The Dangerous Confusion & Delusion In Dispensationalism & Christian Zionism Doctrines

[random person]

During the 19th century, a peculiar doctrine known as "dispensationalism" arose. Its leading lights were Darby and Scofield; its bible was the Scofield Reference Bible; and in recent years its primary headquarters has been the Dallas Theological Seminary. Technically, dispensationalism teaches that God has two peoples in the history of the world: Israel and the "Church". We presently live in the "Church Age", and God's people today are Christians, the church. At the present time, the Jews are apostate enemies of God and of Christ, and are under God's judgment until they repent.

Someday soon (Its always soon!), Christ will return to earth invisibly and snatch away all the church - Christians (this is called "the Rapture" of the saints). At that point, God will go back to dealing with Israel. There will be a seven-year period called "The Tribulation", and during that period, apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast, but God will begin to convert the Jews, and in time the Beast will turn and begin to persecute these converted Jews. Just when things looks hopeless, Christ will return and inaugurate the Millennium.

One other point to note: There are absolutely no signs that the Rapture of the church is near. It will come "as a thief in the night."

Now, this entire scheme, though popular in recent years, has no roots in historic Christian interpretation of the Scriptures, and at present it is collapsing under the weight of criticism from bible-believing scholars of a more historically orthodox persuasion. All the same, there are several things to note.

First, by teaching that there are no signs that precede the Rapture, dispensationalism clearly implies that the modern State of Israel has nothing to do with bible prophecy. If Israel collapsed tomorrow, it would make no difference. The existance of the State of Israel, while it may encourage dispensationalists to believe that the Rapture is near, is of no theologically prophetic importance.

Second, dispensationalism teaches that Jews of today, and even into the Tribulation period, are apostate, and this certainly implies that they are under the wrath and judgment of God. Christians should minister to them, and try to convert them, and show them all kindness as fellow human beings; but Christians should understand that during the Church Age, the Jews are not the people of God. Rather, the church is the people of God today.

Third, by teaching that Israel is "set aside" during the Church Age, dispensationalism clearly implies that the promises made to Israel are also "set aside" during that period. The land promise, and the promise "those who bless you, I will bless," have been set aside, until we re-enter "prophetic time". Thus, the Jews have no right to the land during the Church Age, and also there is no particular blessing for Gentiles who treat the Jews with especial favor.

Fourth, dispensational theologians are most strict on the point that the church is a "new people," composed as one body in Christ of both Jew and Gentile. During the Church Age, the distinction between these two is not to be felt in the church. Thus, dispensational theology is, by implication, opposed to the kind of standpoint articulated in many "Messianic Jewish" groups.

- James B Jordan, from his article Christian Zionism And Messianic Judaism

 

[seekingsolace]

I may be pertinent to research dispensationalism before forming a view. James B Jordan it seems is constructing his views from perceived implications.

OP continues: "What I am setting forth is standard, consistent dispensationalism. As far as I am concerned, dispensationalism is sorely wrong in its prophetic view, but it is at least orthodox in its view of salvation and blessing. Blessing comes to the Jews when they repent and accept Christ; until then, they are under God’s curse. How can it be otherwise? All blessings are in Christ. This is the teaching of orthodox Christianity, and Darby and the early dispensationalists were orthodox Christians on this point, as far as I can tell."

As far as I am aware, dispensationalism does not nullify the eternal covenants made with Israel

"Thus, dispensational theology is, by implication, opposed to the kind of standpoint articulated in many "Messianic Jewish" groups."

In my experience that's untrue. I can think of a number who are at the forefront of it.

The Dangerous Confusion & Delusion In Dispensationalism

What dangers are these?

 

[random person]

I may be pertinent to research dispensationalism before forming a view. James B Jordan it seems is constructing his views from perceived implications.



As far as I am aware, dispensationalism does not nullify the eternal covenants made with Israel



In my experience that's untrue.

Well, no, you are incorrect, because aren't we in the Church Age now?

And if the Rapture reinvigorates a short 7 year second Jewish Age, why do they fall under God's wrath still?

When, the Jews fall back into favor with God and are received back into a covenant as God's chosen people, shouldn't that protect them from the antichrist?

