[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism  (Read 34883 times)

underdog

  • Guest
The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« on: August 20, 2003, 05:47:48 PM »
dispensationalism makes alot of sense to me.  It is the only view that can make sense of the fact that the final portion of Daniel's prophetic outlines (Daniel 2, 7, 9) has been set aside until later.  It is the only view that can make sense of the fact that the Apostle Paul was the key revelator of the mystery, the church.

When studying Daniel's prophetic outlines, it becomes clear that the first 95% of it has been fulfilled literally, but that the last part has not yet been fulfilled.  It must be future.  And that must mean that a different dispensation has been introduced.  The church age is that dispensation, and it is not found in Daniel's outlines because it doesn't concern Israel.  All of these things make wonderful sense in dispensational theology.

-Tim

Knobbly

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2003, 03:23:48 AM »
What's dispensationalism?  

Jake

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2003, 07:37:56 AM »
What's dispensationalism?  

Dispensationalism is the false doctrine that God deals with man in different ways in different time periods or dispensations, and usually teaches that old testament Israel was saved by blood sacrifices or works, or both. This doctrine has been thoroughly refuted by almost every sound theologian teaching the scriptures.

And contrary to what was said earlier, it really doesn't make any sense. It didn't even exist until a few years ago in the time of the Pilgrim brethren and the writing of the scofield reference bible so how could it be the teachings of Christ?


Diane Moody

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 277
  • Gender: Female
  • The Kingdom is Within You
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2003, 08:41:34 AM »

MAC

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2003, 11:06:14 AM »
If I understand dispensationalism correctly, it teaches that there is still a distinction between Israel and the Church, that Israel has been set aside during this Church Age, but that after the Church is raptured into heaven, God will resume dealing with Israel again, beginning with a severe judgement of the nation with what is known as the seven year "Great Tribulation."

There are numerous flaws in this doctrine, both logical and Scriptural.

For one, Israel has failed miserably in its mission to bring the Gentile world to the saving knowledge of God. So much so, in fact, that He was forced to replace them with the Church. The question is, why would He want to go back to a failed system of the Mosaic Law and animal sacrifices after Christ had made the final and ultimate sacrifice, and the Scriptures so specifically state that all those things have been done away with?

Scripturally, dispensationalism has no leg to stand on. The errors on which it is built are many - enough to fill a book. Just one of many is the idea that Israel is still guilty of the crime of crucifying Christ. That is not true at all. The Old Testamant clearly states that the son shall not be held accountable for his father's sins.

Many other dispensational ideas can be disproven by a careful study of the Bible.

Mac








underdog

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2003, 11:51:51 AM »
Quote
Jake: "Dispensationalism is the false doctrine that God deals with man in different ways in different time periods or dispensations..."

Different dispensations in Scripture is a fact of life.  Better start studying them and understanding them.

Quote
Jake cont.: "...and usually teaches that old testament Israel was saved by blood sacrifices or works, or both. This doctrine has been thoroughly refuted by almost every sound theologian teaching the scriptures."

hmmm.. nope.  We don't teach salvation by works.  The Old Covenant regulated God's dealings with the nation of Israel, but the salvation of the individual has always been by grace through faith.  But today, believers are under grace, not law, and that simple fact is constantly violated by covenantalists.

Quote
Jake: "And contrary to what was said earlier, it really doesn't make any sense."

Uh, hello?  Maybe you can explain to me than why Daniel's prophetically outlined program for Israel has been halted.  Maybe you can explain to me why Paul emphasized that he was the key revelator of the mystery.

Quote
Jake: "It didn't even exist until a few years ago in the time of the Pilgrim brethren and the writing of the scofield reference bible so how could it be the teachings of Christ?"

And covenantalism didn't exist prior to the Reformation, so how could it be the teachings of Christ?  Truth is, no systematized theology is very old.  And if you're going to go to the historical argument, than you had better get ready to abandon amillennialism or postmillennialism for the premillennialism of the ancient church.

-Tim

underdog

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2003, 12:04:15 PM »
Forgive me for ignoring your links, but they probably don't say anything I haven't heard before.  I don't care what internet articles think.  I care what you think.

Quote
Diane: "What scriptures prove dispensationalism? There aren't any that proves it."

