Dispensationalism?

[benherndon]

Dispensationalism as it pertains to Theology is defined, I read, by contrasting the Mosaic or Old Testament era with the Christian or Grace Era.

I also read that apparently SDAs do not recognize or accept 'dispensationalism'. Why is that? What is wrong with dispensationalism as it is defined theologically? Please provide Biblical evidence.

Ben

[David Koot]

Ha! Dispensationalism!!! Several dispensations, according to the theory, including the Mosaic, and the Church Age, as well as others. But first, lets see a more comprehensive description of dispensationalism. Please state the tenets of the belief, with Scriptural cites, and I for one should be glad to respond.

Dave

[benherndon]

I checked my edition of a Webster's Dictionary, library type, and 'dispensationalism' is defined quite like I described in re: theology. It refers to the Old Testament/Covenant or Jewish and Mosaic times being one era. Then the Christian or Grace era came upon the scene in New Testament/Covenant times.

What is the objection SDAs have to such thinking? Any texts?

Ben

[David Koot]

The fact is simply that there are more dispensations than those two, according to the belief. It is more involved, and more complicated than that. If, however, you simply wish to address the question of the Jews under the old covenant versus Christians under the new covenant, that is a somewhat separate inquiry, although overlapping with dispensationalism.

But, once again, you arent providing much description or content. How about a more complete description?

[benherndon]

" It refers to the Old Testament/Covenant or Jewish and Mosaic times being one era. Then the Christian or Grace era came upon the scene in New Testament/Covenant times.

What is the objection SDAs have to such thinking? Any texts?

Ben "-----------

>>>Sure there are dispensations.....the Carter dispensation vs the Reagan dispensation, etc, etc.....I don't mean to be copying anybody's sarcasm.....but religious books and some nonSDA pastors I've asked, and other sources recognize that there was an OLD Testament/Covenant time in Biblical history.....and a NEW Testament/Covenant time.....a time of the Mosaic or "Law" era and a Christian or Grace Era.... Those are what is called 'dispensations' by theologists.

The OT speaks a little about a coming Savior and a time when a new era would come which would not be like the 'old' era....Jer 31. Christ said the New Covenant had come in His Blood. Several references in the NT indicate that a change had come and it was this 'new' "Way" to of considering sin and eternal salvation.

What to SDAs find wrong with the idea of 'dispensationalism'?....you, David, seem to be obfuscating the question AND the potential answer. Please let somebody else come into this...I'm not interested in an ongoing *exchange* with you, David. I don't mind and am asking for yours and others ideas on the apparent inherent Biblical evidence that those *two* dispensations I've mentioined are valid.

So, once again, will others besides David, who obviously doesn't like 'dispensationalism'(but won't explain why), to explain to me why so many of the SDAs, also do not like 'dispensationalism'......What's Biblically wrong with it? Texts please.

Ben

[David Koot]

Very well, let's include a description of dispensationalism here. I googled on 'dispensationalism' and selected this one at random. It is pretty standard. The web address for this definition is:

http://www.gospelplow.net/disp2.html#c2

"Dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism originating among the Plymouth Brethren in the early 1830's. The father of dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, educated as a lawyer and ordained Anglican priest, was one of the chief founders of the Plymouth Brethren movement, which arose in reaction against the perceived empty formalism of the Church of England. To the Brethren the true "invisible" church was to come out of the apostate "visible" Church, rejecting such forms as priesthood and sacraments.

Dispensational theology centers upon the concept of God's dealings with mankind being divided into (usually) seven distinct economies or "dispensations", in which man is tested as to his obedience to the will of God as revealed under each dispensation.

Dispensationalists see God as pursuing two distinct purposes throughout history, one related to an earthly goal and an earthly people (the Jews), the other to heavenly goals and a heavenly people (the church).1

Dispensationalists believe that in the Old Testament God promised the Jewish people an earthly kingdom ruled by Messiah ben David, and that when Christ came He offered this prophesied kingdom to the Jews. When the Jews of the time rejected Christ and the earthly kingdom, the promise was postponed, and the "mystery form" of the kingdom - the church - was established.

