Doubting My Dispensationalism.

Jeff Carr said:

I have been a Classic Dispensationalist for many, many years. Over the past 2 years I have become doubtful about it, becoming what John MacArthur called, a 'leaky dispensationalist'. I still believe Israel is special to God and is not to be confused with the Church and has future restoration when 'all Israel will be saved'.
Having encountered other dispensationalists, especially on Forums such as this, I have been troubled in the way some Scripture is dismissed by saying, 'that not for us, that's Jewish'. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is said to be 'old dispensation' or for the future Millenium and has no claim on us today. Most of the Old Testament I am being told is for Israel not the Church, and so vast amounts of the Bible are made of limits to today's Christian. This has gradually become disturbing to me and called into question the veracity of dispensationalism.

The question I am now facing is this, is dispensationalism found from within the text of Scripture, or is dispensationalism something being imposed upon Scripture?
Is dispensationalism found through exegesis of Scripture or is it a case of eisegesis of Scripture?

I have to confess that I am coming to the conclusion that dispensationalism is a theological construct, that is being placed upon Scripture. It is a lens through which people are viewing and interpreting the Word of God incorrectly. It is something that is robbing Christians of precious parts of the Bible.

Paul instructed young Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul also told Timothy to 'rightly divide the Word of God', I don't think he had dispensationalism in mind.

Click to expand...

Alistair Begg once gave the advice in a sermon that we should be careful not to strictly box ourselves into theological camps. I look at the OT to NT as the same, just one is in promise and the other is in the fulfilling of that promise. No need to complicate it . As far as most of the OT being for physical Israel and not Spiritual Israel, the Spiritual Israel goes all the way back to Nineveh at least (Luke 11:32). The OT Promises are for all believrs, Jew and Gentile (Romans 2:28-29, Galatians 3:29). All those Promises were realized after the death, resurrection and ascension.

Jesus said "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?""

Same message, just one is in promise, the other in reality.


Dave

I'm curious if, having apparently listened to MacArthur, you consider Calvinism pretty nearly valid. Have you looked into Reformed Theology? Or, Covenant Theology?

Meanwhile, I would like to mention, that Orthodoxy —that is, the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, or in some established standard of faith; -- opposed to heterodoxy or to heresy— is a pretty good way to judge Dispensationalism. To avoid a long debate, (and I grew up in Dispensationalism, too), I will mention that Dispensationalism has only been around 250 years or so. It is a "new look at things", and not mainstream at first, and so, to be held in some degree of skepticism. What is called "Reformed Theology" hails back to nobody but Scripture. It has also been said, and there is truth to it, that Calvin himself was no Calvinist. It is only a name. The Reformation was a returning to Scripture and Grace.

I have also, though I can't say they are all like this, seen dispensationalism particularly appealing to the spectacular, and to be all about the end times, rather than about obedience and pursuit of Christ, and particularly about the "Doctrine of God, proper" —who and what God is. We are here to learn of him—not concentrating on the end times. Read Revelation to see the heart of God. Look at the covenant between the persons of the Trinity, from the very beginning through all the between, to the very end—THE reason God created all things was for that purpose, consummated in Rev 21: “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."

Jeff Carr said:

I have been a Classic Dispensationalist for many, many years. Over the past 2 years I have become doubtful about it, becoming what John MacArthur called, a 'leaky dispensationalist'. I still believe Israel is special to God and is not to be confused with the Church and has future restoration when 'all Israel will be saved'.
Having encountered other dispensationalists, especially on Forums such as this, I have been troubled in the way some Scripture is dismissed by saying, 'that not for us, that's Jewish'. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is said to be 'old dispensation' or for the future Millenium and has no claim on us today. Most of the Old Testament I am being told is for Israel not the Church, and so vast amounts of the Bible are made off limits to today's Christian. This has gradually become disturbing to me and called into question the veracity of dispensationalism.

The question I am now facing is this, is dispensationalism found from within the text of Scripture, or is dispensationalism something being imposed upon Scripture?
Is dispensationalism found through exegesis of Scripture or is it a case of eisegesis of Scripture?

I have to confess that I am coming to the conclusion that dispensationalism is a theological construct, that is being placed upon Scripture. It is a lens through which people are viewing and interpreting the Word of God incorrectly. It is something that is robbing Christians of precious parts of the Bible.

Paul instructed young Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul also told Timothy to 'rightly divide the Word of God', I don't think he had dispensationalism in mind.

Click to expand...

