Leaving Dipensationalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

coramdeo

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am, I think, in the final stages of leaving behind my dispensational background. I haven't been in too much of a rush about it as I was laboring under a misconception. I thought it was all about eschatology. I just was not all that interested in eschatology while I was rediscovering and deepening my understanding of the doctrines of Grace. I did not realize how much more was involved in the doctrine of Dispensationalism. I have just finished reading Gerstner's Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.I had no idea how the doctrine has perverted the gospel and soterology, etc. Now I understand why so many of my Baptist friends espouse such Armenian ideas, all the while vehemently denying that they are Armenian. This was a difficult read, and I am sure that I will want to read it again after I let it percolate in my mind for a while. I just never picked up on the fact that dispensationalism had more to it than the eschatology. Am I dense? Or is it that that has been the main focus of discussion on the PB? Well, I know better now.:eek: Thank you Dr Gerstner.
 
There might be a site that purchases used Scofield bibles. This could be be a real plus for you!
 
Gregg,

BTW it's Arminian, not Armenian. :D

I have a few good books for you to read on this topic from a covenantal Baptist perspective. I will PM them to you.

As you make this change from dispensationalism, let me counsel you to avoid the "cage stage." Covenant Theology will be new and wonderful to you, but you want to resist making it the subject of every conversation with your friends. One step at time, dear brother.
 
Gregg,
Here are some other critiques of dispensationalism that you may want to look for. These were helpful to me:

* Dispensationalism, Rightly Dividing the People of God? by Keith Mathison (P&R Publishing, 1995)
* Backgrounds to Dispensationalism by Clarence B. Bass (Baker Books, 1960)

Although hard to find, another good critique is: Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow by Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn (Footstool Publications, 1995 revised edition).

Another helpful book which discusses American Dispensationalism in the broader historical context is Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism (1870 to 1925) by George M. Marsden (Oxford University Press, 1980).
 
Way back when, when I was a Baptist, the Church I was a member of was largley Dispensationalist, I knew 1 person who was a full fledged Scofield Dispensationalist. Every person I talked to was a watered-downed kind, even many pastors I met (they are still part of the SBC, though I am Presbyterian now so I don't attend there). No one seemed to know what I was talking about, so I think for a lot of average Dispensationalists it is all about Eschatology.

A good book that I enjoyed on the subject is Vern Poythress' book Understanding Dispensationalism.
 
Not to worry brother, I've learned that just from trying to educate them on Calvinism!
Gregg,

As you make this change from dispensationalism, let me counsel you to avoid the "cage stage." Covenant Theology will be new and wonderful to you, but you want to resist making it the subject of every conversation with your friends. One step at time, dear brother.


---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

Thank you all for your helpful post and recommendations. I will look into those cited as time and money allows.
 
Gregg,

Never having gone through the transition you are facing, I cannot exactly empathize with you. But I can pray for you - and will.
 
Poythress's book is the one I recommend FIRST. His tone is a lot 'nicer'. :) Crenshaw and Gunn's book is well done on the topic as well.
 
I remember reading Mr. Gerstner's book and thinking it was "too hard hitting."

Understanding a Calvinist soteriology (doctrines of grace) came well before understanding covenant theology. Dispensationalism is often assumed in background and greatly influences how you read the Bible. It has an "Old Testament" view of the Kingdom, and interprets the New Testament, the latter word more explicitly revealed, in light of the old, less explicitly types and shadows of the Old Testament. It pulls Christ backwards.

Once one sees the unity of God's plan of redemption (in terms of time and for all men, Jew and Gentile), the supremacy of Christ and His centrality becomes more clear. No wonder we call it Christianity!

If you have not, you will want to read, Kim Riddlebarger's, A Case for Amillennialism. It's about much more than eschatology.
 
Gerstner has been criticized for harping on issues with the classic 1909 Scofield expression of dispensationalism (when it doesn't apply to most Dispensationalists today) and overstating things a bit. This criticism is true to some extent. That's why other critiques should be consulted.

One of the problems is that dispensational theology is a moving target. In fact, there are "progressive" Dispensationalists today that have given up the idea of "two peoples of God", formerly a tenet of their theology.

:2cents:
 
Absolutely right that "dispensational theology is a moving target." When you study it in contrast to covenant theology, one realizes that in broadly evangelical circles, in this generation, they have almost given up on the idea of different means of redemption at different time periods- they just avoid asserting that. But they still assume a framework of that, and interpret the New Testament in light of the Old.

In this generation, the emphasis is on a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish ancestry verses "the church." It used to be they would be eternally separated. Now, the most common teaching is the two do get together- but only sometime later in the future state of glory.

Romans 4 alone blows apart their interpretive principle.

Romans 4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a]
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."[d] 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.



Covenant theology agrees with Scripture- they are, were, and forever shall be together, because of Christ, and only because of Christ.
 
A good book to read on this is The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective by Russell D. Moore. Where Poythress' book is nicer to Dispensationalists but, if I remember corectly, it is more about the differences between the two. This book by Moore actually talks about how both sides are coming closer, if only slightly, together by both incorperating a more or less Redemptive-Historical aproech to the Bible. It is a very facinating read.
 
A good book to read on this is The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective by Russell D. Moore. Where Poythress' book is nicer to Dispensationalists but, if I remember corectly, it is more about the differences between the two. This book by Moore actually talks about how both sides are coming closer, if only slightly, together by both incorperating a more or less Redemptive-Historical aproech to the Bible. It is a very facinating read.

I'd be interested in hearing or reading a review of this new book. At first blush, I would think there are irreconcilable differences, no less significant than differences between Reformed and Romanism. I'm probably not interested enough to read it myself. :)
 
At first blush, I would think there are irreconcilable differences, no less significant than differences between Reformed and Romanism
There are "irreconcilable differences" for sure, but if both sides accept a basic redemptive-historical method than it is only logical that there differences will be less, even if only slightly. When I study a subject I study it from all angles. both pro and con.
 
Gregg,

BTW it's Arminian, not Armenian. :D

I have a few good books for you to read on this topic from a covenantal Baptist perspective. I will PM them to you.

As you make this change from dispensationalism, let me counsel you to avoid the "cage stage." Covenant Theology will be new and wonderful to you, but you want to resist making it the subject of every conversation with your friends. One step at time, dear brother.


I would also be interested in those titles. If you wouldn't mind PM'ing me too, I would appreciate it.
 
I'm not covenantal all the way yet. I have George Eldon Ladd's book, The Gospel Of The Kingdom. Do you think that would be a good introduction to covenant theology?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top