There is rock solid Scriptural exposition underlying dispensationalism.  In fact, the Scripture DEMANDS dispensationalism.  But look at what you've just said: "There aren't any that proves it."  That is actually a pretty silly statement.  Nowhere in Scripture is there any description whatsoever of a covenant of works or a covenant of grace.  Furthermore, I fail to see how a two covenant scheme helps anyone to understand the whole Bible.  Nevertheless, there IS an approach to Scripture upon which covenantalism rests.  Should I ignore that and tell people that there is zero Bible verses that prove covenantalism and that you folks just believe it for the heck of it?  That would be a pretty silly assumption, don't you think?  It would actually be a pretty insulting assumption.  It would be indirectly suggesting that you people don't give a hoot what the Bible says and that you don't mind inventing doctrine out of thin air.

Now, back to your question.  As I said in my initial post: "When studying Daniel's prophetic outlines, it becomes clear that the first 95% of it has been fulfilled literally, but that the last part has not yet been fulfilled.  It must be future.  And that must mean that a different dispensation has been introduced."  Now, here are the relevent passages:

"You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." - Daniel 2:31-35

"Daniel said: 'In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it. And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!' After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule. After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast-terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully. As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. . . . He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him." Daniel 7:2-14, 23-27

"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:24-27

The bolded parts have not yet been fulfilled.  Nowhere in history can the fulfillment be found, and this agrees with the testimony of the ancient church.  Why has God's prophetically outlined dealings with Old Covenant Israel been halted?  If your theology cannot answer this question, than its time to get a new theology.

Now here is a passage which gives an important description of the great tribulation:

"'Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,' Declares the LORD of hosts. 'Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones. It will come about in all the land,' Declares the LORD, 'That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it. And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'" - Zechariah 13:7-9

This is not how God deals with a New Covenant peoples.  And it certainly is not how he deals with the church, whom is grounded on the death, buriel and resurrection of Christ and has the righteousness of Christ accounted unto her.

(Side note: Notice in Daniel's prophetic outlines above that the great tribulation and reign of the Man of Sin is ended at the return of the Lord, and it is only after these things that the kingdom is established.  These facts are directly violated by amillennialism which places the begining of the kingdom at Acts 2 or some other earlier time (before Paul penned 2Thessalonians 2 anyways).  The kingdom does not come before the great tribulation, neither does it come before the return of the Lord.  But that has more to do with premillennialism than dispensationalism.)

-Tim

underdog

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2003, 02:36:16 PM »
Quote
Mac: "If I understand dispensationalism correctly, it teaches that there is still a distinction between Israel and the Church, that Israel has been set aside during this Church Age, but that after the Church is raptured into heaven, God will resume dealing with Israel again, beginning with a severe judgement of the nation with what is known as the seven year 'Great Tribulation.'"

Well said.  That is one of the best summaries I've heard from a non-dispensationalist.

Quote
Mac: "There are numerous flaws in this doctrine, both logical and Scriptural."

Wow, well maybe you will be the first to demonstrate this to me. ;)

Quote
Mac: "For one, Israel has failed miserably in its mission to bring the Gentile world to the saving knowledge of God. So much so, in fact, that He was forced to replace them with the Church. The question is, why would He want to go back to a failed system of the Mosaic Law and animal sacrifices after Christ had made the final and ultimate sacrifice, and the Scriptures so specifically state that all those things have been done away with?"

The Bible says that those things are done away with to those who are under New Covenant blessings.  Since God never has yet dealt with Israel according to the New Covenant, than he wouldn't really be "going back" to anything.  Israel is not scheduled to enter into New Covenant blessings until after the 70th week of Daniel is completed, i.e., until the kingdom age comes (Isaiah 55:3, Jeremiah 31:34, 32:40, Ezekiel 16:60-62, 20:37, 34:23-26, Daniel 9:24, Hosea 2:14-20).

Quote
Mac: "Scripturally, dispensationalism has no leg to stand on. The errors on which it is built are many - enough to fill a book. Just one of many is the idea that Israel is still guilty of the crime of crucifying Christ. That is not true at all. The Old Testamant clearly states that the son shall not be held accountable for his father's sins."

Not sure what you mean by "Israel is still guilty."  Israel was presented with a decision (Acts 3:19-21), and she chose to continue in rejection of Messiah.  Orthodox Jews of today are still a Christ-rejecting people, and it is with this same Christ-rejecting people that God will resume his program with Israel and fulfill the appointed time of wrath for her, at the end of which will be fulfilled the words of Christ's prophecy at Matthew 23:39.  Then she will be brought into the long awaited fulfillments of the covenants - the kingdom age.

-Tim

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2003, 04:37:30 PM »
>>>
Jake: "Dispensationalism is the false doctrine that God deals with man in different ways in different time periods or dispensations..."

Different dispensations in Scripture is a fact of life.  Better start studying them and understanding them.
<<<

Wow! Such hubris, arrogance and condescension. First let me say that he stated that Dispensationalism was a false doctrine, not that there were no dispensations.

