95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[2Tim215]

Sorry, but I am confused!!
My understanding is that we are saved by grace. Before the death and resurrection of Christ it was through the Law (IE: works based on obedience and the sacrifices for remission of sins). Now there is no Jew or Greek so all must now be saved by grace through Christ - the Jew and the gentile.
Who teaches that Jews have a different covenant now in this "age" of grace - have never heard this before? The Jews are to be saved through grace now and only those that are around after the rapture (another word not seen in the bible - like dispensations - yet believed to be a promised fact) are to be saved through works and standing fast to the end.

Also, just to add some spice. How were those from Adam to Moses saved if the Law only came through Moses on the mount?

Wrong or right?

[Covenanter]

Sorry, but I am confused!!
You are right to feel confused - those who are not confused haven't understood the discussion ....

My understanding is that we are saved by grace. Agreed. Before the death and resurrection of Christ it was through the Law (IE: works based on obedience and the sacrifices for remission of sins). No. Those acts of themselves could not save - they could not make a person righteous in God's sight. Hebrews makes it clear that faith was essential, & a common factor with all OT saints. Now there is no Jew or Greek so all must now be saved by grace through Christ - the Jew and the gentile. Agreed - grace through faith in Christ.

Who teaches that Jews have a different covenant now in this "age" of grace - have never heard this before?
Read it here:

Read on & you will see that Hagee & Falwell deny the report.

The Jews are to be saved through grace now and only those that are around after the rapture (another word not seen in the bible - like dispensations - yet believed to be a promised fact) (why is "rapture" used rather than the Scriptural word "resurrection"?) are to be saved through works and standing fast to the end. Now that is "another Gospel" for the Jews. Surely they will need grace through such a time to maintain faith in extreme adversity. We certainly do.

Also, just to add some spice. How were those from Adam to Moses saved if the Law only came through Moses on the mount? Only by grace, through faith - the faith of these is recorded in Hebrews.

Wrong or right?

[Brother Rick]

Some dispensationalists try to hide it or disclaim it now, but one of the bad points of dispensationalism has been the teaching that people in different dispensations were saved in different ways.

That's like saying one of the bad points of the IFB movement is that there are some within it who ascribe to Calvinism, or some that are not KJVO, or some that are off on their music. Not everyone sees it the same, but the basic principles are consistent. You and your Reformed friends keep wanting to pick at the edges and ignore the basic principles that make dispensational study so helpful and rewarding. I've given plenty of practical reasons for obeying the command given in II Tim. 2:15, but you and many others here have some self-imposed and reactionary blinders to the obvious truth and necessity to recognize some different ages in the Bible. I'll probably be checking out of the conversation soon because these straw man arguments against dispensationalism are lame and tiresome.

Another thing: just because some dispensationalists happen to also be Charismatics doesn't prove anything either. They obviously have failed in the area of rightly dividing the word because they think that God is still operating the exact same way now that He was in early part of the book of Acts. They may be smart enough to see the difference between the law and the church, but they fail to see what is going on the middle.

When God changes things, it's important to recognize the change for practical and doctrinal reasons. The Bible calls recognizing that as "rightly dividing." To fail to recognize the divisions within scripture is to disobey the most important command of God when it comes to personal Bible study.

[Covenanter]

"Rightly divide" doesn't mean run amok, making lots of divisions. There is an emphasis on "rightly" & it means understanding & teaching, breaking down theological concepts into milk for babes, & digestible portions for the more mature. The verse doesn't justify disp divisions.

[anime4christ]

Scoffield and Darby both originally taught that people were saved by different means in different dispensations. This teaching comes from the root, not the fringe, of dispensationalism. There are more dispensational Pentecostals and charismatics than covenantal ones. There are very few covenantal Pentecostals and covenantal charismatic (usually NCT rather than CT) are generally less crazy than dispensational charismatics. That would lead me to believe that the majority of covenantals are better at rightly dividing than dispensationalists. At least they are far more consistent if you want to argue statistics.

[Brother Rick]

"Rightly divide" doesn't mean run amok, making lots of divisions. There is an emphasis on "rightly" & it means understanding & teaching, breaking down theological concepts into milk for babes, & digestible portions for the more mature. The verse doesn't justify disp divisions.

That verse not only justifies dispensational divisions, it demands it. Just as there are Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, so too there are Dispensationalists and hyper-Dispensationalists. Recognizing a dispensational division is not the same a running amok and building hard and fast walls all over the Bible. Many of the dispensations do run into each other, such as the Law and the Apostolic Age, and the Apostolic Age and the Church. Hyper-Dispensationalism tosses everything out except Paul, biblical rightly dividing does not.

Considering you can't tell the difference between two battles that are separated by 1,000 years, you are hardly an authority on what rightly dividing means.

