I am reminded why I am not a fan of Dispensational baptist churches

[Notthemama1984]

I was just given an overview of the history of the church by my prof. A straight line from the NT going through sects, anabaptists, baptists, and modern baptist organizations ends at the rapture of the church. Supposedly this is the line of the true church.

He then showed how the RC broke off from the true church and made another line. A third line showed the reformation and the denominations that arose out of it. Instead of this line swinging back to the true church line, it ultimately swings back to the RC and makes up the world church that is alive in the Tribulation.

So in other words, the Baptist church is the true church and all other denominations are false. Lay members could be saved in those denominations, but the denominations as a whole are merely tools to bring about the LaHaye end-time scenario.

No offense intended to my baptist brothers here. I know that you do not feel the same way.

 

[Scott1]

Without commenting on the denomination viewpoint,

What's off biblically in dispensationalism boils down to a couple a major things:

1) Implying that God has been doing redemption by means other than by grace through faith in Christ at certain times in history
2) There is a separate plan of redemption for those who have some Jewish ethnicity, from that of the Body of Christ.

But the coherent view of all of Scripture is one of continuity, redemption looking toward a promised Messiah Redeemer, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, and looking back at the risen Savior, Redeemer in the New Testament, Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One means, God's on Son, decreed in eternity past to redeem one people from every tribe nation kindred and tongue. (Covenant Theology).

 

[Rich Koster]

Is this from a Landmark IFBC? It sounds like it.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Without commenting on the denomination viewpoint,

What's off biblically in dispensationalism boils down to a couple a major things:

1) Implying that God has been doing redemption by means other than by grace through faith in Christ at certain times in history
2) There is a separate plan of redemption for those who have some Jewish ethnicity, from that of the Body of Christ.

But the coherent view of all of Scripture is one of continuity, redemption looking toward a promised Messiah Redeemer, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, and looking back at the risen Savior, Redeemer in the New Testament, Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One means, God's on Son, decreed in eternity past to redeem one people from every tribe nation kindred and tongue. (Covenant Theology).

DTS would disagree with you. This is from their Article V of their confession of faith.

We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.

We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).

We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7).

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

Is this from a Landmark IFBC? It sounds like it.

I am not sure what the IFBC stands for. Google brought up a few different definitions. My prof's heritage is independent baptist if that helps.

 

[Marrow Man]

I'm guessing there was a "Trail of Blood" in there somewhere?

 

[rbcbob]

So in other words, the Baptist church is the true church and all other denominations are false.

The True Church is the Bride of Christ. It has local expressions all over the earth. In the mercy and goodness of the Lord, some of them are Baptist. Many of them are not. The Lord has His bride dispersed among all of them.

 

[Notthemama1984]

He didn't get that far.

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

So in other words, the Baptist church is the true church and all other denominations are false.

The True Church is the Bride of Christ. It has local expressions all over the earth. In the mercy and goodness of the Lord, some of them are Baptist. Many of them are not. The Lord has His bride dispersed among all of them.

 

[Herald]

*sigh* Scofield and Chaferism are alive and well; even in the age of Progressive Dispensationalism.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Yep. It is interesting but there is a huge difference between my profs who are not so old and those that have been teaching since the 60s. The new guys are much more solid in my opinion.

 

[Scott1]

Comments below.

Without commenting on the denomination viewpoint,

What's off biblically in dispensationalism boils down to a couple a major things:

1) Implying that God has been doing redemption by means other than by grace through faith in Christ at certain times in history
2) There is a separate plan of redemption for those who have some Jewish ethnicity, from that of the Body of Christ.

But the coherent view of all of Scripture is one of continuity, redemption looking toward a promised Messiah Redeemer, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, and looking back at the risen Savior, Redeemer in the New Testament, Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One means, God's on Son, decreed in eternity past to redeem one people from every tribe nation kindred and tongue. (Covenant Theology).

DTS would disagree with you. This is from their Article V of their confession of faith.

Starting in the 1950's, dispensational teaching began eschewing what had been implicit in Darby, Schofield's Bible Notes and began to retreat from point #1. Today, almost all dispensationalism acknowledges the salvation was, is and shall be by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

The difficulty is this is what the system was based on, hence the term "dispensationalism"-
different means of redemption at different points in (man's) history. The system is crumbling.