You just simply ain't properly digesting this information from a covenantal standpoint! The Mosaic covenant under which God will preserve, bless, and save the Jews if they remained faithful and obedient to His Law or overthrow them for disobedience and apostacy, scattering them to the nations.

 

[seekingsolace]

Well, no, you are incorrect, because aren't we in the Church Age now?

And if the Rapture reinvigorates a short 7 year second Jewish Age, why do they fall under God's wrath still?

When, the Jews fall back into favor with God and received back into a covenant as God's chosen people, shouldn't that protect them from the antichrist?

You just simply ain't digesting this information from a covenantal standpoint!

What in which I wrote was incorrect?

I think the problem you are having is the thought process of dispensationalism nullifying covenants. Covenants unconditional or not still stand, as it is written.

 

[random person]

What in which I wrote was incorrect?

I think the problem you are having is the thought process of dispensationalism nullifying covenants. Covenants unconditional or not still stand, as it is written.

So, we ain't living in the Church Age, and Israel was never "set aside"?

Is that your argument? Well, you don't know dispensationalism very well.

 

[Douggg]

There will be a seven-year period called "The Tribulation", and during that period, apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast, but God will begin to convert the Jews, and in time the Beast will turn and begin to persecute these converted Jews. Just when things looks hopeless, Christ will return and inaugurate the Millennium. [/quote]

It appears to me that the author doesn't comprehend what others are saying, because I have never heard that "apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast,"

What is the source of that claim, specifically?

 

[random person]

There will be a seven-year period called "The Tribulation", and during that period, apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast, but God will begin to convert the Jews, and in time the Beast will turn and begin to persecute these converted Jews. Just when things looks hopeless, Christ will return and inaugurate the Millennium. [/quote]

It appears to me that the author doesn't comprehend what others are saying, because I have never heard that "apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast,"

What is the source of that claim, specifically?

A covenant for one week in Dan. 9.

 

[seekingsolace]

So, we ain't living in the Church Age, and Israel was never "set aside"?

Is that your argument? Well, you don't know dispensationalism very well.

Did I say that, in fact I didn't address the content. So you are arguing with yourself. The only intent I replied to this post was for false assumptions.

 

[random person]

Did I say that, in fact I didn't address the content. So you are arguing with yourself. The only intent I replied to this post was for false assumptions.

What is the false assumption?

Do you even know what dispensationalism teaches?

It teaches we are currently in the Church Age, (to which I agree in part), however they believe the Church Age ends once the Rapture occurs. That is the moment Israel is no longer "set aside".

But while the Church Age stands, Israel has been "set aside". Once the Church is raptured, Israel is no longer "set aside".

But I believe the Church Age never ends because it is an everlasting covenant (see Matt. 16:18; John 17:15,20; Eph. 3:21; Heb. 13:20). I don't believe in a rapture or physical removal of the church from the earth.

 

[Douggg]

A covenant for one week in Dan. 9.

Your reply doesn't contain any of the words of the quote.

I think you misunderstood my question. I am asking what Christian source used these words...

"apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast,"

I have never heard anyone make that sort of claim. It sounds like James B. Jordan is making up quotes, and saying dispensationalists are making those words.

 

[seekingsolace]

What is the false assumption?

Do you even know what dispensationalism teaches?

It teaches we are currently in the Church Age, (to which I agree in part), however they believe the Church Age ends once the Rapture occurs. That is the moment Israel is no longer "set aside".

But while the Church Age stands, Israel has been "set aside". Once the Church is raptured, Israel is no longer "set aside".

But I believe the Church Age never ends because it is an everlasting covenant (see Matt. 16:18; John 17:15,20; Eph. 3:21; Heb. 13:20). I don't believe in a rapture or physical removal of the church from the earth.

What is teaches it that we are under the Dispensation of Grace until the Second Coming. It does not teach that Jews and Gentiles are not united, because they are in Christ. The relation is to Israel and the remnant during those times.

I'm not quite sure as to your belief of the Church Age never ending. They are saved eternally through Christ. In your belief the Church serves God physically in the old body and earth rather than the new.

