"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Posted on 11/04/2007 1:26:45 PM PST by topcat54
Ever seen a Picasso? Ever tried to understand a "cubist" painting? It’s a lot like trying to understand Dispensational thinking. Here's a gem for you, in response to a Reformed critique of Dispensationalism. This is the defense that was given:
”The dispensationalist’s answer to the problem is this: The BASIS of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith; the OBJECT of faith in every age is God; the CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations.”Now, folks, what is the sound of one hand clapping? Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it? Can God make a rock he cant move? And for more such silly sayings consult your local irrationalist bookstore---the one on every street corner.
"Dispensationalism Today” Charles Ryrie pg 123.
This is the age of pure nonsense. How any individual who takes language seriously can make such a statement is incredible. I don't know what Ryrie was like as a theologian, but I do know he did not know the Queen's english--or any facsimile thereof.
Let us analyze this silly prose and see what it means. The word BASIS in English means base, reason or essence. So far we can agree with Dr. Ryrie. The essence of salvation is the work of Christ. Salvation is Christocentric. Then he goes on to say, the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith. Yup, excellent. We, NEED to have faith in the Christ of Scripture. Now, note, this is in EVERY age according to Ryrie. Then he says the OBJECT of faith in every age is God. Ummm, ok, if by that he means "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." Strictly speaking the object of faith is the God-man Christ Jesus. But, we can live with that.
Here it comes, are you ready? The CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations. HUH!? The word "content" means significance. So in each dispensation the significance of faith is different. In every dispensation we believe in God, the essence of our faith is Christ, and faith is essential, BUT in every dispensation the CONTENT changes. Have you ever heard such torturous nonsense.
Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie. The BASIS of apple pie is apples. The REQUIREMENT for apple pie are apples. The OBJECT of apple pie is to be eaten. BUT the CONTENT of apple pie changes from dispensation to dispensation. Now, do you see what I mean by trying to understand Picasso?
You, see the point of Dispensationalism, is that it is not meant to be understood--only believed. No matter how silly or irrational. Jesus is to be felt, and entered into a relationship with, not known and believed. Besides belief comes from the heart not the head, and anyway don't you see all the signs. These must be the "last days" cause of all the earthquakes and stuff. Can millions of dispensationalists be wrong?
I don't know--ask the Mormons. So some poor Reformed guy, who sincerely but foolishly believes he can reason with dispensationalists comes back and says,
Personally, I am leaning further and further away from this idea and more and more to the idea that the content was always the same “Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death”What an incredibly rational thing to say. As though somehow the ESSENCE and OBJECT of our faith can be different from the CONTENT of our faith. (You see our dear Reformed budding-buddy, is beginning to realize that these words are just synonyms for each other--the same thing stated in a slightly different way, each time, to emphasize a different point.) So, he says what any good fledgling Reformed Christian says--Jesus is the answer. But he misses the point. He's trying to REASON with dispensationalists. Remember, these are the same people who have believed every false prophet who has come down the pike when dates were set for the 2nd coming. Let's see, first it was 1988, then 1994, then 1998. And besides Hal Lindsay says "one generation" from the birth of Israel as a nation. Oops, that's only 40 years, and that would mean 1988. Oh, well, Hal just mispoke himself, he MEANT to say "from the retaking of Jerusalem by the Jews in 1967". Wow, that was a close one---at least now, Hal has got until 2007 to sell his books--or get married AGAIN.
You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW. You must proclaim the gospel to them. Am I saying dispensationalists are not saved? God forbid! There are many wonderful Christian people who are dispensationalists--but they are Christians in spite of themselves. Blessed inconsistency! They, if truly logical, (like Spock logical) SHOULD NOT be Christians. Why? Because, Jesus WAS trying to subvert the state and establish an earthly kingdom. He DID break the Law of God. Therefore, his death did not atone. The Jews were justified in crucifying him.
Now, in finality, notice the dispensational retort,
What did Abraham understand about “Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death”? How could it have been the content of faith for him? I don’t understand your statement at all.And, sadly that is the whole point. Because they deny the unity of Scripture but instead chop it up into 7, no 9,--or is it 3? Dispensations, they just cannot see how any Old Testament saint like Abraham could have known Jesus Christ. And this saddest of all is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Pray for dispensationalists.
John 8:54-59
Jesus replied, "If I honor myself, it would mean nothing. My Father is the one who honors me. You claim that he is your God, even though you don't really know him. If I said I didn't know him, I would be a liar, just like all of you. But I know him, and I do what he says. Your father Abraham was really glad to see me." You are not yet fifty years old?", they said. "How could you have seen Abraham?" (CEV)
Dispensationalists ask of Abraham the same question today. "How could you have known Christ". They will get the same answer, by FAITH. One God, one covenant, one faith, one saviour.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
“you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist...”
Ain’t that the truth.
Good article. Thanks.
What exactly is the basis of the arguments on dispensationalism?
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.
AMEN!
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28
What is dispensationalism? by John MacArthur.
A Study of Dispensationalism by Arthur W. Pink.
Short answer: seven (or more) dispensations or times of "testing" wrt God’s salvation program; radical distinction between Israel (God’s earthly people) and the Church (God’s heavenly people); radical discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament; future personal antichrist and "great tribulation" where many if not most of the earth’s inhabitants are killed, including most Jews living in Israel; secret pre-tribulational rapture (i.e., rapture is distinct from the orthodox second coming); Jewish millennium ("thousand years" of Revelation 20) after Christ’s second coming with Christ physically reigning over the earth from a throne in earthly Jerusalem; future rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and reinstitution of the Levitical/sacrificial system.
