Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

95 Theses Against Dispensationalism


Recommended Posts

  • Members

As I've heard several IFB pastors declare, "Why try so hard to place dispensations in the Bible where God never saw fit to do so and for no worthwhile purpose?"


I've heard many IFB pastors say lots of things, what's the point? Do you think the church has absorbed all the promises given to Israel or something? Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I've heard many IFB pastors say lots of things, what's the point? Do you think the church has absorbed all the promises given to Israel or something?

That has nothing to do with it. One doesn't have to believe in multiple dispensations, of which even dispensationalists can't agree as to the actual number of dispensations or what they represent, in order to believe the plain teaching of Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


That has nothing to do with it. One doesn't have to believe in multiple dispensations, of which even dispensationalists can't agree as to the actual number of dispensations or what they represent, in order to believe the plain teaching of Scripture.


What do you mean it has nothing to do with it? Israel and the church is at the very heart and soul of the discussion between covenant theology and dispensationalism. You took a shot at dispensationalism, so I assume that you think we all have the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc.

Every school of thought has its in-house discussions. You pointed to an in-house discussion between dispensationalists in a thread in which the very core of dispensationalism is under attack. That would lead me to assume that you are not a dispensationalist. What do you believe about the promises given to Israel? Has the church absorbed them or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



What do you mean it has nothing to do with it? Israel and the church is at the very heart and soul of the discussion between covenant theology and dispensationalism. You took a shot at dispensationalism, so I assume that you think we all have the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc.

Every school of thought has its in-house discussions. You pointed to an in-house discussion between dispensationalists in a thread in which the very core of dispensationalism is under attack. That would lead me to assume that you are not a dispensationalist. What do you believe about the promises given to Israel? Has the church absorbed them or not?

We've had the dispensationalist discussion here before and all of us in the discussion made our views clear.

Why does one have to be either a dispensationalist or a covenantist? Most who hold to Covenant Theology that I actually know of don't hold to the idea that the church replaced Israel. I know that's the position the RCC and some Protestant churches that held to many of the RCC teachings hold, but beyond that it's not as common.

When I've researched dispensationalism, and I still read books and articles put forth by dispensationalists, I don't see a uniformity of belief and I don't see a necessity for one finding 7 or 9 or another number of dispensations in Scripture. There are numerous folks who hold to your general view of end-times prophecy who are not dispensationalists, and also who hold to your general view regarding Israel who are not dispensationalists.

There are also those like John Hagee who have really made some radical leaps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We had a precher from the Christian Witness to Israel last Lord's Day. He said the Jews thought the world would last 6,000 years. There were three ages, the first 2,000 years was the age of chaos, the second, the age of the law, the third the age of the Messiah but the Jews did not keep his commandments, so he delayed his coming. When all of the Jews keep the commandments, He will come. He told of one Jew he is in contact with, who said he tried to keep all the commandments, including the 10 commandments. And do you keep the 10 commandments? he was asked. "I am 99.9% sure I keep the 10 commandments," he replied. Our preacher said, "Well I am 200 % sure you don't, and I believe the Post Office will agree with me, as when I send you a letter, when you reply you use my envelope and write 'Return to sender, address unknown.' "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We've had the dispensationalist discussion here before and all of us in the discussion made our views clear.

Why does one have to be either a dispensationalist or a covenantist? Most who hold to Covenant Theology that I actually know of don't hold to the idea that the church replaced Israel. I know that's the position the RCC and some Protestant churches that held to many of the RCC teachings hold, but beyond that it's not as common.


Really? Everything I've heard is that Covenantists lean towards an allegorical interpritation of Scripture and prophecy, specifically when it comes to Israel, and that Israel in the Old Testament means church in the New. I would love to read someone who wasn't like that.

When I've researched dispensationalism, and I still read books and articles put forth by dispensationalists, I don't see a uniformity of belief and I don't see a necessity for one finding 7 or 9 or another number of dispensations in Scripture.


The number of dispensations do not really matter. It's the idea behind them is where you'll find the uniformity of belief. God deals with different people in different ages different ways, and understanding this principle will help a person understand the Bible better. The reason I use the term dispensationalists is because I don't want people to mistake me for someone who believes God won't keep His promises to Abraham.

