Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Answering the "Replacement Theology" Critics (Part 1)
American Vision ^ | 10/7/2005 | Gary DeMar

Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54

Replacement theology has become dispensationalism's latest prophetic boogeyman. If you want to end a debate over eschatology, just charge your opponent with holding to replacement theology. What is “replacement theology,” sometimes called “supersessionism,” and why do dispensationalists accuse non-dispensationalists of holding it? Here’s a typical dispensational definition:

Replacement Theology: a theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).1

“Replacement theology” is dispensationalism’s trump card in any debate over eschatology because it implies anti-semitism. Hal Lindsey attempted to use this card in his poorly researched and argued The Road to Holocaust.2 He wove an innovative tale implying that anyone who is not a dispensationalist carries the seeds of anti-semitism within his or her prophetic system. This would mean that every Christian prior to 1830 would have been theologically anti-semitic although not personally anti-semtic.

As Peter Leithart and I point out in The Legacy of Hatred Continues,3 it’s dispensationalists who hold to a form of replacement theology since they believe that Israel does not have any prophetic significance this side of the rapture! Prior to the rapture, in terms of dispensational logic, the Church has replaced Israel. This is unquestionably true since God’s prophetic plan for Israel has been postponed until the prophetic time clock starts ticking again at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week which starts only after the Church is taken to heaven in the so-called rapture. Until then, God is dealing redemptively with the Church. Am I making this up? Consider the following by dispensationalist E. Schuyler English:

An intercalary4 period of history, after Christ’s death and resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has intervened. This is the present age, the Church age. . . . During this time God has not been dealing with Israel nationally, for they have been blinded concerning God’s mercy in Christ. . . . However, God will again deal with Israel as a nation. This will be in Daniel’s seventieth week, a seven-year period yet to come.5

According to English and every other dispensationalist, the Church has replaced Israel until the rapture. The unfulfilled promises made to Israel are not fulfilled until after the Church is taken off the earth. Thomas Ice, one of dispensationalism’s rising stars, admits that the Church replaces Israel this side of the rapture: “We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’”6

Dispensationalists claim that their particular brand of eschatology is the only prophetic system that gives Israel her proper place in redemptive history. This is an odd thing to argue since two-thirds of the Jews will be slaughtered during the post-rapture tribulation, and the world will be nearly destroyed. Charles Ryrie writes in his book The Best is Yet to Come that during this post-rapture period Israel will undergo “the worst bloodbath in Jewish history.”7 The book’s title doesn’t seem to very appropriate considering that during this period of time most of the Jews will die! John Walvoord follows a similar line of argument: “Israel is destined to have a particular time of suffering which will eclipse any thing that it has known in the past. . . . [T]he people of Israel . . . are placing themselves within the vortex of this future whirlwind which will destroy the majority of those living in the land of Palestine.”8 Arnold Fruchtenbaum states that during the Great Tribulation “Israel will suffer tremendous persecution (Matthew 24:15–28; Revelation 12:1–17). As a result of this persecution of the Jewish people, two-thirds are going to be killed.”9

During the time when Israel seems to be at peace with the world, she is really under the domination of the antichrist who will turn on her at the mid-point in the seven-year period. Israel waits more than 2000 years for the promises finally to be fulfilled, and before it happens, two-thirds of them are wiped out. Those who are charged with holding a “replacement theology viewpoint” believe in no inevitable future Jewish bloodbath. In fact, we believe that the Jews will inevitably embrace Jesus as the Messiah this side of the Second Coming. The fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8 is a past event. It may have had its fulfillment in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Contrary to dispensationalism’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus' disciples warned the Jewish nation for nearly forty years about the impending judgment (Matt. 3:7; 21:42–46; 22:1–14; 24:15–22). Those who believed Jesus’ words of warning were delivered “from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). Those who continued to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah, even though they had been warned for a generation (Matt. 24:34), “wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1 Thess. 2:16; cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–11; 2 Pet. 3:10–13).

Before critics of replacement theology throw stones, they need to take a look at their own prophetic system and see its many lapses in theology and logic.

Read Part Two of this article...


1. Randall Price, Unholy War: America, Israel and Radical Islam (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001), 412.

2. Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989). The address for Bantam Books is 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.

3. Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1989).

4. Inserted into the calendar.

5. E. Schuyler English, A Companion to the New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 135.

6. Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God,” The Thomas Ice Collection: www.raptureready.com/featured/TheIsraelOfGod.html#_edn3

7. Charles C. Ryrie, The Best is Yet to Come (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), 86.

8. John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 107, 113. Emphasis added.

9. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Little Apocalypse of Zechariah,” The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 262.


Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.

Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: arafat; covenants; dispensationalism; eschatology; replacementtheology; wtf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,901-1,941 next last
To: 1000 silverlings

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

non-responsive


51 posted on 10/31/2007 1:20:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54

“Was the Garden of Eden a unique period of time in the bible?”

I think it was unique, but not in the way you think, if I understand where you’re going with this.

My understanding is the word “dispensation” in the Bible means administration. You mentioned Eph. 1:10: “to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”

That’s the NIV translation, “into effect” or “dispensed” or “administered.”

To my knowledge at least, the other verses that contain the word “dispensation” (and there aren’t many of them) don’t concern time at all.


52 posted on 10/31/2007 4:02:29 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

So, you agree that Eden was a unique period of time.

Good.

What word would you use to describe “unique period of time?”


53 posted on 10/31/2007 8:19:47 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thanks for the ping to this engaging sidebar, dear brother in Christ!


54 posted on 10/31/2007 9:11:59 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54

It was unique because it was before the fall. Not a “dispensation” as you believe. We were all born in Adam but we are born again in Christ by faith alone (Romans 5:12).

There have been only two covenants, works and grace, and there is and has always been only ONE olive tree (Romans 11).

The belief of dispensationalism that there are two separate peoples of God and, therefore, two plans for salvation I believe is totally unbiblical. God saved a remnant of Jewish believers, those who had the spirit of Christ within them. The NT gentile believers were an expansion of that remnant.


55 posted on 10/31/2007 10:08:06 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager; BibChr; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan

You still are not seeing the point.

You have agreed that “Eden” is a separate period in the Bible.

I could ask what things made it separate.

Instead, I asked what you would name the phenomenon of “a separate period” in the Bible.

What would you name that kind of defined period?


56 posted on 11/01/2007 3:20:55 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It’s very like talking with a Roman Catholic, isn’t it? Try to talk Bible, and all you get is unshakable dogma.


57 posted on 11/01/2007 4:02:37 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

Eph 1:10 clearly uses the term oikonomia in the broader sense of “economy.” There really is little doubt of that.

The reality of separate periods of time revealed in the Bible’s survey of religious history cannot be denied.

Am I the one who’s being stubborn here???


58 posted on 11/01/2007 5:03:33 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Nope. Earlier systematicians and theologians had no hesitation in using “dispensation” to describe the differing stewardship-arrangements that are undeniable in Scripture. It’s only now, with the deadly-earnest commitment to preserve an unbiblical tradition against its Biblical challenger, that scoffers shrink from its use.

The irony: dispensations are not the distinguishing aspect of dispensationalism, any more than the rapture. ALL CHRISTIANS affirm dispensations, as ALL CHRISTIANS affirm the rapture.


59 posted on 11/01/2007 5:25:35 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BibChr; xzins; tabsternager
Earlier systematicians and theologians had no hesitation in using “dispensation” to describe the differing stewardship-arrangements that are undeniable in Scripture.

Not sure how early you are talking about, but the common usage (if there was one) had to do with the distinction between what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Westminster Confession has this language:

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (Chapter 7)

The Westminsterian position is that there is one covenant of grace under two "dispensations", the Old and New Testaments. Thus it was common to speak of the "New Testament dispensation".

I know of no use of that term different from which agrees with the dispensational view Westminster prior to the appearance of JN Darby. E.g., no one before Darby would have made a theological distinction between the "dispensation of Noah" and the "dispensation of Moses".

But if you have some specific reference, I would enjoy seeing it.

ALL CHRISTIANS affirm dispensations, as ALL CHRISTIANS affirm the rapture.

Most Christians affirm the concept of "dispensations" as described above by Westminster. All orthodox Christians affirm the second coming of Christ. We have no need to differentiate what the moderns have come to call the "rapture", which usually is qualified with the words "pre-trib" by those who use it extensively.

