Berkhof on Dispensationalism

[duolos]

In the second quarter of the nineteenth century a new form of Premillennialism was introduced under the influence of Darby, Kelly, Trotter, and their followers in England and America, a Premillennialism wedded to Dispensationalism. The new views were popularized in our country especially through the Scofield Bible, and are widely disseminated through the works of such men as Bullinger, F. W. Grant, Blackstone, Gray, Silver, Haldeman, the two Gaebeleins, Brookes, Riley, Rogers, and a host of others. They really present a new philosophy of the history of redemption, in which Israel plays a leading role and the Church is but an interlude. Their guiding principle prompts them to divide the Bible into two books, the book of the Kingdom and the book of the Church. In reading their descriptions of God’s dealings with men one is lost in a bewildering maze of covenants and dispensations, without an Ariadne thread to give safe guidance. Their divisive tendency also reveals itself in their eschatological program. There will be two second comings, two or three (if not four) resurrections, and also three judgments. Moreover, there will also be two peoples of God, which according to some will be eternally separate, Israel dwelling on earth, and the Church in heaven.
​

Systematic Theology p710

and the most scathing comment again;

In reading their descriptions of God’s dealings with men one is lost in a bewildering maze of covenants and dispensations, without an Ariadne thread to give safe guidance.
​

I find this to be a truism, there is far too much avoidance of the plain meaning of Scripture in favour of the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology

 

[dysert]

In the second quarter of the nineteenth century a new form of Premillennialism was introduced under the influence of Darby, Kelly, Trotter, and their followers in England and America, a Premillennialism wedded to Dispensationalism. The new views were popularized in our country especially through the Scofield Bible, and are widely disseminated through the works of such men as Bullinger, F. W. Grant, Blackstone, Gray, Silver, Haldeman, the two Gaebeleins, Brookes, Riley, Rogers, and a host of others. They really present a new philosophy of the history of redemption, in which Israel plays a leading role and the Church is but an interlude. Their guiding principle prompts them to divide the Bible into two books, the book of the Kingdom and the book of the Church. In reading their descriptions of God’s dealings with men one is lost in a bewildering maze of covenants and dispensations, without an Ariadne thread to give safe guidance. Their divisive tendency also reveals itself in their eschatological program. There will be two second comings, two or three (if not four) resurrections, and also three judgments. Moreover, there will also be two peoples of God, which according to some will be eternally separate, Israel dwelling on earth, and the Church in heaven.
​

Systematic Theology p710

and the most scathing comment again;

In reading their descriptions of God’s dealings with men one is lost in a bewildering maze of covenants and dispensations, without an Ariadne thread to give safe guidance.
​

I find this to be a truism, there is far too much avoidance of the plain meaning of Scripture in favour of the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology

I'm not totally sure what you're saying, but if you're saying that the plain meaning of Scripture provides support for Dispensationalist Ecclesiology, then I wholeheartedly agree.

As an aside, I don't know why people get hung up on who wrote about a particular doctrine, or when it was introduced into the mainstream. I concentrate on what the Bible says regardless of what men from generations past said. It's the Bible that determines doctrine, not men.

 

[duolos]

I'm not totally sure what you're saying, but if you're saying that the plain meaning of Scripture provides support for Dispensationalist Ecclesiology, then I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm saying that the plain meaning of Scripture does not provide support for Dispensationalist Ecclesiology. In fact there are places such as Eph 2:12 where the plain meaning of Scripture is simply discarded because of a commitment to Dispensationalist Ecclesiology.

As an aside, I don't know why people get hung up on who wrote about a particular doctrine, or when it was introduced into the mainstream. I concentrate on what the Bible says regardless of what men from generations past said. It's the Bible that determines doctrine, not men.

I would think that if the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology was the plain meaning of Scripture then we would be able to trace the adherence to it throughout history, instead of finding that in the 19th Century an authoritarian popish introduced it. In any case one of the reasons I am so against the shoehorning in of the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology into Scripture is because I have been a student of the Bible for enough time and haven't found any evidence of it, ever.

 

[dysert]

I'm saying that the plain meaning of Scripture does not provide support for Dispensationalist Ecclesiology. In fact there are places such as Eph 2:12 where the plain meaning of Scripture is simply discarded because of a commitment to Dispensationalist Ecclesiology.


I would think that if the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology was the plain meaning of Scripture then we would be able to trace the adherence to it throughout history, instead of finding that in the 19th Century an authoritarian popish introduced it. In any case one of the reasons I am so against the shoehorning in of the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology into Scripture is because I have been a student of the Bible for enough time and haven't found any evidence of it, ever.

Funny how two different people can be students of the Bible for enough time and come to opposite conclusions.

 

[Biblewriter]

I would think that if the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology was the plain meaning of Scripture then we would be able to trace the adherence to it throughout history, instead of finding that in the 19th Century an authoritarian popish introduced it.