I'd much rather just say that I believe in "rightly dividing" the word, which is the primary way of studying the Scriptures. One must understand there are differences between law and grace, the Great White Throne Judgment and the Judgment Seat of Christ, spiritual baptism and resurrection and water baptism and resurrection, etc. On the surface Covenant Theology looks to be just another way of "rightly dividing" the word, except they typically blur many important lines such as Israel and the church. If Covenant Theology didn't blur those lines I could care less, and I'd claim to be both a dispensationalist and a covenantist. I believe in rightly dividing, which would not just include looking at dispensations but also studying the different covenants in the Bible.

Real covenant theology is a very rewarding study. I love how Abraham and David both had unconditional covenants with God. They were completely unilateral, and based solely on God keeping His end of the agreement. It is truly a joy to study it because it pictures perfectly the spiritual side of the New Covenant that we in the church get to partake in. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Really? Everything I've heard is that Covenantists lean towards an allegorical interpritation of Scripture and prophecy, specifically when it comes to Israel, and that Israel in the Old Testament means church in the New. I would love to read someone who wasn't like that.

You are welcome to read my posts ....



The number of dispensations do not really matter. It's the idea behind them is where you'll find the uniformity of belief. God deals with different people in different ages different ways, and understanding this principle will help a person understand the Bible better. The reason I use the term dispensationalists is because I don't want people to mistake me for someone who believes God won't keep His promises to Abraham.

I've never met a Bible believer who says God won't keep his promises to Abraham.

I'd much rather just say that I believe in "rightly dividing" the word, which is the primary way of studying the Scriptures. One must understand there are differences between law and grace, the Great White Throne Judgment and the Judgment Seat of Christ, spiritual baptism and resurrection and water baptism and resurrection, etc. On the surface Covenant Theology looks to be just another way of "rightly dividing" the word, except they typically blur many important lines such as Israel and the church. If Covenant Theology didn't blur those lines I could care less, and I'd claim to be both a dispensationalist and a covenantist. I believe in rightly dividing, which would not just include looking at dispensations but also studying the different covenants in the Bible.

Some disps don't "rightly divide" - they run amok through the Word of God. They follow Scofield who asserts:


Real covenant theology is a very rewarding study. I love how Abraham and David both had unconditional covenants with God. They were completely unilateral, and based solely on God keeping His end of the agreement. It is truly a joy to study it because it pictures perfectly the spiritual side of the New Covenant that we in the church get to partake in.

I agree. There are over 300 references in Scripture to "covenant" & only ONE to a time dispensation. Why are you so hostile against me? WIthout the blood of the everlasting covenant no-one in any supposed dispensation would be saved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not hostile against you, Ian. Sometimes my posts maybe a little biting and I am passionate for what I believe in, but I count you as a brother in Christ and if I met you in person I'd shake your hand and probably make some lame joke about coffee and doughnuts being better than tea and crumpets.

Back to the subject matter. Of course no one will freely admit that they don't believe that God won't keep His promises to Abraham, but once you cut through all the gobilty-goop (I used a different word this time, Invicta ) that's what you're doing when you say they are all fufilled in Christ and there is no future promise of land effective for ethnic Israel. God made specific promises regarding land and physical inheritance, and Abraham understood them to be exactly what God said they were. The promise of land was given to Abraham (Gen 13:14-15; 15:18), confirmed by God to Isaac (Gen. 26:3-4), Jacob (Gen. 35:12), Joshua (Josh. 1:2-4), and Moses (Ex. 6:2-8). It was land, land, land every time. So much so that God gave them that land in Joshua 21:43-44:

Josh. 21:43-44, "And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand."

So it should be clear that the land grant promises were to be taken exactly how they were given: real dirt that is supposed to belong to Abraham's seed. God fufilled that promise. But they lost it. So did God fulfill His promise in Joshua and that's the end of it?

No.

The problem is the promise was everlasting. So that means the promise was only fufilled partially and that the promise is still in force for a later date. If the promise of land before was for a literal Jew (which it was) then it still is for a literal Jew. This is why the land is spoken of again after the Joshua fulfillment (Amos 9:11–15, Is. 35:10; 43:1-8, Jer. 16:14-15, 30:10, Hos. 3:4-5)

Gen. 17:8, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Gen. 48:4, "And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession."