The church, according to dispensational doctrine, was unforeseen in the Old Testament and constitutes a "parenthesis" in God's plan for Israel. In the future, the distinction between Jew and Gentile will be reestablished and will continue throughout all eternity. The "parenthesis", or church age, will end at the rapture when Christ comes invisibly to take all believers (excepting OT saints) to heaven to celebrate the "marriage feast of the Lamb" with Christ for a period of seven years.2

God's program for the Jews then resumes with the tribulation, Antichrist, bowls of wrath, 144,000 Jews preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and Armageddon. Then, the Second (third, if you count the preTrib rapture) Coming, the instantaneous conversion of the entire nation of Israel, the resurrection of the Tribulation and Old Testament saints, and the "sheep and goats" judgment. The "goats" will be cast into hell, the "sheep" and the believing Jews will enter the millennium in natural human bodies, marrying, reproducing, and dying. The "mystery church" and the resurrected Tribulation and Old Testament saints will live in the heavenly Jerusalem suspended above the earthly city. This millennium will be a time of great peace and prosperity, with Christ ruling on David's throne. After 1,000 yrs. Satan will be released from the chain with which he had been bound at the beginning of the millennium and many of the children born to the "sheep" and the Israelites will follow him in revolt against Christ. The King will again destroy His enemies, followed by another resurrection of the righteous, another resurrection of the unrighteous, a final judgment, and at last the New Heavens and the New Earth."

So, then, once again, Ben, do you wish to discuss 'dispensationalism,' or do you wish to discuss the old covenant vs. the new covenant? If 'dispensationalism' as described above is what you want to discuss, then please do confirm, and I for one shall be glad to accommodate you.

Dave

[benherndon]

David....Thank you! Thank you!

If what you've shown IS what our church considers 'Dispensationalism' and it is your working model of understanding it, then, I would agree with you that I wouldn't like that very much considering all the details.

However, that there was a Mosaic or Law dispensation and a Christian or Grace dispensation after His Cross & Resurrection, seems much supported by Paul in 2Cor 3, Gal 3 & 4, Eph 2, Col 2, Heb 7, 8, 9,and 10, as far as I personally can see from just plain reading of the NT. The kind of dispensationalism I have described, from my Webster's Dictiionary, is what I perceive has been incompletely taught to me and my wife in our years-ago SDA education. Perhaps things have changed and they teach differently these days.

Anybody else have any idea to express about the two apparently limited dispensations I've brought up?

Ben

[Stan]

How does Dispensationalism differ from the EGW belief in 'Present Truth'?

[benherndon]

Hi, Stan! I see the two dispensations of importance to Christians as the Mosaic Era vs the Christian Era, or Era of Grace through what Christ did.

I don't believe I would include the era from 1844 to now and on to be another separate dispensation. Do you? The 'whole' of Christianity certainly would not entertain the thought of '1844 to now' being a newer and separate 'era'.

Sorry, I can't continue now.

Ben

[jasd]

>>The father of dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, ...<<

Darby, eh? [grinnin'] You mean, the Darby of [secret] rapture?

So, does he hold a monopoly upon "dispensationalism" per se? that is, dispensationalism by any other definition is dispensationalism... according to Darby?

[olger]

Hi Ben. I have studied & written on Dispensationalism for 12-years. Here is a short version that I hope will be useful.

The History of Dispensationalism

The modern dispensational system of prophetic interpretation is generally traced back to the teachings of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), an Anglican preacher who broke away from his church and became the leader of the “Plymouth Brethren.” The deeper origin of this method of bible interpretation however, finds it’s genesis in the counter-reformation of the Roman church (1580-1614).