Second, by the preponderance of the evidence, dispensationalism is a false doctrine, built upon false premises, and held together with nothing more than what amounts to smoke and mirrors. Calling it rock solid is like calling sand a good foundation. People who study the scriptures earnestly in the Spirit if Christ already know that. If you are going to proselytize this teaching, please bring a biblical argument for it, and that doesn't mean re-typing the book of Daniel, or just throwing out a collage of scriptures with no consistent purpose, rhyme or reason, and then proclaiming, See! That doesn't prove anything.

This is a Biblical discussion forum. It requires a Biblical proposition and a Biblical retort. We discuss by making a "point" and receiving a Biblical counterpoint. It is not simply for proselytizing Dispensationalism by unbiblical and unsupportable theories.


Quote
>>>
"...and usually teaches that old testament Israel was saved by blood sacrifices or works, or both. This doctrine has been thoroughly refuted by almost every sound theologian teaching the scriptures."


hmmm.. nope.  We don't teach salvation by works. 
<<<

You "may or may not"  teach a doctrine of salvation by works, but most dispensationalists do. I could direct you to their links, but since you have already made it clear you take pride in ignoring links that refute your claims, I won't waste my time.


Quote
>>>
The Old Covenant regulated God's dealings with the nation of Israel, but the salvation of the individual has always been by grace through faith.  But today, believers are under grace, not law, and that simple fact is constantly violated by covenantalists.
<<<

Ahhhh, as suspected, you do believe in a "works gospel," you simply use a backdoor synonym for it and surmise that changes everything? Having a euphemism for works (old Covenant saints being under the law) doesn't redefine what Grace is. Being under old testament law "IS" a gospel of works. And if New Covenant believers are "now" under Grace, then just what does that mean concerning Old Testament saints? That they were before not under grace? The Old Covenant "Saints" were no more under law than New Covenant Saints are (and vice versa). King David was under Grace the same as Paul was. Paul was under law the same as David was. If they were saved by the law in the Old Covenant, or any system different from today, then every last one of them is destined for hell because by the works of the law shall no man be justified. Only by the Covenant Promise of the faith of Christ was anyone, anytime, saved. Their obeying the law, their sacrifices, and their offerings didn't take away one iota of their sins.

Hebrews 10:4
  • "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

What is left then? ..that the "true believers" were under the very same Covenant of Grace that the saints are under today, and "thereby" were they Covenanted and saved. You can dance around these facts saying "The Old Covenant regulated God's dealings with the nation of Israel," but the truth is that "The New Covenant regulates God's dealings with the nation of Israel." i.e., obey the law and live, disobey the law and die. Thus, only in Christ could they (and we) find an inheritance of life. Nothing has changed. That simple fact is never violated by Covenantalists (as you charge), because we receive the love of truth in the scriptures, and we surrender to its authority on this matter. What gain is there in promoting Jewish fables about God putting Israel aside for a while while He brings in the Gentiles? There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant dispensation as far as God's salvation plan.

Titus 1:14
  • "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."


Quote
>>>
"And contrary to what was said earlier, it really doesn't make any sense."

 Uh, hello?  Maybe you can explain to me than why Daniel's prophetically outlined program for Israel has been halted.
<<<

Sure! Not to put too fine a point on it, it's called "Private Interpretation" of the scriptures by Dispensationalists.

True Christian exegesis does not entail believing whatever we think is right in our own eyes, it entails believing what the scripture says. And scripture never said Daniel's prophetically outlined program for Israel has been halted, put on hold, or temporarily sidelined. The difference between every false doctrine and every true doctrine is that only one of them can be quoted word for word as saying "Exactly" what is testified they say. The other is nothing more than the personal opinions (private interpretations) of men.

God had always prophesied that Israel would reject Christ, and they would be left desolate and not rise again. That part, you "very conveniently" leave out. And Christ reaffirmed this during His first advent. The problem is not that scripture doesn't say these things, the problem is that Dispensationalists ignore these things in order to hold onto their traditions, regardless of the Biblical text. Just like every other false doctrine does. We have seen it a hundred times demonstrated in this forum. The M.O. never changes. Ignore the facts, and distort or wrest what the scriptures plainly say in order to hold onto your own teachings (Ecclesiastes 1:9-14).