You keep telling this lie, even though I have repeatedly posted proof after proof that it is simply not true.

 

[duolos]

You keep telling this lie, even though I have repeatedly posted proof after proof that it is simply not true.

Maybe its because your proofs for Chialism being ancient are not convincing me that the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology is ancient...

 

[MWood]

Maybe its because your proofs for Chialism being ancient are not convincing me that the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology is ancient...

It is only as old as the day it was written. And that only goes back to the day that the Apostle Paul wrote it. No other writers need to say anything, or write anything. All we need to do is take it from the Bible.

This is the best place to get it.

 

[Danoh]

It is only as old as the day it was written. And that only goes back to the day that the Apostle Paul wrote it. No other writers need to say anything, or write anything. All we need to do is take it from the Bible.

This is the best place to get it.

That and another "history" few ever consider, given as they are used to getting their understanding from books the notions of which they then read into the passages.

Its why this back and forth about who wrote what in what book first or what church father noted what is pointless, as it ends up what one man's favorite writers thought the other man's favorite writers "meant, was really up to, got it from" and all this other nonsense.

Its also pointlesss because the Scripture alone is to be our authority.

A truism that going by books as to what the passages assert; reading their assertions into Scripture nullifies.

Books are not meant to be taken as what Scripture asserts. Rather, they are to be taken as understandings to consider and explore against the light of the Word.

And that right there is no instant guarantee one will "get it right," for the fact of the matter is that few are as objective as all their books and or own reasoning would have them believe they are being.

This back and forth nonsense goes on in every endeavor out there in which the word and or assertion of one is in conflict with that of another.

End result? An endless one: and its biting and devouring.

Its pointless. The only sure source is the Scripture, it's objective approach [what ever that is] and the actual history that is consistent.

And it is not men going back and forth about who was up to what first.

 

[Biblewriter]

Maybe its because your proofs for Chialism being ancient are not convincing me that the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology is ancient...

There was no need to prove that Chialism is ancient. This is commonly known, and universally acknowledged by ecclesiastical historians.

What I proved is that these ancient Chailists stated doctrines that included most of the essential points of dispensationalism.

I also presented proof that the central essence of Dispensationalism was clearly taught a hundred years before the time of Darby, and even before Lacunza was born.

And I resented proof that a fully developed dispensationalism was clearly taught in England before Lacunza's book was first published in the English language.

The net effect of all this was conclusive proof of the falsehood of the dual claims that Dispensationalism originated in the nineteenth century and that Darby got it from Lacunza through Irving.

 

[duolos]

It is only as old as the day it was written. And that only goes back to the day that the Apostle Paul wrote it. No other writers need to say anything, or write anything. All we need to do is take it from the Bible.

This is the best place to get it.

Oh you mean like Eph 2:11-13 where Paul says that the Church is the citizens of Israel?

 

[faroukfarouk]

One could always start another thread on Biblical dispensations on Berkhof...

 

[duolos]

It seems we have gotten off track, such is to be the case when lost in the bewildering maze of interpretations that is Dispensationalism, does anyone have an Ariadne thread for me? I know, I know hold Israel and the Church apart, but that's just not Biblical and I am held captive to the word of God don'cha know

 

[Danoh]

Oh you mean like Eph 2:11-13 where Paul says that the Church is the citizens of Israel?

No - like Eph. 2:11-13, where Paul says all that after Israel's commonwealth was headed for 70AD.

How is it that Paul relates Israel's status then, to those with eyes to see - oh, yeah, "them that WERE nigh."

Problem is , most think the issue is peoples, and salvation. It is neither.

Its about a planned solving in advance, for two falls, in two different realms set in motion by the words "I will be like the Most High," Is. 14:14.

It is about Prophecy [Fallen Earth, Rm. 5:12] and Mystery [Fallen High Places, Eph. 6:12].

It is about a Two-Fold Plan and Purpose as to solving for that, Eph. 1:10; 3:15.

Deal with this Scripture with Scripture, not Scripture with books about, including Berkhoff, Stam, or whomever where their assertions do not fit that.

 

[duolos]

No - like Eph. 2:11-13, where Paul says all that after Israel's commonwealth was headed for 70AD.

How is it that Paul relates Israel's status then, to those with eyes to see - oh, yeah, "them that WERE nigh."

Problem is , most think the issue is peoples, and salvation. It is neither.

Its about a planned solving in advance, for two falls, in two different realms set in motion by the words "I will be like the Most High," Is. 14:14.

It is about Prophecy [Fallen Earth, Rm. 5:12] and Mystery [Fallen High Places, Eph. 6:12].

It is about a Two-Fold Plan and Purpose as to solving for that, Eph. 1:10; 3:15.

Deal with this Scripture with Scripture, not Scripture with books about, including Berkhoff, Stam, or whomever where their assertions do not fit that.