 

[Interplanner]

If 'set aside' means for later, I'd like to know where you find that in the NT. Mt 21, Rom 11 don't sound that way. (In Rom 11 I don't mean the so-called proof text of 'all Israel...' and don't think it means that anyway. I mean v30's conclusions).

 

[Danoh]

During the 19th century, a peculiar doctrine known as "dispensationalism" arose. Its leading lights were Darby and Scofield; its bible was the Scofield Reference Bible; and in recent years its primary headquarters has been the Dallas Theological Seminary. Technically, dispensationalism teaches that God has two peoples in the history of the world: Israel and the "Church". We presently live in the "Church Age", and God's people today are Christians, the church. At the present time, the Jews are apostate enemies of God and of Christ, and are under God's judgment until they repent.

Someday soon (Its always soon!), Christ will return to earth invisibly and snatch away all the church - Christians (this is called "the Rapture" of the saints). At that point, God will go back to dealing with Israel. There will be a seven-year period called "The Tribulation", and during that period, apostate Jewry will form an anti-God alliance with the Beast, but God will begin to convert the Jews, and in time the Beast will turn and begin to persecute these converted Jews. Just when things looks hopeless, Christ will return and inaugurate the Millennium.

One other point to note: There are absolutely no signs that the Rapture of the church is near. It will come "as a thief in the night."

Now, this entire scheme, though popular in recent years, has no roots in historic Christian interpretation of the Scriptures, and at present it is collapsing under the weight of criticism from bible-believing scholars of a more historically orthodox persuasion. All the same, there are several things to note.

First, by teaching that there are no signs that precede the Rapture, dispensationalism clearly implies that the modern State of Israel has nothing to do with bible prophecy. If Israel collapsed tomorrow, it would make no difference. The existance of the State of Israel, while it may encourage dispensationalists to believe that the Rapture is near, is of no theologically prophetic importance.

Second, dispensationalism teaches that Jews of today, and even into the Tribulation period, are apostate, and this certainly implies that they are under the wrath and judgment of God. Christians should minister to them, and try to convert them, and show them all kindness as fellow human beings; but Christians should understand that during the Church Age, the Jews are not the people of God. Rather, the church is the people of God today.

Third, by teaching that Israel is "set aside" during the Church Age, dispensationalism clearly implies that the promises made to Israel are also "set aside" during that period. The land promise, and the promise "those who bless you, I will bless," have been set aside, until we re-enter "prophetic time". Thus, the Jews have no right to the land during the Church Age, and also there is no particular blessing for Gentiles who treat the Jews with especial favor.

Fourth, dispensational theologians are most strict on the point that the church is a "new people," composed as one body in Christ of both Jew and Gentile. During the Church Age, the distinction between these two is not to be felt in the church. Thus, dispensational theology is, by implication, opposed to the kind of standpoint articulated in many "Messianic Jewish" groups.

- James B Jordan, from his article Christian Zionism And Messianic Judaism

Random, hope all's good on your end.

As to your above post - all that preceeds those four points it ends with is questionable in both its assertions and its undersstanding of them.

In fact, I personsally find no problem with those four points.

In short, from my Dispensational standpoint, the above disproves nothing.

Enjoy your Sunday, bro

 

[Bible2]

random person said in post 9:

I believe the Church Age never ends . . .

That's right, in that the church will continue in the world throughout all ages (Ephesians 3:21, John 17:15). For just as the church will continue in the world throughout the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6), and then throughout the subsequent millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), so the church will then continue forever on the new earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5).

random person said in post 9:

I don't believe in a rapture . . .

The English word "rapture" is derived from the root of the Latin word "rapiemur", which is how the old Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible translated the original Greek word (harpazo) translated as "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. So the "rapture" is the church's being "caught up together" to Jesus at his 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), which is the same as the church's being "gathered together" to Jesus at his 2nd coming (2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:30-31, John 14:3), which will occur immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

Christians need to be wary of the mistaken idea that no rapture will occur at Jesus' 2nd coming. For such an idea could be employed in our future by the Antichrist's False Prophet (of Revelation 19:20, Revelation 13:13-15) to fool some Christians into thinking Jesus' 2nd coming has happened (Matthew 24:23-26) without Jesus having to have raptured (caught up together/gathered together) the church to hold a meeting in the sky with him at his 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:30-31, John 14:3).