Ex. 32:13, "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever."

Once again, as far as the argument that this promise is to be spiritualized and given to spiritual Israel, or the church, go

Jer. 16:14-15, "Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15) But, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers."

Hosea 3:4-5, "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days."

Ez. 11:14-17, "Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
15Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD: unto us is this land given in possession.
16Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come.
17Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Back to the subject matter. Of course no one will freely admit that they don't believe that God won't keep His promises to Abraham, but once you cut through all the gobilty-goop (I used a different word this time, Invicta ) that's what you're doing when you say they are all fufilled in Christ and there is no future promise of land effective for ethnic Israel. God made specific promises regarding land and physical inheritance, and Abraham understood them to be exactly what God said they were. The promise of land was given to Abraham (Gen 13:14-15; 15:18), confirmed by God to Isaac (Gen. 26:3-4), Jacob (Gen. 35:12), Joshua (Josh. 1:2-4), and Moses (Ex. 6:2-8). It was land, land, land every time. So much so that God gave them that land in Joshua 21:43-44:
....
So it should be clear that the land grant promises were to be taken exactly how they were given: real dirt that is supposed to belong to Abraham's seed. God fufilled that promise. But they lost it. So did God fulfill His promise in Joshua and that's the end of it?

No.

The problem is the promise was everlasting. So that means the promise was only fufilled partially and that the promise is still in force for a later date. If the promise of land before was for a literal Jew (which it was) then it still is for a literal Jew. This is why the land is spoken of again after the Joshua fulfillment (Amos 9:11–15, Is. 35:10; 43:1-8, Jer. 16:14-15, 30:10, Hos. 3:4-5)

Gen. 17:8, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

As a premil YOU do not believe the land promise is everlasting - it is only for the millennium - & is populated by an extraordinary mixture of resurrected saints, & wicked & believing families, but becoming ever incresingly wicked. That is NOT the promise to Abraham.

Hebrews 11 explains Abraham's understanding of the promise:
8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out i
nt
o a place which he should after receive for an inheritance,
ob
eyed; and he we
nt
out, n
ot
knowing whither he we
nt
.

9
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange cou
nt
ry, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jac
ob
, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

....

13
These all died in faith, n
ot
having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and
confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14
For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a cou
nt
ry.

15
And truly, if they had been mindful of that cou
nt
ry from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16
But now they desire a better cou
nt
ry, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is n
ot
ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Certainly they will receive their better, heavenly country. In the NH&NE they will not accuse God of breaking his promise. They will be rejoicing in a truly eternal heritage in the presence of their Saviour God & all their promised descendants.
"I'll give you ÂŁ5 for your birthday."
"Dad, you've given me ÂŁ50. You've broken your promise to give me ÂŁ5."

2
And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and
in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do believe it is everlasting. They get it during the Millennium and during the New Heavens and New Earth. Great anology on five bucks though!

In the end, you're still saying that the church is the one getting all of the land promises of Abraham, when Scripture is clear that they go to national Israel. You distort the clear teachings of Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Really? Everything I've heard is that Covenantists lean towards an allegorical interpritation of Scripture and prophecy, specifically when it comes to Israel, and that Israel in the Old Testament means church in the New. I would love to read someone who wasn't like that.



The number of dispensations do not really matter. It's the idea behind them is where you'll find the uniformity of belief. God deals with different people in different ages different ways, and understanding this principle will help a person understand the Bible better. The reason I use the term dispensationalists is because I don't want people to mistake me for someone who believes God won't keep His promises to Abraham.

I'd much rather just say that I believe in "rightly dividing" the word, which is the primary way of studying the Scriptures. One must understand there are differences between law and grace, the Great White Throne Judgment and the Judgment Seat of Christ, spiritual baptism and resurrection and water baptism and resurrection, etc. On the surface Covenant Theology looks to be just another way of "rightly dividing" the word, except they typically blur many important lines such as Israel and the church. If Covenant Theology didn't blur those lines I could care less, and I'd claim to be both a dispensationalist and a covenantist. I believe in rightly dividing, which would not just include looking at dispensations but also studying the different covenants in the Bible.

Real covenant theology is a very rewarding study. I love how Abraham and David both had unconditional covenants with God. They were completely unilateral, and based solely on God keeping His end of the agreement. It is truly a joy to study it because it pictures perfectly the spiritual side of the New Covenant that we in the church get to partake in.

I see no need to try and find different dispensations in Scripture in order to rightly divide the Word. Whether Abraham or Paul, David or Malichi, all who are right with God are saved by grace through faith. No matter if we read Genesis or Revelation, Psalms or Ephesians, God is true to His promises.

The artificial dispensations are not found in Scripture, which is why even among dispensationalists there is not agreement as to how many dispensations there are and what each is supposed to represent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see no need to try and find different dispensations in Scripture in order to rightly divide the Word. Whether Abraham or Paul, David or Malichi, all who are right with God are saved by grace through faith. No matter if we read Genesis or Revelation, Psalms or Ephesians, God is true to His promises.

The artificial dispensations are not found in Scripture, which is why even among dispensationalists there is not agreement as to how many dispensations there are and what each is supposed to represent.


There's a lot more at play than salvation. "Ages" of time are found in Scripture, so call them that. The Bible says, "For the law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Right there the Bible is giving you three distinct ages, before the law, during the law, and after the law. To ignore those three different periods in which God dealt with people in three different ways can lead to some severe doctrinal and practical errors.

To rip a promise of prosperity out of the Old Testament (like the prayer of Jabesh) and apply it to today is a result of not rightly dividing the word. Christians today are told they are going to suffer if they live godly in Christ Jesus. The servants of Christ typically in the New Testament are poor (not always, but usually) and receive their blessing from God on a spiritual level, whereas God was more likely to bless people on a material level in the Old Testament - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Job, etc... the list goes on of filthy rich saints. Rich saints are very hard to find in the New Testament. And yet you have these prosperity gospel people reaching back and using David as an example of why God is obligated to make you rich. They do it because they do not rightly divide the Scriptures.

It is extremely important to recognize the different ages and how God dealt with people during them. To go around trying to get a sign out of God like Gideon today would be another example of not recognizing that God deals with people in different ages differently. We walk by faith, not by sight. The Jews in the Old Testament walked by sight just as much as they did by faith, if not more! Looking for signs is something that they did, we look to the Scriptures and put our faith in their principles. This is another classic example of what Charismatics do because of their lack of recognizing the different ages in the Bible and how God deals with people during them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



There's a lot more at play than salvation. "Ages" of time are found in Scripture, so call them that. The Bible says, "For the law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Right there the Bible is giving you three distinct ages, before the law, during the law, and after the law. To ignore those three different periods in which God dealt with people in three different ways can lead to some severe doctrinal and practical errors.

To rip a promise of prosperity out of the Old Testament (like the prayer of Jabesh) and apply it to today is a result of not rightly dividing the word. Christians today are told they are going to suffer if they live godly in Christ Jesus. The servants of Christ typically in the New Testament are poor (not always, but usually) and receive their blessing from God on a spiritual level, whereas God was more likely to bless people on a material level in the Old Testament - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Job, etc... the list goes on of filthy rich saints. Rich saints are very hard to find in the New Testament. And yet you have these prosperity gospel people reaching back and using David as an example of why God is obligated to make you rich. They do it because they do not rightly divide the Scriptures.

It is extremely important to recognize the different ages and how God dealt with people during them. To go around trying to get a sign out of God like Gideon today would be another example of not recognizing that God deals with people in different ages differently. We walk by faith, not by sight. The Jews in the Old Testament walked by sight just as much as they did by faith, if not more! Looking for signs is something that they did, we look to the Scriptures and put our faith in their principles. This is another classic example of what Charismatics do because of their lack of recognizing the different ages in the Bible and how God deals with people during them.

Just because some people misapply Scripture means we need dispensations? That really doesn't make sense. A plain reading of Scripture makes it very clear the prayer of Jabez was specific, just as was the words of Malichi regarding tithes. One doesn't need to divide the Bible into dispensations in order to see this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rick

Do you believe we should evangelise the Jews, or do you believe, like some christians, that we should not 'protelise' them?

Pastor John Hagee used to preach on the need to evangelize Jews but since he's become very politically active he's changed his mind and now says Jews will be saved another way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...