Notice how the passage below does not refute #2 at all, which is where dispensationalism is today. Also, in the last couple decades, within point#2, most no longer hold eternal separation of Jews and Gentiles- they now have accommodated the view that they will get together eventually in the state of glory.

Covenant theology believes they are together now.

Also notice though the qualifications on point#1 still held to (below):

We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace. They are not in themselves dependent on covenant relationships but are ways of life and responsibility to God which test the submission of man to His revealed will during a particular time. We believe that if man does trust in his own efforts to gain the favor of God or salvation under any dispensational test, because of inherent sin his failure to satisfy fully the just requirements of God is inevitable and his condemnation sure.

We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).

Bolivar,
You're the theology student, perhaps you can unpack what nuance or qualification they are making here. It's all covenant of grace, though administered differently.

We believe that it has always been true that “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Heb. 11:6), and that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. We believe also that they did not understand the redemptive significance of the prophecies or types concerning the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. 1:10–12); therefore, we believe that their faith toward God was manifested in other ways as is shown by the long record in Hebrews 11:1–40. We believe further that their faith thus manifested was counted unto them for righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5–8; Heb. 11:7).

It seems like two different things are being said in the above paragraph.

Here's where the beauty of covenant theology, one coherent message of the whole of God's revelation through Scripture helps us.

Hebrews 11
24By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

Luke 24 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

John 5

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

Is this from a Landmark IFBC? It sounds like it.

I am not sure what the IFBC stands for. Google brought up a few different definitions. My prof's heritage is independent baptist if that helps.

Now that the dispensational framework has unraveled, we no longer even have a coherent definition of "dispensation"- not any more.

 

[Rich Koster]

Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church, to clarify my last post.

 

[Notthemama1984]

We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace through faith,” and rests upon the basis of the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2; 3:9, asv; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4, asv).

Bolivar,
You're the theology student, perhaps you can unpack what nuance or qualification they are making here. It's all covenant of grace, though administered differently.

From what I can tell (dispensationalism is fragmented and everybody says something just a little different). The Covenant of Grace is a NT thing. That being said, they believe that OT guys were saved by faith. This faith was placed in God and His redemption that He would bring about. This is ultimately a faith in Christ although they did not know who Christ was due to limited revelation at that time.

So they would reject that the CoG has been around since the beginning, but would also reject the idea of multiple ways of salvation. It has always been by faith alone. They simply see that people have come to this faith in different ways in different economies, but that always it was faith in Christ.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church, to clarify my last post.

Then probably so. Is there a difference between independent Baptist and IFBC?

 

[Rich Koster]

Yes. I am part of an independent Baptist Church. We are confessional (1689ers). IFBC would be your typical Dispensational/Semi- Pelagians who are usually 1611 with Scofield notes (if you want a GOOD Bible).

 

[Notthemama1984]

Thanks for the clarification. I would hate to lump you with the IFBC.

 

[Scott1]

One way that has helped me understand this is that Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, redeemer was more implicit in the Old Testament than explicit.

However, when one begins to study the Psalms, the Prophets, and even Moses, our Lord becomes more clear, even more so than I first thought (cf the Scriptures above).

One of the natural tendencies of dispensationalism has been to "cut off" the Old Testament as not being particularly relevant. So, in broadly evangelical churches, teaching or at least assuming a dispensational framework- 90% of the teaching is geared toward the New Testament only.

In a reformed church, both Old and New Testament are taught- that's a reflection of covenant theology.

P.S. It has also been surprising to see even the current use of the word "economies" to try and describe dispensations is fading (fast), because on reflection, it sounds like working for something different.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Now that the dispensational framework has unraveled, we no longer even have a coherent definition of "dispensation"- not any more.

Ryrie says something similar in his book, "Dispensationalism." He spends a couple pages defining dispensation before diving into the nitty gritty.

 

[Rich Koster]

It is not an official denomination. It is more of a phone book heading so you know what to expect. It will usually say something to the drift of "Fundamental, Dispensational, AKJV only" in the advertisement &/or sign out front.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What kind of Seminary are you at where your Professors are teaching this stuff?

