All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Are We Dispensationalists or covenant believers?
For those that are interested in an in depth discussion about dispensationalism and the couple other options out there, jump on in. I know Roy wanted to discuss it; I am just leaving it out in the open for others that want to join in and help us work this through.
For those that haven’t looked into this subject let me say it is a big subject. It deals with the overall theological grid we interpret scripture from. It is basically a system of hermeneutics (the system that helps us interpret scripture). I know of 3 main choices on the market and maybe 4.
1. Dispensationalism
2. Covenant theology
3. Progressive dispensationalism
4. (maybe) preterism- also called "realized eschatology" (not sure if this is in the same category, but as I read a bit on this it has a hermeneutic all to itself as does dispensationalism, so I think it is one of the "big systems" on the market for interpreting the old and new testament writings)
Dispensationalism is the system that has given rise to such doctrines as a 7 year tribulation, rebuilt temple, pre-trib (and any-trib) rapture. These I think are accepted by most people in my beloved Pentecostal family.Dispensationalism confused me because using dispensationalism hermeneutics, if done honestly and consistently, leads to some things that are clearly not normative. For example, if we hold to normative dispensationalism we must believe that the kingdom of God has not come in any form, even partially, at this point in history. We must believe that the new covenant has not begun and wont until the millennium in which it will be exclusively for Jews according to the flesh. Now I can’t imagine anyone saying the kingdom didn’t come at least in part with Jesus first coming and that the new covenant is not for the church, or even for this age!!!
Here I just want to start the ball rolling and from there we can jump into the details as they come up. I need your help; I am no expert in the subject. I expect new tangents to come up. Hope others will throw in their ideas on this, but if not I hope at least our discussion won’t be a nuisance. It will get a bit technical and so might bore many, feel free to ignore our posts on the subject!
Anyone out there interested here are some questions to jump-start things. Answer some of these questions from your perspective. You don’t have to do all of them, just pick one you think is important to you. Or just ask a new one and answer it!! Anything will do!!!
1. Why do you think this is an important subject? What issues are at stake when dealing with dispensationalism or other systems on the market?
2. Do we have to have a system, or can we "just stick with the bible”?
3. Can we just pick and choose from different systems and still be consistent?
4. Do you think dispensationalists or covenant theology is right? :)
Views: 513
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
Let me clarify something. I don't want to delete the post but as I rethink some things let me say it a different way about Israel and the church. For me to get to the mountains, I have to travel across the plains of West Kansas and East Colorado. As you approach the Rockies and see them from a far distant, the mountains blend together as one. However, as you get closer and closer to them, you can begin to distinguish them from one another. That is the way it is with the church and Israel. From a distance you tend to see us as one. As you get closer, the distinguishing characteristics become clear.
As you get really close, it appears to me that God has temporarily set aside Israel as He works with the church. Again, Romans 11 explains to us that we should not boast in this.
The grafted one -
Roy
-
Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on
-
Classical Dispensationalism, that is the grid for interpreting scripture, and make some notes to clarify. LT and all interested in the topic, please feel free to correct any discrepancies in the notes. I am no expert of this topic. I am trying to grasp this system as well and all your help is appreciated.
Classic dipensationalism:
1. Consistent literal interpretation of all Scripture including prophecy
(Notes: this sounds like what we believe until it is applied as they mean it. They say that the new covenant has not begun because the verse in Jeremiah 31 has not been literally fulfilled. they apply a very strict literalism to all such verses and conclude that the church does not partake of the new covenant. I don’t know any people that hold such an interpretation. But if we accept the hermeneutical rule in the sense that they mean it we must hold to this interpretation. I am convinced that most do not. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong)
2. Recognize a clear distinction between God’s program for Israel and God’s program for the Church
( I think most believe this to a point, but they go on to apply it to say that all the words of Jesus in the gospel are not for the church, but since he was preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" that only applies to Israel. they say that the church is under the "gospel of grace". the gospel of the kingdom is an extension of "the law" in their view and is only for the Jews. the gospel of grace refers to salvation by grace through faith. if we check the ryrie study bible we will see that they then say that faith without any repentance can get us to heaven . one can live in sin as long as they have faith. Of course they are not guilty of encouraging it, they are just stating it is different than the "gospel of the kingdom" which is law and is only for the Jews in the millennium. the sermon on the mount is not for the church according to this tenet, in the sense that they mean! again, I am convinced we don’t make that big of a separation between gods plan for Israel and the church. we hold that there is a distinction, but not to the point of two different "gospels" and two "plans of salvation")
3. Recognize that God’s ultimate purpose is doxological, to glorify Himself
(This can also be said this way, "the overall theme of the bible is not the salvation of man, but the coming of the kingdom of God". I agree with dispensationalism on this. Evangelism is important, but I think theologically we think a lot about the kingdom coming in the millennium. of course we believe that it came at least partially in Christ, they hold it won’t come at all until the millennium. I differ with them, but theological I put importance on the kingdom of god.)