[2Tim215]

*

[Covenanter]

That verse not only justifies dispensational divisions, it demands it.
There are NO Scriptures that justify disp divisions.

Just as there are Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, so too there are Dispensationalists and hyper-Dispensationalists. Recognizing a dispensational division is not the same a running amok and building hard and fast walls all over the Bible.
But it does create divisions & extra disps such as various future disps after Jesus returns for resurrection & judgement, including a millennium very similar to the present age. That's where you get you two battles - they are one, at the end of the present age.

Many of the dispensations do run into each other, such as the Law and the Apostolic Age, and the Apostolic Age and the Church.
Is "law" a disp? The temple & priesthood, i.e. the old covenant symbols, did continue until they were abolished in AD 70, but had no saving merit apart from the Gospel of Jesus. God is gracious & longsuffering, but that does not make a disp.


Hyper-Dispensationalism tosses everything out except Paul, biblical rightly dividing does not.

Considering you can't tell the difference between two battles that are separated by 1,000 years, you are hardly an authority on what rightly dividing means.
Revelation is a series of iterations - you've done a "Roadmap Through Revelation " how many battles are there, how many comings of Jesus? To what extent do the divisions overlap? Is Rev. 19 Gog/Magog or Armageddon, or a third final battle?

[2Tim215]

Who teaches that Jews have a different covenant now in this "age" of grace - have never heard this before?
Read it here:
"Dual Covenant" Theology?
Shortly after the launch of CUFI, the Jerusalem Post reported:
An evangelical pastor and an Orthodox rabbi, both from Texas, have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity.
Televangelist John Hagee and Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg, whose Cornerstone Church and Rodfei Sholom congregations are based in San Antonio, told The Jerusalem Post that Falwell had adopted Hagee's innovative belief in what Christians refer to as "dual covenant" theology.
This creed, which runs counter to mainstream evangelism, maintains that the Jewish people has a special relationship to God through the revelation at Sinai and therefore does not need "to go through Christ or the Cross" to get to heaven.
Scheinberg said this has been Hagee's position for the 25 years the two have worked together on behalf of Israel and that Falwell had also come to accept it. Falwell sent a representative to the San Antonio launch of Christians United for Israel in early February, as did popular televangelist Pat Robertson.

Sorry if this is off topic, but having read this one has to wonder on the doctrine of those pushing this agenda. Do they not undertsand that in order to be saved there had to be sacrifices and a temple? So how does the Jew now get saved under the OT covenant? There is no temple and there has been no sacrifices that I have been able to find with extensive research. Is there now a new "third" covenant just for the Jews after Christ. We (the believer) are now a living temple and the sacrifice was the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the bunny huggers reaction if the Jews were sacrificing lambs, goats, oxen, doves etc now?
My heart goes out to the orthodox Jew who knows that without the temple sacrifice he has no chance - unless I am missing something here and there is another way besides Christ and the cross?

[2Tim215]

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Divide ²

Definition: To cause to be separate; to keep apart by a partition, or by an imaginary line or limit; as, a wall divides two houses; a stream divides the towns.

di·vide (d-vd)
v. di·vid·ed, di·vid·ing, di·vides
v.tr.
1.
a. To separate into parts, sections, groups, or branches: divided the students into four groups..
b. To sector into units of measurement; graduate: The ruler was divided into metric units.
c. To separate and group according to kind; classify: divided the plants by genus.
2.
a. To cause to separate into opposing factions; disunite: "They want not to divide either the Revolution or the Church but to be an integral part of both" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
b. To cause (members of a parliament) to vote by separating into groups, as pro and con.
3. To separate from something else; cut off: A mountain chain divides France and Spain.
4. To apportion among a number: Volunteers divided the different jobs among themselves.

We are to take the Word literally and the very word divide as used by Paul does not imply but states that we are to divide the Word of God with emphasis on rightly doing so. There is no hidden meaning here, no ambiguity, just a word that follows a series of commands that are all actions and the word divide in itself being a command. Nowhere can I find this word to mean anything besides what I have quoted from dictionaries above so how can we not do as we are told and separate the Word of God into divisions. Divisions placed there by God Himself by the His very actions and dealing with man. God is not the author of confusion and His word is Truth so it goes without saying that without these divisions God's Word becomes confusing, contradicting and misleading. We must always ask ourselves if it is not our pride in our own understanding that causes us to fight an obvious truth even if it goes against everything we have been taught, everything we know, even if what we have known to be true has been wrong our entire lives.

Was the world any less round because the learned men of the church believed it to be flat, was Jesus any less the Messiah just because the Jews didn't accept Him?