At that meeting, Jesus will judge everyone in the church (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27) by their works (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-8, Luke 12:45-48, Matthew 25:19-30). And then Jesus will marry in the clouds the obedient part of the church (Revelation 19:7-8, Matthew 25:1-12), those in the church (of all times) who "overcame" to the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26). They will then mount white horses and come back down from the sky (the 1st heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he defeats the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") and the world's armies (Revelation 19:15-21). Jesus will then make the marriage supper of Revelation 19:9 for the resurrected and married obedient part of the church in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54). Jesus and the obedient part of the church will then reign on the earth for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

--

random person quoted Jordan in post 1:

The existance of the State of Israel, while it may encourage dispensationalists to believe that the Rapture is near, is of no theologically prophetic importance.

Matthew 24:34 could mean the temporal generation which would see the 1948 AD reestablishment of Israel, which could be symbolized by the rebudding of the fig tree (Matthew 24:32-34; cf. Matthew 21:19,43, Hosea 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Luke 13:6-9), won't pass, i.e. won't die off completely, until the future tribulation and 2nd coming of Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 19 are fulfilled. A temporal generation may not pass until 70 or 80 years (Psalms 90:10), or 120 years (Genesis 6:3).

--

The rebudding of the fig tree (Matthew 24:32) can refer to the 1948 reestablishment of Israel, just as Jesus' cursing of the literal, fruitless fig tree (Matthew 21:19) foreshadowed his curse on the part of Old Covenant Israel which rejected him (Matthew 21:43), for a fig tree can represent Israel (Hosea 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Luke 13:6-9). And the Israel which was reestablished in 1948 is the same Old Covenant Israel which Jesus cursed at his first coming. For it still rejects Jesus and still considers itself to be under the Old Covenant. This Israel merely "putting forth leaves" again (Matthew 24:32) in 1948 was nothing more than a restoration to what the fig tree in Matthew 21:19,43 had been before it was cursed by Jesus and then destroyed in 70 AD: a tree with leaves, but without any fruit. And the unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel which was reestablished in 1948 may never bear fruit. For it could be destroyed before Jesus' 2nd coming, during a future war, by a Baathist army, just as it had been destroyed in 70 AD by a Roman-empire army.

But Jesus' kingdom is still called "Israel" (John 1:49, John 12:13-15, John 19:19, Luke 22:30). And at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will sit on the earthly throne of David (Luke 1:32-33, Isaiah 9:7), and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-7, Acts 3:20-21). Jesus is, in his humanity, the son of David (Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:15-16, Romans 1:3), of the house of David (Luke 1:69). So at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will restore the tabernacle, the house, of David (Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11) to its royal glory (2 Samuel 5:12), which it had lost (2 Kings 17:21a). And Jesus will fulfill the prophecy and prayer of 2 Samuel 7:16-29. And he will bring salvation to all the still-living, unbelieving elect Jews of the house of David. For they (along with all other still-living, unbelieving elect Jews) will come into faith in him when they see him at his 2nd coming (Zechariah 12:10-14, Zechariah 13:1,6, Romans 11:26-31). And so they will all become part of the church at that time, for now there are no believers outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-6).

After Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, Zechariah 14:3-5) will occur the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Zechariah 14:8-21), during which time the Gentile nations will come to seek the returned Jesus ruling the whole earth (Zechariah 8:22, Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11) on the restored throne of David (Isaiah 9:7) in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-11,16-19). And the physically resurrected church will reign on the earth with Jesus during the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). For the church is Israel (Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

 

[BABerean2]

In this audio file Pastor John Reisinger, uses scripture to explain the problems with both Dispensational and Covenant Theology.

The message comes from the book "Abraham's Four Seeds", which should be required reading for all Christian pastors.