Quote
>>>
Maybe you can explain to me why Paul emphasized that he was the key revelator of the mystery.
<<<

..Sure. Divine guidance! The "mystery" God tells us was that Gentiles would be grafted in and take part in the Covenant Olive Tree right along with the Jews. In other words, the Jews haven't been replaced, they have been joined in that Covenanted relationship with God by the Gentiles. Meaning the "true" Jews were not cast off (Paul, Peter, Matthew, Etc.), only those who remained in unbelief were. The "true" Israel was not cast off, and the promises to Abraham and to Israel will be kept in this remnant and is fulfilled. Not in the way Dispensationalists want, but in the way God always prophetically intended.

Romans 2:28-29
  • "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
  • But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Who do we believe, God or Dispensationalists? Are the Jews the Chosen people? Indeed. But Jews as God defines them, and He doesn't define the chosen (election) as a political nation, a blood line, or genealogical flesh in the middle east. In fact, God Himself tells us point blank, that is "NOT" the Israel of God, and they are "NOT" the children of God.

Romans 9:7-8
  • "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
  • That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

They only question is, will Dispensationalists continue to ignore God's words as they always do? The promise was kept, the word of God is not of made of none effect, it is kept as God prophetically intended. We cannot twist God's word to suit ourselves. Comparing scripture with scripture, God interprets His own word, and it is not subject to our own private interpretation. It says what it says. Again:

Romans 9:6-8
  • "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
  • Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
  • That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Clearly, God doesn't define Israel as the nation in the middle east, or the physical posterity of Jacob as the children of the promise. Only a remnant from that nation are accounted to be of Israel. That's the whole point of Romans chapter 9. God does not define the Jewish people and the nation Israel the same way Dispensationalists choose to define them. He says these are "NOT" the children of God. For God does what is right in His eyes, not in Dispensationalist's eyes.


Quote
>>>
"It didn't even exist until a few years ago in the time of the Pilgrim brethren and the writing of the scofield reference bible so how could it be the teachings of Christ?"

And covenantalism didn't exist prior to the Reformation, so how could it be the teachings of Christ?
<<<

On the contrary, the "true believers" of the Old Covenant were under the very same Covenant of Grace that the saints are under today. It is only the only way that they were Covenanted and saved. Covenatalism is all throughout the scriptures. When God said the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent in the book of Genesis, there was Covenantalism. When God said that Abraham was saved by faith, there was Covenatalism, which is the Covenant of Grace which is the only way whereby "mankind" can be saved. When the old Covenant saints were circumcised, that was a "SIGN" of Covenantalism, because in truth the elect were saved by the Covenant of grace even before they put that physical sign upon them. This isn't Dispensational rhetoric, it's the living breathing unadulterated word of God.

Romans 4:11
  • "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:"

In a word, Covenantalism! He was under the same Covenant of grace that believers today are under. No flesh was ever justified by works, signs, sacrifices, blood, or old covenant laws and rituals. Nothing has changed in the Covenantal salvation plan of God except the outward signs or tokens representing it.


Quote
>>>
Truth is, no systematized theology is very old.  And if you're going to go to the historical argument, than you had better get ready to abandon amillennialism or postmillennialism for the premillennialism of the ancient church.
<<<

First of all, if you had read the guidelines before posting here you would have known that we don't go to the historical arguments, or the secular arguments or the scientific arguments, or the archaeological arguments. Defenses are made here by the scriptures alone. ..that by design.

Second, when we go to the scriptural argument, only Amillennialism can stand the scrutiny of having every single truth of it quoted word for word from the scripture, heading off any notion that it is a new theory, a dream of Augustin, a fable invented by Origen, or a philosophy of any historical man. On the contrary, it is the word of the Living God quoted word for word.

The only thing that can even be questioned as not explicitly stated in scripture is the "spiritual" length of the thousand year period of the reign of Christ. And questioning that seems "self-serving" once we see the context and the obvious spiritualizing or use of symbolic language that God makes use of in Revelation chapter 20. I mean really, no one insists that the Red Dragon, Serpent, Chain or Bottomless Pit is to be understood literally. Curiously, it's only the thousand years in that exact same context.

So if you are looking for proof texts of what the ancient Church believed about eschatology, start with the scriptures, which unanimously agree on what today is commonly called, Amillennialism.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2003, 04:46:39 PM »
>>>
Since God never has yet dealt with Israel according to the New Covenant, than he wouldn't really be "going back" to anything.
<<<

Since God has never dealt with Israel? With all due respect, are you Kidding? Just how do you intend to deal with "these" scriptures listed below? I'd say God has dealt with Israel, and dealt with them in finality. ..if we will humbly receive what is written.

Matthew 22:2-14
  • "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
  • And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
  • Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
  • But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
  • And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
  • But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
  • Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
  • Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
  • So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
  • And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
  • And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
  • Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  • For many are called, but few are chosen."

