Rightly Dividing God's Word/Dispensationalism

[handy]

This thread is a carry over from the "For those who think they can 'lose it'" thread. I began to realize that I was involved in the wrong discussion.

So, this thread is all about Dispensationalism. What it teaches and why. What's wrong with the doctrine and why.

I was a member of a Calvinist church which was rabidly anti-Despensationalist for a number of years. When I left that church, I began to rethink and study anew many doctrines associated with Calvinism and many doctrines which the Calvinists disagree with. Dispensationalism was one of those doctrines. I studied, and asked questions and looked at the Scriptures without bias. Remember, this was during the time of my walk where I was questioning all the Calvinistic teachings, so I was looking at the possibility that Dispensationalism was correct. However, I came to the conclusion it wasn't.

Dispensationalism is so prevelent a doctrine in the church today that it's hard to believe it's only been around for 180 years. Although many dispensationalists will state the the doctrine was a part of the early church, I don't know of any teachings that expounded dispensationalism as taught by John Darby prior to...well...John Darby.

If you know of any historical dispensationalists, by all means this is the place to list them!

I truly don't want to debate this subject, which is why I'm placing it here rather than putting it up for debate. I'd like to see just a good discussion of Dispensationalism, abiding by the 1st rule of hermeneutics, Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Oh, and also abiding by the Word of God which exhorts us to be "of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose". The 'purpose' of this discussion being what Paul meant when he exhorted Timothy to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

For a jumping off point, I'd like to see what Books, passages, texts and verses that Dispensationalists divide into being for Jews and for the Church. I must admit to being gobsmacked to find that some on this board view the Book of Hebrews, a book I find to be one of the most encouraging of the New Testament to be a book for the Jews rather than the Body. I was also surprised to see that some seem, just seem to me mind you, to write the Book of Life off as somehow being Jewish instead of the book in which All saved are written.

So, there's a lot for discussion right there.

 

[AVBunyan]

This thread is a carry over from the "For those who think they can 'lose it'" thread. I began to realize that I was involved in the wrong discussion.

So, this thread is all about Dispensationalism. What it teaches and why. What's wrong with the doctrine and why.

Well, Handy - a good idea on a much needed and one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented subjects out there. Problem is I doubt this thread will last long on the vine to due lack of interest - I hope I am proven to be wrong.

I am a grace believer, a strong Calvinists, a King James Bible believer, and a strong dispensationalist so I am an odd ball.

I wish I could join in but tomorrow at 7 AM I am in surgery for a very bummed right wrist so I am out of commission for a few weeks or more.

Ya'll have some good chats.

Later and God bless

 

[handy]

AV, you'll certainly be in my prayers for a sucessful surgery and speedy recovery. When you can, please do check in on this thread, for I am truly hopeful of discussing this issue with you.

I am a grace believer, a strong Calvinists, a King James Bible believer, and a strong dispensationalist so I am an odd ball.

Hmmmm, do you anything like this: :rocol
:-D

 

[Guest]

Handy -

One thing with the dispensationalist view is that it has modified itself over the years.

There is classical, neo, new, etc etc.

While I have not kept up on my readings in regards to it, I tend agree more with 'covenant theology" than dispensationalism.

 

[jgredline]

Be careful with the term Covenant theology as many folks who to replacement theology are trying to marry the two..

 

[handy]

Handy -

One thing with the dispensationalist view is that it has modified itself over the years.

There is classical, neo, new, etc etc.

I think this would be a good thing. For it means that people are sincerely questioning the theology and hammering out what is truth about it.

Be careful with the term Covenant theology as many folks who to replacement theology are trying to marry the two..

To me, Covenant theology is far clearer and closer to the truth of Scripture than Dispensationalism. I haven't studied replacement theology enough to truly understand it. However, I don't think the church 'replaces' the Jews as God's chosen people, but that as the Gentiles entered into the New Covenant with God, the Old Covenant with the nation of Israel was fulfilled. Perhaps this is "Replacement Theology". I don't know.

JG, on the "LoseIt" thread you said:

Well, this is exactly it...Folks are applying things that were meant for Israel AKA the Jews to the Church....I think it was AV that mentioned that if people stopped applying what was meant for the jews to the church, then this issue of can one loose his salvation is settled...