Any comments about these tenets and what the implications of receiving them completely would mean?
(Note some facts about this system of theology: the only seminaries I know that still hold to classical dispensationalism are Moody Bible Institute (even though Moody wasn’t a dispensationalist) and Dallas Theological Seminary. This system of theology was popularized in the early to mid 1800's by the "plymoth brethren". John Darby is credited with founding this system. The Scofield Bible was instrumental in its spread and popularity and the Ryrie study bible followed in its footsteps to spread it to another generation. ) C.C.
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Hey David,
Several things.
1) I will respond here, but will probably not continue in this thread. This is a deep subject that will require focus and staying on topic. Going off topic as has been the case on this thread will only impune progress and make this thread nearly impossible to follow or discuss with any clarity.
2) You continue to use the term "Classic Dispensationalism" and try to put the whole understanding under that umbrella. Not everyone will be in 100% agreement with "Classic D" as most will not be in 100% agreement with the original CT as it has adjusted over the years with variants coming out from under its system as well as variants coming out from under DT.
3) Regarding your posting above. One can be a in basic alignment with DT or CT without agreeing with every minute detail. The following applies to your post above and aligns with the numerical points.
1. Consistent literal interpretation of all Scripture including prophecy
Literal interpreation is mischaracterized by people who disagree with it and will always take it to the extreme in an attempt to make their point. The following is an article from Got Questions:
Web page that the below article is founf: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html
Question: "Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"
Answer: Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.
The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?
Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)
Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.
2. Recognize a clear distinction between God’s program for Israel and God’s program for the Church
The New Testament speaks of there being no Jew or Greek, but that is in context of the church, while at the same time the New Testament teaches that there are Jews and Greeks that live in the various countries of the world who are not saved and thus living outside of the church. Becoming a part of the church changes ones position with God as we are neither Jew nor Greek, but become children of God. God deals with the church during the Dispenastion of Grace and is enabled by the New Covenant. During the New Covenant one finds salvation by the grace of God through faith. God's promises to the nation of Israel are not fulfilled in the church, nor does the church replace Israel. They are two separate entities. There are many who were Jews who are now born-again believers and part of the church. God will return to the nation of Israel and the 70th week in Daniel will come to pass.
Regarding the comment about "faith without repentance can get us into heaven" I would have to say that I have never heard that and do not know the full context in which the statement was presented. I can say the following in response, even with limited knowledge of the statement and context, faith (Biblical saving faith) is not possible without repentance as the deepest understanding of repentance is a change of mind. This change of mind enables us to see who God is and our need for Him. Then we are able to turn from sin and turn to God. Therefore, the idea of salvation without repentance is unbiblical and I do not know any dispensationalist that believe one can be saved without repentance personally. In fact most organizations that are DT in nature are hard at work in sharing the gospel around the world while there is still time.
There is not two different gospels, nor two different plans. It is one gospel (Man is a sinner needing salvation and Jesus is the Savior) and one plan that involves two peoples (The door for the Gentiles was opened up to where they can come directly to Christ for salvation). All must come to faith and be saved by Jesus. There are those that bellieve in the tribulation period God will return to His work with the nation of Israel and enable them to see Jesus for Who he really is and come to faith, thus concluding His work and fulfilling His promises with them.
3. Recognize that God’s ultimate purpose is doxological, to glorify Himself
The Westminster Catechism - Question and answer #1:
What is the chief and highest end of man?