60 posted on 11/01/2007 7:05:25 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Read Ryrie’s first edition of “Dispensationalism Today.”

That’s my only planned interchange with you on this topic for the rest of the year, and I expect you to make me regret it. But if you wanted an answer, you’d now have it.


61 posted on 11/01/2007 7:07:36 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; BibChr; xzins; tabsternager
Sorry, this statement got jumbled: I know of no use of that term different from Westminster which agrees with the dispensational view prior to the appearance of JN Darby.
62 posted on 11/01/2007 7:07:36 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

I’ll dust off my copy. I not sure if I have a first edition. DOes it matter?


63 posted on 11/01/2007 7:08:40 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BibChr; xzins

***It’s very like talking with a Roman Catholic, isn’t it? Try to talk Bible, and all you get is unshakable dogma.***

That is because the issue is not are there seperate dispensations as the WHOLE church has understood the word, but is the theology, eschatology, and method of Bible slicing of Dispensationalism Biblical. Therefore, you must answer the charge, not simply ignore it and focus on something which you think you can get agreement.


64 posted on 11/01/2007 7:19:47 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

The level of dirt ignorance is amusing, but not interesting.


65 posted on 11/01/2007 7:35:25 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

LOL!


66 posted on 11/01/2007 8:10:19 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; tabsternager

tabsternager acknowledges that Eden is a separate period of time. To be fair with him, he did not agree with more than that. Do you agree with him?


67 posted on 11/01/2007 8:12:22 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

The issue is that there are separate eras/periods/epochs/whatever-you-want-to-call-them clearly evident in the Bible’s review of religious history.

Do you agree with that?


68 posted on 11/01/2007 8:15:01 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Let me repeat myself....

the issue is not are there seperate dispensations as the WHOLE church has understood the word, but is the theology, eschatology, and method of Bible slicing of Dispensationalism Biblical. You must answer the charge, not simply ignore it and focus on something which you think you can get agreement.


69 posted on 11/01/2007 8:17:39 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

It sounds to me like you are agreeing that separate epochs/eras/etc. do exist.

Good. I agree with that.

Now, do you agree that God was in charge during the “era” of Eden?


70 posted on 11/01/2007 8:49:41 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xzins; tabsternager
tabsternager acknowledges that Eden is a separate period of time. To be fair with him, he did not agree with more than that. Do you agree with him?

It was not a "separate period of time", since Adam lived before and after the fall.

The Westminster Confession distinguishes between the covenant of works that was operative before man’s fall and the covenant of grace after the fall. I agree with that distinction.

I also agree with the distinction, even "dispensation", of the old covenant and the new covenant, both being "dispensations" of the one covenant of grace.

In the future there will be eternity, the new heavens and new earth, where the righteous will dwell in their resurrection state.

Beyond that I do not admit to any useful, biblical distinctions in God’s salvation program.

71 posted on 11/01/2007 8:53:01 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; BibChr; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan
It was not a "separate period of time", since Adam lived before and after the fall.

You've given your answer. You don't consider The Garden of Eden to be a separate period of time.

Personally, I think there was a clear beginning and ending mentioned in the Bible itself.

I really don't see how we can continue discussing the Bible together.

You seem to be using a method of analysis and interpretation other than the evidence presented by the text.

It's been interesting discussing with you.

72 posted on 11/01/2007 9:01:54 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54; Lord_Calvinus

Here’s an interesting quote I’m sure you’re familiar with:

“As a dispensation, GRACE BEGINS with the death and resurrection of Christ....THE POINT OF TESTING IS NO LONGER LEGAL OBEDIENCE AS THE CONDITION OF SALVATION, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation” — C.I. Scofield Scofield Reference Bible, p.1115

Do you agree with that quote? If you do, where in the Bible is there support for that belief (chapter and verse, please)?


73 posted on 11/01/2007 9:12:36 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

I’ve never read Schofield before, so I don’t know if you’ve left anything out of the quote with the “....” between Christ and THE POINT.

Are there missing words?


74 posted on 11/01/2007 9:20:12 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: xzins

***It sounds to me like you are agreeing that separate epochs/eras/etc. do exist.***

You will have to define your terms.