It is absolutely bad hermeneutics to take verses out of context and this is the danger when one does not ''rightly'' divide the word of God for what was meant for the Jews and what was meant for Israel....

I asked earlier...Who was Hebrews written to? It was written to ''the hebrews''
While there is much there in that very theologically rich book and there are many things we can use in way of application, you can't use things like Hebrews 6:4-6 and apply it to the church when the context of this verse is speaking of Jews who ''played, pretended, tasted church'' but went back to judism because they were never saved....So this is a warning to the jews...and if someone wants to debate this passage, I will gladly do it in the debate forum....

Could you explain why you think that Hebrews 6:4-6 cannot be applied to the church?

 

[Vic C.]

Covenant Theology would be an excellent study and one I would dive into, but I'm a novice at it.

Handy, it isn't quite replacement theology if you believe that the "Jews" that were cut off (Romans 11:17-24) will be grafted back into the tree.

I wish I could join in but tomorrow at 7 AM I am in surgery for a very bummed right wrist so I am out of commission for a few weeks or more.

B, finally! :angel: I pray for a quick recovery. Godspeed brother.

We might also want to discuss the difference between Dispensationalism and Hyper-Dispensationalism.

 

[jgredline]

OK, I will work on my Hebrews translation for you...I really need to start saving my work in word, because I seem to be re writing allot of the same things over and over again...Oh, Well...I need the typing practice....

First let me make a couple of points as far as my beliefs...
1) I love the OT and I believe it is God giving us a picture of what is in the NT...I have spent more time in OT over the years as opposed to the NT..
Jesus came not to abolish the Law but to keep the law....Jesus was speaking of spiritual laws...

2) I believe that a part of worshiping all mighty God is to live by and keep all of his commandments including the 10...Keeping the commandments of God has no bearing on ones salvation...

3) While there are many things in the OT that we can and should apply to our lives and to the church, there are certain things that are meant only for ''Israel''...We can start with the prophetic books to begin with....

4) We do live on this side of the cross.....

5) If one wants to apply the the things that were meant for israel to the church, then I suggest ''break out the lamb for the sacrifice''

Historically, Leviticus was the sequel to Exodus, for the Levitical sacrificial system was a divine revelation to Israel given through Moses as a part of the covenant obligation at Sinai...

Ok, I will now work on my interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 for you...And yes, it can apply to the church today, but much of Hebrews can not...

 

[Vic C.]

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeheb6.htm

 

[Veritas]

hmm... I always figured if we have the books of the Bible...it must be for us. :smt102

 

[Vic C.]

For us, yes; about us... not all. ;-) I'm not a Dispie like AV, but I do believe there are at least two dispensations. Can you guess what they are? :

 

[mondar]

For a jumping off point, I'd like to see what Books, passages, texts and verses that Dispensationalists divide into being for Jews and for the Church. I must admit to being gobsmacked to find that some on this board view the Book of Hebrews, a book I find to be one of the most encouraging of the New Testament to be a book for the Jews rather than the Body. I was also surprised to see that some seem, just seem to me mind you, to write the Book of Life off as somehow being Jewish instead of the book in which All saved are written.

So, there's a lot for discussion right there.

As mentioned by others above, there are many kinds of dispensationalists, so I do not speak for all dispensationalists. Neither do they speak for me.

As for your question as to what passages are for Jews and what passages for the Church, I would say that all passages in the scriptures are for both groups. However, I would not agree that all passages are to both groups. You might want to rephrase your question. Material in Deuteronomy, Leviticus I would see as commands directed to Israel. Do you have any more specific questions? A certain passage?

I would see Hebrews as for the Church.

 

[Vic C.]

For instance Craig, Javier brought up a good example with the animal sacrifices. Another one is yearly atonement for sins. There's plenty of more, just look into Levitical Law for starters. If you don't believe we are bound to the things I just mentioned, then you too, believe in at least two dispensations.

 

[mondar]

Handy -

One thing with the dispensationalist view is that it has modified itself over the years.

There is classical, neo, new, etc etc.

While I have not kept up on my readings in regards to it, I tend agree more with 'covenant theology" than dispensationalism.

For this reason it might be good to closely define dispensationalism. I think I fit into a more classical system of dispensationalism. I would see myself as to the far futurist side of interpretation. I would see progressive dispensationalism as a slight bit more preteristic.