So, we Gentiles who are alienated from citizenship in Israel have been brought near to what? We who are strangers to the promises to the patriarchs have been brought near to what? That's the thing you go off somewhere else to try and avoid the plain meaning here.

Another place; Gal 4; being united into Christ as Children of Promise we are identified not with the children of the flesh; that is Ishmael, but with Children of Promise; that is Isaac, we the Church are part of the Children who were promised to Abraham to inherit God.

 

[Danoh]

So, we Gentiles who are alienated from citizenship in Israel have been brought near to what? We who are strangers to the promises to the patriarchs have been brought near to what? That's the thing you go off somewhere else to try and avoid the plain meaning here.

Another place; Gal 4; being united into Christ as Children of Promise we are identified not with the children of the flesh; that is Ishmael, but with Children of Promise; that is Isaac, we the Church are part of the Children who were promised to Abraham to inherit God.

No, you conclude I go off somewhere else. Unless you are a mind reader.

Where is it that I go - what passages? It's obvious from what you have just shared that you do not know. Besides, you have already related you don't want t know, so why the game? Its cool if you don't want to know. I can respect that. I just don't respect the misrepresentation every person who has ever supposedly "researched" Dispensationalism ends up parroting - their "research" the parroting of those parrots before them.

Again, if such is the case, just say you are not interested and leave it at that.

 

[duolos]

No, you conclude I go off somewhere else. Unless you are a mind reader.

Where is it that I go - what passages? It's obvious from what you have just shared that you do not know. Besides, you have already related you don't want t know, so why the game? Its cool if you don't want to know. I can respect that. I just don't respect the misrepresentation every person who has ever supposedly "researched" Dispensationalism ends up parroting - their "research" the parroting of those parrots before them.

Again, if such is the case, just say you are not interested and leave it at that.

The record clearly holds that you went to Is 14, Rom 5, Eph 6, Eph 5 and 1, why can't you stick in the same passage? It's not like it's something that is a difficult passage, unless of course you have a preconceived allegiance to an unbiblical position.

 

[Danoh]

No, those were not the passages I had in mind - not in the way you apparently think I had them in mind.

Note that you yourself went outside of Ephesians 2, to Galatians 4.

Why? Your understanding of how they are related.

What we ought do is compare understandings, not point fingers.

If anything else, pointing fingers is the result of deducing things too soon, in this case, about how another might have arrived at what they have, and that they are up to something. or what have you.

I look for recurrent patterns within the passages and their interaction with one another, towards identifying some general rules of thumb being applied and so on, that I might follows, as a basis for what I seek to understand. It is this kind of a principle that is the basis of my findings.

 

[Job8]

In fact there are places such as Eph 2:12 where the plain meaning of Scripture is simply discarded because of a commitment to Dispensationalist Ecclesiology.

Why would Eph 2:12 be in conflict with Dispensationalism? The "plain meaning" actually supports Dispensationalism. We find there that Gentile Christians are being addressed and beng told hat there was a time when they were outside the "commonwealth of Israel" etc. Commonwealth means citizenship, so there was a time when Gentiles were shut out of the spiritual citizenship of believing Israel (which is actually in Heaven, since Abraham looked for a city which has foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God -- Heb 11:10). So now we have two previous dispensations where God was dealing (a) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and (b) only with Israel (the 12 tribes), and bringing them to Himself, and then another dispensation (which is current) where He has included Gentiles in the commonwealth of Israel by grace through faith.

As to "ecclesiology" (which would pertain to matters concerning the Church and churches) what makes you think that that is the focus of Dispensationalism? It would appear that your anti-Dispensational bias is based on the propaganda about the "evils" of Dispensationalism, rather than a clear understanding that is is simply the best hermeneutic system to deal with the entire Bible.

 

[Job8]

I would think that if the Dispensationalist Ecclesiology was the plain meaning of Scripture then we would be able to trace the adherence to it throughout history, instead of finding that in the 19th Century an authoritarian popish introduced it.

In an ideal world yes. But if you want to deal with the actual history of Christianity, you will find that false doctrine entered into the churches at a very early stage, and was solidified during the time of the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Then came the Reformation, where the focus was on the reinstatement of the true Gospel of Grace, and not on the history and the future of Israel. In fact, Israel was dismissed as irrelevant.

Also, the Reformers were unable to give up their bondage to Augustine and the like, so Bible interpretation was throughouly distorted. While the 19th century gave impetus to a careful study of Bible prophecy, the truths that were brought out were always there in Scripture. You do not have to consult Augustine or Calvin or Berkhof or Darby to find the truth. Go directly to the source. The more you study the Early Church Fathers and the theologians which followed them, the more likely you are to be thoroughly confused. We tend to put these men on a pedestal instead of examining everything in the light of Scripture.