75 posted on 11/01/2007 9:34:23 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54

“tabsternager acknowledges that Eden is a separate period of time.”

Maybe my answer wasn’t clear.

Again, I’m no scholar, but I think it was a unique time before the fall because man was without sin.

But since the fall, there has always been only one plan of salvation and one people of God, and it’s always been by faith alone.

I hope that’s clearer now.


76 posted on 11/01/2007 9:41:38 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

Do you agree that Eden is a separate era/period/epoch/age/etc?

Meaning simply “is it a distinctive period of time?”


77 posted on 11/01/2007 9:45:35 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Again, you need to define your terms.


78 posted on 11/01/2007 9:48:05 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

I’m simply asking if it is a distinctive period of time. I think it was. I think in the case of Eden that it had a clear beginning and ending.

Who do you think was in charge during the period of the Garden of Eden?


79 posted on 11/01/2007 9:48:58 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: xzins; tabsternager; Lord_Calvinus
You've given your answer. You don't consider The Garden of Eden to be a separate period of time.

Correct, given my interpretation of the question.

Personally, I think there was a clear beginning and ending mentioned in the Bible itself.

There is a clear beginning and ending to many things in the Bible. There was a beginning and ending to the life of Abraham. There was a beginning and ending to the exile of Israel in Egypt. There was a beginning and ending to the wanderings in Sinai. There was a beginning and ending to the time of the Judges. There was a beginning and ending to Babylonian exile. There was a beginning and ending to the time of the minor prophets.

Perhaps I’m missing something by your use of the phrase "separate period of time". Are you speaking of something like an era or age? Like the Middle Ages? Or the Victorian Era?

There is a sense in which the Victorian Era is different from our own, but that does not make it a "separate period of time".

The point you are trying to make is very cloudy, perhaps because you lack biblical support.

I really don't see how we can continue discussing the Bible together.

We were discussing the theories of dispensationalism, which on this subject have little to do with the Bible. E.g., can you show me from the Bible where seven dispensations are delinieated using Bible principles as opposed to the theories of Darby and Scofield?

You seem to be using a method of analysis and interpretation other than the evidence presented by the text.

Hardly.

It's been interesting discussing with you.

What discussion? We never really got there because you were just looking for me to fall into a trap.

But here’s a proposal. Let’s take up the proposition: Dispensationalists use the word "dispensation" in the same way the Bible uses the term.

80 posted on 11/01/2007 9:49:10 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: xzins; tabsternager
Who do you think was in charge during the period of the Garden of Eden?

In charge of what? The universe? Sustaining life? Maintaining order among the hosts of heaven? Naming of the animals? Procreating?

You need to be more clear with your questions.

81 posted on 11/01/2007 9:52:34 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I don’t really care how big or small the period of time is. I’m simply interested in whether you consider it a separate period of time.

You have said that you don’t.

If you don’t, I don’t really see much point in continuing the conversation. There is no basis of agreeing on simple facts presented in the Bible.

I don’t really care if you’re concerned with falling into some kind of trap. The facts of the bible are what they are, and one’s theology would have to be really flaky for them to have it blown up by simple biblical facts.

82 posted on 11/01/2007 9:54:41 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: xzins; tabsternager; Lord_Calvinus
Here's the entire quote:
(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Rom 3:24-26 4:24,25. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, Jn 1:12,13 3:36 Mt 21:37 22:24 Jn 15:22,25 Heb 1:2 1Jn 5:10-12. The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27. The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" See Scofield Note: "2Tim 3:1" 2Tim 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.

83 posted on 11/01/2007 9:56:12 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Everything.


84 posted on 11/01/2007 9:56:16 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

***Perhaps I’m missing something by your use of the phrase “separate period of time”. Are you speaking of something like an era or age? Like the Middle Ages? Or the Victorian Era?***

Bingo. He really needs to define his terms.


85 posted on 11/01/2007 9:57:24 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: xzins; tabsternager; Lord_Calvinus
I’ve never read Schofield before

From just the Bible then, How many "dispensations" are there?

86 posted on 11/01/2007 9:58:26 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Obvious Scofield was one twisted dude.


87 posted on 11/01/2007 9:58:34 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I don’t have a Scofield reference Bible either (nor would I ever buy one). The quote can be found by googling it. It’s on both pro and con dispensational sites.