 

[cyberjosh]

Covenant Theology would be an excellent study and one I would dive into, but I'm a novice at it.

Recently, over the last month, this is almost all I have been studying on. I've realized the vast theme of the Covenant in the OT and how it carries over into the NT. The terms mercy, lovingkindness, faithfulness, and truth (meaning truthfulness to keep the covenant - not an astract value of "truth") are all covenant terms. Mercy/Lovingkindness is hesed (the largest covenant concept word - meaning to have gracious mercy & love to fulfill covenant promises) and it is present in the verse (which the NT quotes) which says, "I desire mercy (hesed) and not sacrifice". Covenant Theology should be required, I don't know why I never learned it earlier! Perhaps it is for the mature in the faith to carefully study and understand, but I thank God he has revealed this to me!

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I don't even know what Dispensationalist Theology is, per se. I mean I know what the word means, but could someone explain to me the beliefs held by this view?

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

Josh,

Here are your 7 "classic" Biblical Dispensations.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=535

 

[mondar]

I don't even know what Dispensationalist Theology is, per se. I mean I know what the word means, but could someone explain to me the beliefs held by this view?

Thanks,

~Josh

That would be a big job. This format might be difficult to discuss dispensationalism. Nevertheless, we can start to try.

Charles Ryrie first began to define dispy theology in his book "dispensationalism today." Its later editions are simply called "dispensationalism." In the book, Ryrie states the "sin qua non" of dispensationalism in 3 points. In my opinion the first point of his sin qua non is the most important. The point is that the terms Church (ekklesia) and Israel must be kept separate in our understanding.

Dispensational theology generally looks at the covenants and prophecies in a futuristic way. Opposed to this is "replacement" theology which is often "preteristic." In other words other theologies would see passages such as Matthew 24 as fulfilled.

There were debates on subjects like this by Tommy Ice and Gary Demar. The can be downloaded for free on Tommy Ices web page. Sorry, I forget the name of his organization... I think it might be the Pretrib study group.

Some on this thread are pointing out that the concept of a dispensation is not exclusive to dispensationalists. That is true. Charles Hodge used the term in his classic work on systematic theology. Many non-dispensationalists see different dispensations, but they still are to a degree semi-preteristic in their view of prophecy.

I know this is no final answer to defining dispensationalism, but I hope it helps.

 

[jgredline]

That would be a big job. This format might be difficult to discuss dispensationalism. Nevertheless, we can start to try.

Charles Ryrie first began to define dispy theology in his book "dispensationalism today." Its later editions are simply called "dispensationalism." In the book, Ryrie states the "sin qua non" of dispensationalism in 3 points. In my opinion the first point of his sin qua non is the most important. The point is that the terms Church (ekklesia) and Israel must be kept separate in our understanding.

Dispensational theology generally looks at the covenants and prophecies in a futuristic way. Opposed to this is "replacement" theology which is often "preteristic." In other words other theologies would see passages such as Matthew 24 as fulfilled.

There were debates on subjects like this by Tommy Ice and Gary Demar. The can be downloaded for free on Tommy Ices web page. Sorry, I forget the name of his organization... I think it might be the Pretrib study group.

Some on this thread are pointing out that the concept of a dispensation is not exclusive to dispensationalists. That is true. Charles Hodge used the term in his classic work on systematic theology. Many non-dispensationalists see different dispensations, but they still are to a degree semi-preteristic in their view of prophecy.

I know this is no final answer to defining dispensationalism, but I hope it helps.

Very good mondar...As I logged in, I came in to write a small piece on ''dispy'' theology...So I can only further add to this...Keep in mind that many people will have a different view on this and what it means...

Vic mentioned ''hyper dispy'' and another Covenant theology so there is much ground to cover....

I will start of with what I consider myself to be...By the definition of the word, I would consider my self as a person who believes in 2 dispensations...I believe that God deals with Israel differently than he deals with the Church...Not quite OT vs NT but more like Judges and kings...When a Judge sinned, only the judge was punished, when a King sinned all of Israel suffered....

A hyper dispy ''IMO'' is usually one who believes that Scripture has all been fulfilled...Mondar did a good job of describing it..They believe that the gifts all ceased at the end of the first century church....They are also preterits in their beliefs which means no rapture...Most are also Hyper Calvinist or 5 point Calvinist, but not all...

