluctuations in dispensationalism forming their own convoluted form.

These variations are tragic for the features that are distinctive of dispensationalists of old [several distinct dispensations, literal hermeneutic, two plans of redemption for God’s people Israel/Church] are not necessarily distinctive of dispensationalists today [literal when biblically warranted interpretative principle, one redemptive plan for God’s people, successive-progressive dispensations].

Our brothers in the dispensationalist camp will dismiss a lot of these 95 points as caricatures or merely inapplicable to their variation of dispensationalism. It seems as though Gentry and the NiceneCouncil has anticipated such difficulty in pin pointing what dispensationalist believe and have attached leading dispensational proponents to some of these 95 dispensational errors. Yet these individuals (usually Ryrie, Walvoord, or Pentecost) don’t speak for all dispensationalists, maybe nowadays, not even most. Unless dispensationalist produce some type of creed or standard that will grant them invariance, they'll continue to fluctuate and we'll continue to be exhausted trying to sort out what they've evolved into and what they believe today.