It has been denounced by most historic protestant denominations, especially Lutheran and Reformed. Closely akin to such heretical views as Christian Zionism (ala John Hagee) and dual covenantalism. Also seems to have an odd relationship to messianic Judaism.
So Left Behind in other words?
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.
Israel =/= the church. That is the root assumption, defended at all costs. All else flows from that.
Historically it dates from the 1830s, from an English Plymouth Brethren theologian named J. N. Darby.
As far as the eschatology, with the charts and all, Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth of one of the Left Behind novels are available at fine garage sales everywhere. Ah, yes. Amazon lists Late Grate as " 126 Used & new from $0.01". Left Lying Around "623 Used & new from $0.01".
You got it.
Makes sense, so its a theology that Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Traditional Protestant (not modern mainline Protestant) would take a look at and disagree with.
so its a theology that Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Traditional Protestant would take a look at and disagree with.Pretty much.
Here's a linky to a representative statement. Their objections are pretty much mine.
(not modern mainline Protestant)
I spent a couple hours once scouring WCC denominational websites for their statements of faith, specifically looking for eschatological positions. Most don't appear to believe much of anything at all. It's a dogmatic stretch for them to say Jesus is coming back.
That was what I was implying, not that mainline Protestants believe in Dispensationalism, but they don’t necessary believe in the essentials of Christianity in the first place.
That's correct. Any denomination that subscribes to the ecumenical creeds with its very simple and straightforward wording about Christ’s return would think that dispensationalism is a radical departure from the historic position.
"He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen." (Athanasian Creed)
**If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated.***
I would be willing to try.
Jesus is crucified, buried and resurected. He is the true king of Israel.
The Apostles preach this so that Israel can experience “the times of refreshing” and then Christ is to return during the destruction of Jerusalem and fulfill the prophecies in the OT, while setting up his world kingdom.
Israel rejects Jesus as the Mesiah. The promise of the kingdom and Israel is set aside and the word of God goes to the Gentiles. The age of Grace begins.
In the future, “the age of grace” will end and the believers will be “raptured” up to be with the Lord before, during, or after the tribulation (take your choice).
Israel then makes a seven year peace treaty with the “anti-Christ” which he then breaks. Wars begin against Israel.
God will then begin again to fulfill all the promises made to Israel in the past and Jesus will return at the destruction of Jerusalem and destroy those invaders.
Then begins the kingdom with Christ as King ruling out of Jerusalem. After one thousand years Satan is released from the botomless pit for one last battle then the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven and everyone lives happily after after except the followers of Satan who are cast into the lake of fire.
Whew. Confusing, isn’t it.
My thoughts is we should live as if Christ was going to return tomorrow and not worry or speculate about what is to happen after that.
For what it is worth FRiend, most of the Calvinists and other Traditional Reformed (Lutherans, Church of England derivatives, etc) get head aches as well.
In a nut shell...appropriate term for the subject of this discussion...Although John N.A.B. Darby is given credit for the first theological outlook that is recognisable as Dispensationalism, the school actually goes back to the movement of Edward Irving, and in particular, two female 'prophets' in his congregation in the 1830's. Those two Scottish females were named Mary Campbell, and Margaret MacDonald. (As a Scot, let me tell you that when you can get a MacDonald and a Campbell to agree on anything, beware of whatever 'it' happens to be.)
Some parts of it were derived from the theology of hymn writer Isaac Watts, though Watts' public theology did not remotely resemble anything recognisable as Modern Dispensationalism.
Along with Dispensationalism, Irving's congregation resembled much of the excesses that one sees in the Modern Charismatic movement. Irving also had difficulties with his Christological doctrines, and was taken to task by the Church of Scotland over those views.
It appears that bad ideas keep trying to gain a foothold in the church in every generation.
Or in the words of the 'Preacher' ...There is nothing new under the Sun...
pflr
Thank you for the response. It is very much appreciated.
I loved the little Scottish joke you dropped in. I have a head-ache already. Its not a theology I put much stock in, I am learning I don’t have to. Thanks again and God Bless.
The reason for this seems obvious. Men love the attention they get from formulating their own creeds with their own noxious doctrines with which they can fool the sheep under their care.
For 1830 years the Church knew nothing of these teachings on the second coming, or on the relationship between Israel and the Church. The early church fathers, and all the fathers for 2000 years, have been supersessionists, teaching that the universal Church is the expansion of the geographically limited entity known as Israel.
All the righteous are the true sons of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ. We are related to Abraham by the only genetic that matters, spiritual genetics. We are Spiritual Israel.
Well said. While I theologically disagree with Reformed and the other traditional Protestant theologies, they have a grounding in the Traditions and History of the Church that the Fundamentalist and Evangelical (in the seeker and mega-church variety) do not have. It would appear that while Luther broke with Tradition (from the Catholic POV), it wasn’t as radical a break in the basic history of the Church as seen in the Dispensationalists.
Well us LDS don’t have a problem with dispensations as Traditional folks do!
But than when you have the fullness of the Gospel a lot of those kinds of questions are answered.
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.