Now most people who are true dispy's will also take the scriptures and make them cut and dry...In other words, the OT does not apply to us to today...
I don't hold this view....

Well, I have a customer here waiting, so I have to cut this short..Perhaps others can add to this...

 

[handy]

Josh,

For a more comprehensive study on Dispensationalism, you can Google it and get a lot of information. But, since we all have lives and probably don't spend all day every day on-line, here's a brief outline of the theology, and what prompted me to start this study:

Dispensationalism is a form of theology that divides God’s workings with and revelations to men in distinct ages or ‘dispensations’. John Nelson Darby, a Plymouth Brethren minister is known as the father of modern Dispensationalism. Many well-known and respected Biblical scholars such as C.I. Scofield, Dwight Moody, Lewis Sperry Chaffer, and Charles Ryrie are dispensationalists. Many of our best seminaries and bible colleges such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute and Biola University all teach Dispensationalism.

While Darby is the undisputed “father†of Dispensationalism, it was Scofield who developed the framework of the 7 Dispensations. His Scofield Reference Bible is probably the most influential work regarding Dispensationalism.

The Scofield Reference Bible lists the 7 Dispensations as thus:
Innocence (prior to the fall)
Conscience (from Adam to Noah)
Government (from Noah to Abraham)
Patriarchal Rule (Abraham to Moses)
Mosiac Law (Moses to Christ)
Grace (Acts 2:4-Revelations 20:3)
Millennial Kingdom (Christ’s return for 1000 years)

According to Scofield “"These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind, in respect to two questions: of sin, and of man's responsibility. Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgmentâ€â€marking his utter failure in every dispensation."

Key to Dispensationalism is the idea of the pre-Millennial rapture of the church and the idea that the church is separate from Israel. According to dispensationalists the church was not part of the Old Testament and no prophesies regarding Israel can be considered fulfilled by the church. Thus, Dispensationalism teaches that there is a separation between Spiritual Israel and the Nation Israel. All prophesies and promises that can be applied to Spiritual Israel can be applied to the Church, but there are prophesies for the nation Israel that cannot. I believe it is this separation of the church and Israel that is at the heart of why some believe that certain prophesies and texts are for Israel and cannot be applied to the church.

Many may not know this, but before Dispensationialism arrived, there was no such teaching as a pre-Tribulation rapture of the church. Up until then, all Christian theology taught that the church will go through the Tribulation. Under Dispensationialism, the Tribulation is what refines the nation of Israel, and during the Millennial reign of Christ, the nation of Israel will then be restored or ‘grafted’ back in with Christ.

Myself, I suscribe to there being just two ‘dispensations’ Old Covenant, with the sign and seal of the covenant being circumcision and New Covenant with the sign and seal being Baptism. I learned the ‘official’ word for this theology is Supersessionism. There are two different views of Supersessionism, Hard and Soft. Soft-Supersessionism teaches that while the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant, Jews who do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah still have a part in the covenant. Hard-Supersessionism teaches that Jews who reject Jesus are no longer a part of any covenant. I guess this makes me a Hard-Supersessionist. Sounds kind of stern and Puritanical, but I must admit I think that when Jesus said, “Whoever is not for Me is against Me†and “If you deny Me, I will deny you†He meant exactly that.


One thing we need to keep in mind is that there are not two schools of thought regarding Biblical theology: Dispensationalism and Supersessionism. There are many doctrines out there most combining aspects of each other. Covenant Theology can cover a range of ideas of just how many covenants there were, Dispensationalists have sub-groups that divide over the dispensations. There are 'hypers' in all the theological doctrines, those who think that the hard-line application of their own theological interpretion is the ONLY truth and MUST be followed.

With such a broad range of theology out there then, in order to keep this thread from roaming all over the place, I'd like to try to keep it on one main theme, that being:

How does Dispensationalism divide the Scriptures into what was written TO the nation of Israel, and what was written TO the Church.

I think we can all agree that the Old Testament laws regarding sacrifices were part of either a: the Old Covenant or b: the Mosaic Dispensation, therefore we probably don't need to refer a lot to Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

What I'm far more interested in is how Dispensationalist look at the New Testament and the prophesies in the Old Testament that can be taken to mean either the Nation of Israel or the Church.