While Dispensationalists claim to be Biblicists, most of their interpretations compartmentalize the Scriptures in ways that the Bible writers themselves do not. They are confident that their teachings are evident even on the surface of Scripture. The system is so closely identified with the Bible itself that many of its adherents judge the orthodoxy of other Christians by their acceptance or rejection of these teachings. It should be pointed out that most of the men who helped shape this system were not trained theologians. As a matter of fact, they distrusted theologians, even the most conservative ones, and gloried in their own “simplicity” and Biblicism. The distinctive theological elements of Dispensationalism were therefore developed in a climate of pessimism and reaction.

Modern Dispensational scholars show little historical self-awareness. This is the fatal element of a system that largely ignores the hand of God in the past affairs of men. Each dispensation is set off as a distinct period of time which has no organic historical relation to what precedes or follows.

Calvinism

While it must be acknowledged that the word “dispensation” is a scriptural term, it is often used by Dispensationalists in an unscriptural way.

At the heart of dispensational thinking are the principles of “Absolute Literalism” and an assumed distinction between Israel and the Church. For them the sovereignty of God is exercised in the predestination and election of the nation of Israel . Their whole justification for giving the Jews the dominant place in god’s future plan is worked out on the ground of their national election. What Israel chooses or does is quite aside from the point. God has chosen them to be His people come what may. The same rigid predestination is applied in this dispensation to individual believers who have been elected to salvation. Working on this assumption contemporary Dispensationalist have developed a mechanical theory of eternal security, and have interpreted the New Testament strictly within that framework. Therein can be seen the Calvinistic seasoning of this teaching.

There are, to be sure, important elements of 17th century Calvinism in modern dispensationalism, but these elements have been blended with doctrinal emphases from other sources to form a distinct system that in many respects is quite foreign to classical Calvinism.

Consistent Literalism

When the Biblical unity of God’s Covenant was lost sight of—there was room for an unlimited display of individual “ingenuity” , and dispensational schemes and charts multiplied freely. Every one of these various types of alterations of the truth became possible only through neglect, however unconscious at first, of the biblical revelation. This resulted in the natural abandonment of the Biblical/Historical approach to the word of God.

Consistent literalism interprets the Old Testament prophecies as a closed unit, independent from the New testament witness to their fulfillment. This principle of consistent literalism” has far reaching implication, especially in the interpretation of prophecy. It demands, for example, the old Testament prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reinstitution of animal sacrifices must be fulfilled in a literal way to the Jewish nation in Palestine during the end-time tribulation and the so-called Jewish millennium of Revelation 20.

To Interpret the Old Testament prophecies as a closed unit independent from the New Testament requires the omission of the progressive nature of God’s revelation. The Old Testament represents not God’s complete and final revelation, but the prelude to the greater revelation given through Jesus Christ, and attested in the New testament. It should be noted that the method of “absolute literalism” caused the tragic rejection of the Messiah because he did not fit the literalistic interpretation of the Jewish leaders and nation.

Dispensationalism is no longer merely an American phenomenon, but one which has assumed global proportions. Hal Lindsay saw his book The Late Great Planet Earth translated into 31 foreign editions and circulated in over 50 countries.

Futurism

Rome's answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Salamanca Spain, and Bellarmine of Rome, the Papacy put forth her Futurist interpretation. And through Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit of Seville, she advanced almost simultaneously the conflicting Preterist interpretation. These were designed to meet and overwhelm the Biblical/Historical interpretation of the Protestants. Though mutually exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome. The one accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of Papal Rome's career. The other achieved it by making it overleap the immense era of Papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still distant future, just before the great consummation.

The intended purpose was to take a measure of heat off of the Catholic church caused by the Reformation. Instead of taking the Bible away from the laity - (they had it now) their intent was to circulate "alternative views" of prophecy among the believers who were pointing the finger of Daniel 7:8 and Revelation 17 at the Great Church and correctly identifying her as the little horn, and the harlot.

Roman Catholics as well as Protestants agree as to the origin of these interpretations. A.D 1580 - 1614. Preterism has all but faded from the scene. Dispensationalism is the modern-day offspring of Futurism. It is based upon a false hermeneutic.