I think that your arms are too short to box with God. Why not just receive the "fact" that God has indeed dealt with the nation of Israel? Christ (not Amillennialists or Dispensationalists) clearly stated that the kingdom was taken from them and given to another. Yet you continue to parrot the "line" that God never has yet dealt with Israel according to the New Covenant.  )S_Confused(

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

MAC

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2003, 09:13:43 PM »
At some point God converted all Jews into Gentiles, and this is given clearly in Romans 11:32 in the KJV. Paul was speaking of Israelites, the Jews, and said that God concluded THEM all in unbelief. In other words He made up His mind that there would be no more Jews, no more Law, no more animal sacrifices, no more of the ordinances which were nailed to the cross. Why did He do that? So that He might have mercy on all - that is - all people, Jew and Gentile. That is how the KJV reads. Modern translations have Him "shutting up all men to disobedience, so that He can show mercy to all," and I wish someone would explain that to me.

Concluding all Jews in unbelief is, essentially, making Gentiles of all Jews. After the death and resurrection of Christ everyone still could come to God the Father, only now it must be through faith in Jesus Christ. Many Jews did come to the Father through Christ; Paul and the Apostles included. But many did not.

God allowed approximatedly 35 years, during which time no effort was spared to get the Gospel of salvation to every Jew in the world. Those who accepted Christ were saved, they became the elect, the remnant.  Those who steadfastly rejected Christ were blinded and destroyed in the war of A.D.70.

One verse of Scripture, which only the most stubborn futurist/dispensationalist will refuse to believe, pretending not to understand it, is Luke 21:22, where the Lord Jesus Christ, when prophesying of the war between Israel and Rome which was to come, said that those would tbe the days of vengeance, that all things which were written at the time He said it, would be fulfilled.

They were. All covenants God ever made with Israel were two-sided coins, carrying blessings for obedience, judgements for disobedience. They were fulfilled.

The New Covenant was established primarily for Jews (to the Jew first). We Gentiles are secondary recipients, as it were.

To believe dispensational scholars is to believe that the salvation of Israel is yet future. If that were so, then Christ failed in His first attempt, because He came to bring salvation and righteousness to His own.  He came to the Jews first. The common dispensational explanation that "individual Israelites" can be saved while "national Israel" still awaits salvation, is outrageous nonsense. Without individual Israelites there could have been no national Israel. The Scriptures, however, are quite explicit; all Israel WAS saved.


Daniel 9:27: No one "WILL MAKE A FIRM" covenant with Israel. That speaks of Christ CONFIRMING THE COVENANT with many in Israel, a whole different story.

Daniel 9:14: "Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the LATTER DAYS. For the vision is yet for many days.  Many days later, about 500 hundred years, give or take, a time of horrible tribulation befell Daniel's people.  A million killed, many thousands carried away as prisoners of war, and the house of David desolate for 2000 years. Does it even seem reasonable that the angel would overlook that event, and refer to a contrived "Great Tribulation," 2000 or more years later, in which the people are not even to be destroyed; Christ is supposed to come and rescue them, something He didn't do in A,.D.70?

Come now, dear Bible believer! Let reason prevail!


KPMG

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2003, 07:17:40 PM »
What is this argument about dispensationalism vs. what?


Chris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2003, 07:33:23 PM »
What is this argument about dispensationalism vs. what?



Dispensationalism vs. itself of course. It is a system that cannot stand on its own merit. That's what people are talking about. The nature of the system itself is that it is unsound both logically and theologically. Even ormer Dispensationalist Arthur W. Pink had to change his thinking about it when confronted with the biblical facts. It's just a system lacking essential foundations and undergirdings.


Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2003, 08:33:32 PM »
I would suggest a summary reading of an excellent article by pastor John Stevenson. Tony, you should also add this to your list of links. It's a good article by a biblical christian. Click on URL below.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/dispens.html

It's called:
 Dispensationalism: Wrongly dividing the Word of Truth

Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

KPMG

  • Guest
Re: The False Doctrine of Dispensationalism
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2003, 10:31:32 PM »
I hoped not to repeat myself, but dispensation vs. what? and what do you call the what? I understand dispensation. I do not know of an alternative. I read each of those points in that article and I can explain how I see them as errors in thinking according to God.

What is the alternative that is suggested here? Can you provide a paragraph explaining so that a layman, a simple Christian like myself can understand like I can do for dispensation.

To me dispensation means God deals dispensationally in periods of time seen in periods through the OT and NT, but also severally: to the Jews, to the Christians, and to the Gentiles. I understand this.





 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]