Man’ s chief and highest end is to glorify God, (Rom. 11:36, Cor. 10:31) and fully to enjoy him forever. (Ps. 73:24–28, John 17:21–23)
I disagree with the coming kingdom (millennial kingdom) as being the primary issue. It is only one of the seven dispenations that lead up to the new heaven and new earth. The kingdom of God has always existed. Father God sits on His trhone in heaven now, the throne that rules over all of creation. The earth is part of God's kingdom now and has been since it was created. Satan's rule is one of constituted authority. If this were not so, then He could do what ever he pleases and God could not intervene or stop Him. Satan acts, to simplify this, as a govenor within the realm. One day soon He will be impeached. I do not llok forward to the millennial kingdom as the end all, but another phase leading to the final destination as seen in Revelation 21 and 22, the presence of God in the recreated perfect creation.
Note: DT embraces all of the covenants of God and sees them fitting within the various dispensations.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
LT - You Rock!
I know that at the moment it looks like I am painting DT with a negative brush, but I will try to deal with the three systems I am familiar with objectively. So bear with me, you already beat me to the punch and posted the good stuff on DT and I thank you.
Family let’s stay on point of the topic PORFAVOR/PLEASE. :) I of course am talking to myself as well, since I am guilty of going on tangents.
1. I hope you do continue to bless us with your insights as time permits. I am no expert on this topic and the help you are giving us is most valuable.
2. >>You continue to use the term "Classic Dispensationalism" and try to put the whole understanding under that umbrella.
Bear with me bro – I am involved in way too many discussions here hahaaha and can’t keep up. I was planning on balancing the topic and will in a bit. :)
I will get back to your post and give you my opinion on it in greater detail. Great post by the way.
Blessings
-
-
Hey David,
I understand, as I do not wish to cast gloom and doom over the CT view. Actually, the two agree on many things, but use different terminology when discribing some of those things. They disagree on certain things, some more important than others. Identifying the areas of disagreement helps one to know which they most closely align with.
With that said, I never call myself a Dispinsationalist, lest I have a slip of the tongue or happy typing fingers, but rather note that I align more closely with that view. For me it was not reading the views and choosing one. For me it was developing a personal view from Scripture and then examining which closlely aligns with my understanding. I dislike labels being applied to people, but understand the need for titles that identify doctrines.
As you like to say this is not a matter of salvation. You can hold one or the other view and still be saved, praise God! The biggest things I see is that it affects our worldview, the manner in which we will serve and especially affects our end time view.
BTW, you do have way too many discussions going ... hahaha, I need to start calling you EverReady Bunny Jr.
Lastly, I am no expert ont he subject, but a simple sojouner passing through.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
LT,
The Covenant Theology people have a problem with verses like the following: 12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done."
The dispensationalist does not believe He has come again and here we are some 2,000 years later. How do the dispensationalists answer that question?
Roy
-
-
Roy,
I am not sure I grasp your question. When you say that "DT does not believe that He has come again" are you refering to the Second Coming or some other event that various groups believe took place, or His revealing Himself to Saul on the raod to Damascus and Stephen as he was being stoned to death?
Thanks in advance as I seek clarity regarding your question.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
Sorry,
Yes, this I am referring to His second coming or in fulfillment of His promise in Matthew 24. Perhaps a better response would be how do the CT people differ from the DT people on the issue of the 2nd coming and pre-millenialism. I understand that the CT people believe that the millenium has already begun.
Roy
-
-
Roy,
Part of the answer is seen in the following differences.
Premillennialism vs Amillennialism
Literal interpretation vs Allegoric (especially in reagrds to end times)
Premil sees the Second coming as a literal event as described in Revelation 19 and is followed by a literal millennial kingdom on earth as seen in Revelation 20.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
So, are you saying that the CT people see this as having already been fulfilled and the DT people believe it is yet to happen.
-
-
Amil believe His millennial reign is currently taking place and this reign is spiritual and not a thousand years. They do believe in a physical return at the end of the church age in which He will judge.
Premil believe in the inwdwelling of the believer, but see a literal seven year tribulation coming followed by the millennium kingdom where the physical Christ rules for a thousand years.
There is much more to it than this, but this is a start.
Lord Bless,
LT
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