You can skip the first 6 minutes, if you want to miss the commercial.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkUzH914IzM


His book "Abraham's Four Seeds" is available at amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/Abrahams-Four...31247180&sr=8-1&keywords=Abraham's+Four+Seeds

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually, the OP presents a reasonably accurate view of classical nineteenth century dispensationalism. The only problem with this presentation is that it utterly fails to demonstrate what part of this doctrine is "Dangerous Confusion and Delusion." The fact that someone do not agree with it does not make it any of these things.

But this rant, while is contains a reasonably accurate description of what these men taught. It contains two drastic errors. The first of these is:

During the 19th century, a peculiar doctrine known as "dispensationalism" arose.

This doctrine became popular at that time. But its essence was being taught a very long before the nineteenth century.

Now, this entire scheme, though popular in recent years, has no roots in historic Christian interpretation of the Scriptures, and at present it is collapsing under the weight of criticism from bible-believing scholars of a more historically orthodox persuasion.

I have already presented extensive proof, in this sub-forum and in the dispensationalism sub-forum, that this statement is absolutely false.

 

[Straightshot]

And you have done an exemplary job BW .... but random person does not care

He is stuck in the randomness of preterism .... a doctrine which was also concocted after the Lord's Word on the issue was completed

The early "church" fathers of the RCC did the same as random person ascribes to Darby

What about it random person? .... tell the forum where preterism is rooted and give commentary

 

[Danoh]

Actually, the OP presents a reasonably accurate view of classical nineteenth century dispensationalism. The only problem with this presentation is that it utterly fails to demobstrate what part of this doctrine is "Dangerous Confusion and Delusion." The fact that someone do not agree with it does not make it any of these things.

But this rant, while is contains a reasonably accurate description of what these men taught. It contains two drastic errors. The first of these is:



This doctrine became popular at that time. But its essence was being taught a very long before the nineteenth century.



I have already presented extensive proof, in this sub-forum and in the dispensationalism sub-forum, that this statement is absolutely false.

Couldn't agree more.

And note how they will ignore we agree with what we see eye to eye with them that they migt continue to assert the sensationalism they group us all into while they run rampant in their own; chief among them their version of the wild and way out there John Haggee - their Carl Gallups.

Though he is more BAB2's pride and joy, lol

 

[BABerean2]

Couldn't agree more.

And note how they will ignore we agree with what we see eye to eye with them that they migt continue to assert the sensationalism they group us all into while they run rampant in their own; chief among them their version of the wild and way out there John Haggee - their Carl Gallups.

Though he is more BAB2's pride and joy, lol

Pride and Joy... No.

Just another man, made of rotten flesh, subject to the same error as myself, who is accountable to correction based on what is written in God's Word.

However, he does believe in only one Gospel to be preached to those of all bloodlines.

He is a Baptist preacher who has rejected the pretrib rapture doctrine, therefore he must be shown to be unworthy of the pulpit by some.

I am sure he is used to the personal attacks by Dispensationalists.


.

 

[Danoh]

Pride and Joy... No.

Just another man, made of rotten flesh, subject to the same error as myself, who is accountable to correction based on what is written in God's Word.

However, he does believe in only one Gospel to be preached to those of all bloodlines.

He is a Baptist preacher who has rejected the pretrib rapture doctrine, therefore he must be shown to be unworthy of the pulpit by some.

I am sure he is used to the personal attacks by Dispensationalists.


.

Those two videos by him - the one you posted, and the one I posted, reveal, for anyone unbiased as they hear the man out; reveal the exact type of closet, Acts 2 Dispensationalist sensationalist at his worst.

His every output on those two videos is that of someone out for a buck via however he has to adjust his act to suit the sensationalist needs of whatever circus has him speak.

But for some of his differences in belief his tactics are exactly those of Jeffrey, Stone, Hagee, et al including the Israel in 1948 sensationalist notions.

What is it about him that appeals to you - he is everything you have asserted for a very long time now that you can't stand about the Acts 2 sensationalists?

Is it that you know you screwed up in endorsing him and now have to back up your actions to save face rather than simply admit you were wrong?

It happens. No one is perfect. Drop him and find someone more consistent with what you assert against. I'd still not agree with you, but at least you'd have our respect.

Try following those two assertions at the end of your posts.