 

[Notthemama1984]

Dts

 

[Herald]

I thought DTS was majority Progressive Dispensationalism? Is it still teaching classic dispensationalism?

 

[Notthemama1984]

It is mostly progressive Dispensational. The prof I had today has been teaching there since the 60s. He is mostly retired, but does fill in work for the school.

 

[CovenantalBaptist]

Brother Boliver,

This book by a former Reformed Baptist (now Presbyterian) and one of my former profs, Dr. James McGoldrick, is an excellent and thorough rebuttal of the whole "Trail of Blood" nonsense. It might prove useful to you. I would advise borrowing from a library versus the substantial cost of purchasing it.

Blessings

 

[Marrow Man]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Amazon.com: Christ of the Covenants: Books

O. Palmer Robertson has a devastating critique of the inconsistencies as well as the historical development of Dispensationalism.

 

[Edward]

I was just given an overview of the history of the church by my prof.

There are better guys for church history at DTS. Look for classes by Dr. Hannah.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I was just given an overview of the history of the church by my prof.

There are better guys for church history at DTS. Look for classes by Dr. Hannah.

My class is not churc history. It is ecclesiology and sanctification. The prof was just giving an overview history of the church before diving into ecclesiology.

 

[FenderPriest]

So in other words, the Baptist church is the true church and all other denominations are false. Lay members could be saved in those denominations, but the denominations as a whole are merely tools to bring about the LaHaye end-time scenario.

No offense intended to my baptist brothers here. I know that you do not feel the same way.

My only question is this: Where are secret societies and ninja's in this plan? I completely agree that Pirates (especially that blasted Jack Sparrow!!!) are apostate and certainly won't be raptured, but I think his system is seriously flawed if he doesn't give any voiced thought to ninjas. From my vantage point, I can clearly see an anti-ninja agenda being propagated here, which only ends one way: the sudden gasp of a ninja attack, and then the end. Should one desire to work with fiction, their efforts would be better spent dealing with realities that won't get them ninja sneak-attacked.

 

[Skyler]

So in other words, the Baptist church is the true church and all other denominations are false. Lay members could be saved in those denominations, but the denominations as a whole are merely tools to bring about the LaHaye end-time scenario.

Wait. You mean that's wrong?

 

[Scott1]

A seminal experience in the life of every person being taught dispensationalism, "A thief in the Night."
Mr. Russell Doughten
A Thief In The Night - DVD at Christian Cinema.com

Not to make light in any way of a rapture of sorts occurring at our Lord's return, this film has scared the living daylights out of a generation of young dispensationalists. It's almost become a rite of passage, at least in American "broadly evangelicalism."

The problem biblically, is that this reflects a very different approach to Scripture than we have in reformed theology. It's legacy now is a lot of end times speculation, that turns political, and focuses on a Kingdom that, in reformed theology (and according to Scripture) is already here.

Missing that (the Kingdom of God now) is big, yet it is the background for much of the "broadly evangelical" church. It tends to make irrelevant 3/4 of God's Word (the Old Testament), diminish the "high" view of the church, Christ's Body that God's Word teaches, and created a virtual cottage industry for conspiracy theories and "end time" speculation.

Sound biblical doctrine (e.g. the doctrines of grace, covenant theology, a spiritual view of the sacraments, a high view of the church), all tend to get lost in dispensationalism.

 

[dudley]

He didn't get that far.

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

So in other words, the Baptist church is the true church and all other denominations are false.

The True Church is the Bride of Christ. It has local expressions all over the earth. In the mercy and goodness of the Lord, some of them are Baptist. Many of them are not. The Lord has His bride dispersed among all of them.

I would disagree with the Professor. I believe the Reformed Protestant branch of Protestantism is the true church which consists of both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. Luther trimmed the branches of papist and Romanist corruption, Calvin, Zwigli, Knox and the Reformed Protestants restored the church to the true Gospel and faith of the Apostles as it was intended to be by Jesus Christ. I do believe that it is the Roman catholic church that defected and strayed form the true Gospel and church of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

It is we who are the Reformed Protestants ; Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists who proclaim the true Gospel and protest the heresies Roman Catholicism and the papists. We are the ones who are truly catholic and apostolic in that we have the true universal faith of Christ and the apostles and the true Gospel.