I went back to another site and found that this is the part that was missing: “(Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25).”

Which, by the way, don’t support Scofield’s supposition.

Again, the question is about the “Period of Grace.” Do you agree with that statement (i.e. “The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ”)?


88 posted on 11/01/2007 10:00:28 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Looks like you beat me to it. Thanks.


89 posted on 11/01/2007 10:01:28 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; tabsternager; Lord_Calvinus

No, I probably wouldn’t agree with it at this point. Like I’ve said, I’m not a Schofield scholar. Without some discussion with him, my first take on it is that I don’t like the use of the word “testing.”


90 posted on 11/01/2007 10:03:03 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BibChr; xzins; tabsternager; Lord_Calvinus
The irony: dispensations are not the distinguishing aspect of dispensationalism, any more than the rapture.

Curious, then why call yourselves dispensationalists? What more appropriate label might you apply to distinguish it from other Christian doctrinal systems?

(I realize Dan won’t respond, so anyone can take a crack at it.)

91 posted on 11/01/2007 10:03:34 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Yeah, Dan looks like he is in a bad mood. I don’t have any discussion with him in perhaps a year and his first post to me is nasty.


92 posted on 11/01/2007 10:08:13 AM PDT by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus; topcat54

Yep, I’m pretty sure Dan thinks you both are pinheads.

(In the lovable sense that O’Reilly uses it.)


93 posted on 11/01/2007 10:11:26 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Lord_Calvinus
Yeah, Dan looks like he is in a bad mood. I don’t have any discussion with him in perhaps a year and his first post to me is nasty.

Yep, I’m pretty sure Dan thinks you both are pinheads.

Dan and I have had our disagreements over the years on the subject of dispensationalism. He generally prefers not to engage me directly, which is a shame because he is one of the few knowledgeable, articulate dispies on FR.

I read Dan’s columns regularly on Team Pyro. He’s one of those true anomalies, a Calvinistic (albeit Baptistic) dispensationalist. "Seven dispensations" and "five solas", or "Calvidispiebaptogelical" is the way he puts it.

If by "pinhead" you mean a confessional, Reformed Christian, then I plead guilty.

94 posted on 11/01/2007 11:43:53 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“No, I probably wouldn’t agree with it at this point.”

Good. Yet it’s a dispensationalist view.


95 posted on 11/01/2007 11:58:02 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

As I’ve said, I’d have to discuss with him what he means by “testing.”

A presidential administration is an administering whether there’s any “testing” of the population or not.


96 posted on 11/01/2007 2:37:17 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“no longer LEGAL OBEDIENCE as the condition of salvation”

Scofield is clearly saying that before Christ, before the “period of grace,” people were saved if they were obedient to the law.

So did obedience to the law ever save anybody, or was it always by faith?


97 posted on 11/01/2007 3:43:17 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tabsternager

You ignore Schofield and other dispensationalists saying elsewhere that salvation has always been by faith.

The law, however, was imposed as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.

And the truth is that anyone who DID observe the law in all points would be saved.

That actually happened.

Once.


98 posted on 11/02/2007 4:24:08 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain. True support of the troops means praying for US to WIN the war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54

“You ignore Schofield and other dispensationalists saying elsewhere that salvation has always been by faith.”

Sorry but “no longer legal obedience as THE condition of salvation” can only be taken one way.

I’m sure most dispensationalists would not agree with that statement. But it was the Scofield Bible that made dispensationalism popular.

Since dispensationalism began with Darby in the 1830s, that means that for 1800 years all of the Christians who were guided by the Holy Spirit were all so completely wrong.


99 posted on 11/02/2007 6:36:43 AM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And the truth is that anyone who DID observe the law in all points would be saved.

I don’t think this is possible.
Rom 5:13-14 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Notice here that sin is not imputed to the people that lived from Adam to Moses. They were not held responsible for their sins, yet they still died. It is death that indicated that they died in sin, (Adam’s sin) because the wages of sin is death. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. (Rom 5:20)
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
That actually happened.

Once.

In Adam, all die but Christ is a special case, perhaps because he had a different father.

Seven
100 posted on 11/04/2007 12:58:01 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,901-1,941 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson