Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Dispensationalism


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I can see where some aspects of Dispensationalism come from but I don't know that I see all of it connecting together in the way many put forth as some sort of doctrine.

Also, I can't help but wonder why this seems to have come forth in the 1800s. As I've looked into the matter, I don't see where any before that time held to Dispensationalism. There are those who held to some things that are included in Dispensationalism, but I see no evidence that they were Dispensationalists or that they would have agreed with what we know as Dispensationalism.

In one aspect, I can see some aspects of Dispensationalism as possibly being a man-made tool to help one understand certain things; but even in that, it seems it has been taken far beyond that.


You are right, John.

Why is it considered an IFB doctrine, when SBs teach it as well as Brethren, Charismatics and other liberal churches?

And why do people get so hung up on it when it is only and interpretation and I understand it, a false one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why is it considered an IFB doctrine, when SBs teach it as well as Brethren, Charismatics and other liberal churches?

And why do people get so hung up on it when it is only and interpretation and I understand it, a false one.


By that logic why do you hold to replacement theology which is a early catholic doctrine? Don't you think it is wiser to look at what the scriptures say about specific issues? Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



By that logic why do you hold to replacement theology which is a early catholic doctrine? Don't you think it is wiser to look at what the scriptures say about specific issues?


It of course is not a scriptural teaching, merely man's interpretation and like all man's interpretations can be wrong. Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members




Again John, like I said, mention something specific that you think is scripturally wrong. I have argued against things like hyper-dispensationalism that breaks up the scriptures so much that about the only thing it will accept as relevant for today are the pauline epistles yet I still hold to a dispensationalist position. Without mentioning specific objections to "dispensationalism" it is impossible to say if what your talking about is biblical or not. I will say that the most frequent criticisms of dispensationalism comes from "Covent theology" which breaks things up into "covenants" instead of dispensations(which would not be a huge deal except for how they then develop that) and actually claims people were saved by works in the OT and so forth. I base my dispensational views on scripture, I use that to dispute against "covenant theology"(as it is generally held anyway) or "replacement theology". If you don't want to raise specific issues with "dispensationalism" like irishman doesn't thats fine, but if thats the case I don't see why you bothered to start the thread in the first place.



THANK-YOU Seth. Just like people argue against the Trinity and the Rapture by saying those words aren't in the Bible, Irishman, Invicta, and company argue that supposedly because no one was using the term "dispensation" until the 1800s it must be a "man made doctrine."

Fine then! Let's call it something else! How about we call it "rightly dividing the word." The principle is the same, to study and divide God's word accordingly. Some overdo it, some under do it, some divide it the wrong way - but God's method of Bible study was given us in II Tim. 2:15 - DIVISION.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



THANK-YOU Seth. Just like people argue against the Trinity and the Rapture by saying those words aren't in the Bible, Irishman, Invicta, and company argue that supposedly because no one was using the term "dispensation" until the 1800s it must be a "man made doctrine."

Fine then! Let's call it something else! How about we call it "rightly dividing the word." The principle is the same, to study and divide God's word accordingly. Some overdo it, some under do it, some divide it the wrong way - but God's method of Bible study was given us in II Tim. 2:15 - DIVISION.

There are already some who call it "ages" rather than dispensations. I don't think it actually comes down to whether a specific term is used or not, but whether the Scripture actually lines up with what is being put forth. For instance, you mentioned the Trinity, and true enough that term isn't used but there is plenty of evidence from Scripture to reveal God as Triune.

When it comes to Dispensations, there are several different versions. Are there 5, 7 or another number of Dispensations? Exactly what does and doesn't fit into Dispensationalism? There doesn't seem to be agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the basic principles are agreed upon, that God has dealt with different people in different ways.

There is some overlap but there is also enough difference to make one wonder about it.

What basic principles do you hold to in this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Differently in a way, yet all people are saved the very same way, and there has nor will there be another way to be saved except by Jesus.

In the Old Testament they had to do sacrifices, but it only pointed towards the one true sacrifice that was coming, Jesus. For instants.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Sacrifices did not save Abraham, but believing God did.

Many that hold to the teachings under this topic claim people in different
Dispersions, ages, are saved in a different manner than in other Dispersions, ages, plus many of them claim that the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament, has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

The Bible is clear in 2 Timothy 3:16,17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I don't care for Dispersions teachings for to many try to build something with it that the Bible does not teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Differently in a way, yet all people are saved the very same way, and there has nor will there be another way to be saved except by Jesus.

In the Old Testament they had to do sacrifices, but it only pointed towards the one true sacrifice that was coming, Jesus. For instants.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Sacrifices did not save Abraham, but believing God did.

Many that hold to the teachings under this topic claim people in different
Dispersions, ages, are saved in a different manner than in other Dispersions, ages, plus many of them claim that the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament, has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

The Bible is clear in 2 Timothy 3:16,17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I don't care for Dispersions teachings for to many try to build something with it that the Bible does not teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Rick:
Fine then! Let's call it something else! How about we call it "rightly dividing the word." The principle is the same, to study and divide God's word accordingly. Some overdo it, some under do it, some divide it the wrong way - but God's method of Bible study was given us in II Tim. 2:15 - DIVISION.