John Nelson Darby wove Futurism into the tangled web it is today, and bequeathed it to Cyrus Scofield and the Dallas theological Seminary -- the current stronghold of dispensational thinking. In the last 2 decades, Hal Lindsay dazzled a large percentage of Christendom with his sensational but senseless interpretations. Based upon his dispensational presuppositions he made eight major predictions - all of which have unconditionally failed. Why? Because Dispensationalists share a common tendency. They jump over the cross of Christ! Dispensational theology takes an Old Testament prophecy and jumps from it to Palestine, or to newspaper headlines, unmindful of the fact that they are jumping out of the bible.

The bible writers in the New Testament clearly identify Israel as the Body of Christ. (Romans 9:8) True Israel must be oriented not to a piece of land in Palestine, but to Jesus. “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:9) The land of Palestine was only a type of the Earth made new. “The meek shall inherit the earth.”

Paul speaks of the future restoration of the whole creation (Rom. 8:19-23) in connection with the "redemption of our body." In Galatians 4:26 his brief reference to the heavenly Jerusalem is to explain the difference between literal Israel of the flesh and spiritual Israel of faith. He firmly believes (as I do) that the Old testament prophecies to Israel apply to the Christian church, for he reiterates the statement that true Israel, to whom belong the covenants and the promises, is not the nation descended literally from Abraham, but the seed of Abraham by faith who are the Christians, both Jewish and Gentile alike. (Romans 9:6-8 / Rom. 2:28,29 / Galatians 4:28-30) So Abraham is plainly the father of Spiritual Israel--those who individually choose to be governed by God. This was the larger, “long-range vision” that clarifies many an otherwise baffling prediction concerning Israel and it's restoration.

In all prophecy we must turn our attention to Scripture as it’s own interpreter, and make Jesus the final expositor of His own word. May God richly bless us as we study the Bible with these tools.

Gerry C. Wagoner

1999

Hope this helps.

[David Koot]

Splendid, Olger, simply splendid! This is the kind of stuff that I look forward to seeing on C/A. What a treat! Thanks for posting it.

[olger]

Thanks David. That was an excerpt from a longer 11-page article that I wrote in 1998.

Thanks for your contributions on here. I appreciated your thoughts on the wearing of jewelry for believers, last fall. They were good and true to the Word.

olger

[David Koot]

And thank you, Olger. Yeah, the jewelry issue was a bit stormy, but life goes on. Is it possible to get a copy of your 11-page article somehow?

Dave

[olger]

Sure. Email me at gcwagoner@earthlink.net

[LifeHiscost]

I also read that apparently SDAs do not recognize or accept 'dispensationalism'. Why is that? What is wrong with dispensationalism as it is defined theologically? Please provide Biblical evidence.

Ben

Ben, it is impossible to prove something that is not true. Therefore one can only prove what is true of which truth you can find in any (or at least most) Adventist publication.

Regards.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Were one to address "dispensationalism" only according to Darby, then one can hardly flesh-out 'dispensationalism' in another of its guises.

The 'dispensation' of the COI, or of EGW, for example...

[Gregory Matthews]

Dr. Ben:

I am not an expert on this subject, and it is more complex than I have time to deal with.

Both David and Olger have posted some good material.

In shot, dispensationalizm is a specifc set of theological beliefs that identifies several periods of "salvation history.

During these periods, God interacted with humanity in way different from that of His interaction during other periods of salvation history. To be more specific, God had different ways of providing salvation. So, during one period, God might have saved people by their works, while in another period, He might have saved them by the death of Christ on the cross.

In short, the theological system of dispensationalization is quite different from the issue as you describe it in that of the covenants in the SDA church.

[skyblue888]

There is this idea that the Old Testament was the dispensation of law versus the New Testament being the dispensation of grace. This theory has led some to the conclusion that in the Old Testament salvation was by obeying the law and that in the New Testament salvation is by grace. So the people of God in the Old Testament were "under the law" and the people of God in the New Testament are "under grace".