[LindaR]

Sorry if this is off topic, but having read this one has to wonder on the doctrine of those pushing this agenda. Do they not undertsand that in order to be saved there had to be sacrifices and a temple? So how does the Jew now get saved under the OT covenant? There is no temple and there has been no sacrifices that I have been able to find with extensive research. Is there now a new "third" covenant just for the Jews after Christ. We (the believer) are now a living temple and the sacrifice was the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the bunny huggers reaction if the Jews were sacrificing lambs, goats, oxen, doves etc now?
My heart goes out to the orthodox Jew who knows that without the temple sacrifice he has no chance - unless I am missing something here and there is another way besides Christ and the cross?

John Hagee's "Dual Covenant" theology is a dangerous teaching. Jews are saved exactly like Gentiles...grace through faith. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. There is a need for Jewish evangelism (or support for Jewish missions {non Hebrew Roots/Messianic}) in the church. I was saved through the witness of a born again Gentile woman.

Here's a link to a very biblically based Jewish evangelism ministry. The article is on "Jewish Missions and the Local Church". It is one of a series of five articles on Jewish missions:

http://www.jewishawa...e-local-church/

BTW, this ministry is dispensational, but not hyper/ultra dispensational.

[Brother Rick]

All these colors make things confusing. What we need here is some good division! :-)

The law was a clear dispensation, in fact one of the clearest. It is important to recognize the difference between that dispensation and today's, or you might wind up acting like a Seventh Day Adventist. Other Christians who ignore Acts 10:11-16, Col. 2:16 and Matthew 15:11 think that what type of food they eat has something to do with their relationship with God. Under the law it did, but now it doesn't. I ran into a missionary once who thought he was a little extra spiritual once becuase he never ate ice cream. Temperance is a New Testament doctrine, and so one should be careful about how much they eat, but eating a juicy piece of bacon is not wrong in of itself, and avoiding it doesn't make one holy.

To answer your question, there are two major battles coming. One before the 1,000 years and one after.

[John81]

That's like saying one of the bad points of the IFB movement is that there are some within it who ascribe to Calvinism, or some that are not KJVO, or some that are off on their music. Not everyone sees it the same, but the basic principles are consistent. You and your Reformed friends keep wanting to pick at the edges and ignore the basic principles that make dispensational study so helpful and rewarding. I've given plenty of practical reasons for obeying the command given in II Tim. 2:15, but you and many others here have some self-imposed and reactionary blinders to the obvious truth and necessity to recognize some different ages in the Bible. I'll probably be checking out of the conversation soon because these straw man arguments against dispensationalism are lame and tiresome.

Another thing: just because some dispensationalists happen to also be Charismatics doesn't prove anything either. They obviously have failed in the area of rightly dividing the word because they think that God is still operating the exact same way now that He was in early part of the book of Acts. They may be smart enough to see the difference between the law and the church, but they fail to see what is going on the middle.

When God changes things, it's important to recognize the change for practical and doctrinal reasons. The Bible calls recognizing that as "rightly dividing." To fail to recognize the divisions within scripture is to disobey the most important command of God when it comes to personal Bible study.

I had read some dispensational material before I was even saved. When I was saved I was attending a dispensational Assembly of God church with my girlfriend. I've read and studied dispensational material from that time onward and I still don't see it in Scripture and I still don't see any value in adding separations to Scripture that God didn't tell us to.

The reason I mentioned the charismatic dispensationalists is because one of the reasons someone put forth for why dispensationalism is necessary is to keep people from thinking things such as what occured in Acts (speaking in toungues) is for today. The claim being that separating the Word into dispensations prevents people in one dispensation from applying things from other dispensations. Obviously, that's not the case or we wouldn't have dispensational charismatics.

Again, 2 Tim 2:15 doesn't tell us to separate the Word of God into dispensations. Artificial lines of separation installed by man are not necessary in order to rightly understand the Word. One can plainly read the Word and know Christians don't need or have to perform animal sacrifices without someone choosing to make 7, 9, 10 or some other number of separate dispensations.

[Brother Rick]

The words used is "divide," and it is used for a reason. The Bible you carry is already divided one time between the Old and New Testaments, so you have to believe in at least two dispensations or you need a different book. That's the basic principle, and it's a natural, basic, biblical principle. If you want to be reactionary against it that's on you.

[anime4christ]

The words used is "divide," and it is used for a reason. The Bible you carry is already divided one time between the Old and New Testaments, so you have to believe in at least two dispensations or you need a different book. That's the basic principle, and it's a natural, basic, biblical principle. If you want to be reactionary against it that's on you.

Um, no..I believe there are two testaments in my bible, not two dispensations..it says Old Testament and New Testament in mine.

The word dispensation means giving out, not period of time, in the bible.