Extraordinary. Is rightly dividing a commendation of dividing Scripture into many dispensations? Or is it, rather, right teaching? "Dividing" is not defined, & only occurs once in that sense.

2Ti 2:14 ¶ Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
David Guzik (I think he is a disp) is helpful on this verse:
i. Timothy, as a faithful pastor, was to be rightly dividing God’s Word. That is, he had to know what it said and didn’t say, and how it was to be understood and how it was not to be understood. It wasn’t enough for Timothy to know some Bible stories and verses and sprinkle them through his sermons as illustrations. His teaching was to be a “right dividing” of the Word of God, correctly teaching his congregation.


Please, DO NOT run amok through Scripture with your disp battle-axe - study Scripture & teach what Scripture teaches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Differently in a way, yet all people are saved the very same way, and there has nor will there be another way to be saved except by Jesus.

In the Old Testament they had to do sacrifices, but it only pointed towards the one true sacrifice that was coming, Jesus. For instants.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Sacrifices did not save Abraham, but believing God did.

Many that hold to the teachings under this topic claim people in different
Dispersions, ages, are saved in a different manner than in other Dispersions, ages, plus many of them claim that the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament, has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

The Bible is clear in 2 Timothy 3:16,17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I don't care for Dispersions teachings for to many try to build something with it that the Bible does not teach.

Yes, that's a problem I've encountered with some before. They don't see that God always has and always will have only one way for man to be saved. Even though this is seen throughout Scripture there are many who believe some in the past were saved differently and some believe there will be some in the future saved differently as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Yes, that's a problem I've encountered with some before. They don't see that God always has and always will have only one way for man to be saved. Even though this is seen throughout Scripture there are many who believe some in the past were saved differently and some believe there will be some in the future saved differently as well.


And for many of that group they feel breaking the Bible down in different dispersions helps them prove that there be different ways to be saved in different dispersions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Differently in a way, yet all people are saved the very same way, and there has nor will there be another way to be saved except by Jesus.

In the Old Testament they had to do sacrifices, but it only pointed towards the one true sacrifice that was coming, Jesus. For instants.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Sacrifices did not save Abraham, but believing God did.

Many that hold to the teachings under this topic claim people in different
Dispersions, ages, are saved in a different manner than in other Dispersions, ages, plus many of them claim that the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament, has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

The Bible is clear in 2 Timothy 3:16,17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

I don't care for Dispersions teachings for to many try to build something with it that the Bible does not teach.


Very good post, Jerry. one up for that!

It does seem that the hyper-dispensationalist seems to hold the patent on the words "Rightly dividing", but so do the J.W.s, they too have a book called "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth", perhaps Larkin got his idea from Charles Taz Russle!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Yes, that's a problem I've encountered with some before. They don't see that God always has and always will have only one way for man to be saved. Even though this is seen throughout Scripture there are many who believe some in the past were saved differently and some believe there will be some in the future saved differently as well.


Hyper-dispensationalism is a different kettle of fish. It is a case of taking things beyond what can be found in scripture and indeed rejects much of scripture as "not for today". That is not all there is to dispensationalism, nor even in line with the majority of dispensationalist views. It is the extreme fringe that can clearly be showed to unbiblical and therefore is often attacked by a-mill's or anyone trying to discredit all dispensationalism. It would be like taking "preachers" like Peter Ruckman, Steve Anderson, Jack Schapp, and so forth and using select, unbiblical positions they hold and foolish things they say to smear all IFB's. Never mind that many IFB's would and do strongly disagree with them in many areas. I have said before, and will say again, dispensationalism is biblical, and is the only reasonable way to look at the scriptures. Now specific aspects of dispensationalism are arguable, how many dispensations, etc. yet I firmly feel it is a unassailable biblical truth. Without a basic understanding of "dispensations" or what ever you want to call it, there would be no reason why Christians are not to "heal the sick, raise the dead, Cast out devils" or do any number of things many in the early church did. Today it is obvious that God is not working that way and those that claim he is have been tried and found liars countless times. Without an understanding of dispensationalism the logical conclusion would be that Christianity is a fake since large scale public miracles clearly do not happen at this point in time. That problem is one of a whole host of problems one is encountered with if one flat out rejects any type of dispensationalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was raised on dispensationlism. In my own study, I've come to the conclusion that it is a doctrine of man, though well intended, which seems to add to the basics of scripture. I guess if you wanted to lable what I believe about the progression of time and how it aligns with scripture, then I believe in what is commonly called covenant theology -- though I believe the conventional pattern of this approah has it's own questions to be answered. All I know is that there was a time before Christ and a time after Christ. An old covenant, and a new covenant, which is evident in the blood. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that most dispensationalist are adding to scripture that which is simply not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...