But in Titus 2:11 we are plainly told that "The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Adam was saved by grace just as Abraham or David were or any of those who through the sacrificial system trusted solely in the merits of a Saviour to come.

Today we are saved in the same way exactly, by grace through the merits of a Saviour who has come.

The main difference I see between the Old and the New is this:

"During the patriarchal age the influence of the Holy Spirit had often been revealed in a marked manner, but never in its fullness. Now, in obedience to the word of the Saviour, the disciples offered their supplications for this gift, and in Heaven Christ added His intercession. He claimed the gift of the Spirit, that He might pour it upon His people. And when day of Pentecost was fully come... The Spirit came upon the waiting, praying disciples with a fullness that reached every heart." Acts of the Apostles, p.37,38.

Whether one lived before the cross or lives after the cross, it is all the same, all are saved by grace and it is this grace which enables him who trusts in the merits of Christ for his salvation to obey every precept of the law!

Since the Holy Spirit is to be revealed in His fullness, before Jesus returns in the clouds of heaven, the earth will be lightened with this glory! "Men will be captivated by the glory of an abiding Christ and from the many souls thus won to God, glory will flow back to the great Giver. The indwelling of the Spirit (grace of God) will be shown by the outflowing of heavenly love. The divine fullness will flow through the consecrated human agent to be given forth to others." C.O.L.419,420.

"Christ looked forward to the time when the Holy Spirit, as his representative, should come to do a wonderful work in and through His merits." Testimonies to Ministers, p.402.

[skyblue888]

There hasn't been any comment since the last post on April 6! Is everybody agreeing with the last post? Just curious!

[jasd]

"Scofield says there are seven dispensations: of innocence, of conscience, of civil government, of promise, of law, of grace, and of the kingdom. Dispensationalists interpret the scriptures in light of these (or other perceived) dispensations." --CARM

Then, there's penitentiary dispensationaism, exemptive dispensationalism, Apostolic dispensationism, the EGW dispensationalism ("Only the 144,000 enter this place," and we shouted, "Alleluia." {EW 18.2} -- that would mean translation, according to the author's contention), etc...

OT/NT is too narrow and constrictive a definition of Dispensationalism. With that paradigm, what more can be said in context than -- BC/AD?

[skyblue888]

The theologians hmmm I can't help but think about a statement I read about them. "To a great degree, theology, as studied and taught, is but a record of human speculation, serving only to darken counsel by words without knowledge." Ministry of Healing, p.442.

When Adam and Eve fell in paradise the covenant of grace was in effect immediately. Otherwise they would have perished instantly. For "The wages of sin is death." Rom.6:23.

Christ took upon Himself the curse of sin and life was continued to them to allow them to repent and accept their Saviour as taught through the sacrificial system. For their salvation from selfishness and sin, they were to trust in the merits of a Saviour to come. We are not saved in any way different than they were, or are we? Again, it is written, "The grace of God has appeared unto all men." Titus 2:11.

The arms of the cross reaches from paradise lost to paradise restored. As I said before, the only difference now is that since the resurrection of Christ the Spirit (grace of God) is offered to us in His fullness. Eph.3:19.

[jasd]

>>The theologians hmmm I can't help but think about a statement I read about them. "To a great degree, theology, as studied and taught,<<

Yes, "hmmm"; however, what then of our dogmas and doctrines -- good and bad. I suspect that the author of the above reference, herself, thought of the .Org's early fathers as seekers after the knowledge of Gd..., that is, Theo. A little here,

a little there..., and all that. If not, what does that say about the .Org's dogmas and doctrines?

>>"To a great degree, ...<<

Qualified, ambiguous, and adamantine.

Perplexing.

>>When Adam and Eve fell ... the Spirit (grace of God) is offered to us in His fullness. Eph.3:19.<<

Indeed, dispensations.

[skyblue888]

It is the dispensation of the grace of God whether it is in marked manner or it its fullness! :)