I asked AI for help finding the paralleling, or similar passages to Rev. 21, Covenant theology:

So, per Chat GPT-5 mini:

Yes — the idea that God dwells with his people (a covenantal presence between the persons of the Trinity and the people) appears repeatedly in Scripture, both explicitly and implicitly. Key passages that state the same promise in words or in principle include:

• Exodus 29:45–46 — “I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God. They will know that I am the Lord who brought them out… I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God.” (God’s presence with his covenant people in the tabernacle.)
• Leviticus 26:11–12 — “I will put my dwelling place among you… I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.” (A clear covenantal promise of divine presence.)
• Deuteronomy 31:6–8 and 1 Kings 8:10–13 / 2 Chronicles 7:1–3 — God’s presence with Israel at the entry into the land and in the temple dedication (the cloud/ glory filling the temple).
• Psalm 46:4–7 and Psalm 27:4–5 — images of God’s presence/ dwelling that reflect the theme of God with his people and refuge in him.
• Isaiah 7:14; 8:8–10; 25:8–9; 59:21; 66:14–24 — Isaiah anticipates God’s saving presence and a renewed fellowship; especially Isaiah 57:15 and 66:1–2 which combine transcendence and dwelling near the contrite.
• Ezekiel 37:26–28 — “I will make a covenant of peace… I will dwell in the midst of them forever.” (Explicit covenant language linking God’s dwelling with his covenant people.)
• Jeremiah 31:31–34 — the “new covenant” promise: God writes his law on hearts and is present in a new intimate way with his people.
• Zechariah 2:10–11; 8:3 — “I will dwell in your midst” and peoples joining themselves to the Lord; a restored people with God present.
• Malachi 3:16–17 — God’s people are called “my special possession” and he remembers them — a relational, covenantal note.

New Testament passages that reinterpret/fulfill the OT promise include:

• John 1:14 — “The Word became flesh and dwelt (Greek: ἐσκήνωσεν, literally ‘pitched his tent’) among us.” (Christ as God dwelling among people — link to tabernacle imagery.)
• John 14:16–23 — Jesus promises the Father will send the Spirit and that the Father and Son will make their home with believers (“…we will come to him and make our home with him”).
• Matthew 1:23 (quoting Isaiah) — “Immanuel” — “God with us.”
• Acts 2 (Pentecost) — Spirit comes to dwell in the community of believers; the church as God’s dwelling in the Spirit.
• Romans 8:9–11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19 — believers are God’s temple; the Spirit dwells in them.
• Ephesians 2:19–22 — believers are built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (the household/temple imagery culminating in corporate dwelling).
• Colossians 1:19; 2:9 and Hebrews 1–2 — the fullness of God dwelling in Christ and the reconciling presence extended to believers.
• Revelation 21:3 (your quote) sums up and consummates this theme: God dwelling with his people, covenantally theirs.

Taken together, the Bible develops a continuous storyline: God’s covenant promise to dwell among his people (tabernacle/temple), its foreshadowing in the prophets (new covenant, restoration), its fulfillment in Christ (Immanuel, Word made flesh), and its application to the Spirit-filled people/church (believers as God’s temple), culminating in the eschatological vision of Revelation 21.

(End of GPT chat)

Jeff Carr said:

Thanks for your reply. My understanding of Covenant Theology is, like dispensationalism, is a relatively new view. According to what I have read, Johannes Cocceius introduced it in the 17th century.
Again, from what I have read about the covenants portrayed, Scripture seems to be silent. But maybe I have it wrong.

Click to expand...

Formalized as such, perhaps, but as can be seen in the many references AI provided, quoted above, the one covenant, at least, seems to me to be THE VERY PURPOSE God created. It is seen throughout creation. It is not, like Dispensationalism, just some thought-provoking way to look at scripture, that may seem to answer a lot of questions and Revelation in particular —not just a lens.

Jeff Carr said:

I have been a Classic Dispensationalist for many, many years. Over the past 2 years I have become doubtful about it, becoming what John MacArthur called, a 'leaky dispensationalist'. I still believe Israel is special to God and is not to be confused with the Church and has future restoration when 'all Israel will be saved'.
Having encountered other dispensationalists, especially on Forums such as this, I have been troubled in the way some Scripture is dismissed by saying, 'that not for us, that's Jewish'. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is said to be 'old dispensation' or for the future Millenium and has no claim on us today. Most of the Old Testament I am being told is for Israel not the Church, and so vast amounts of the Bible are made off limits to today's Christian. This has gradually become disturbing to me and called into question the veracity of dispensationalism.

The question I am now facing is this, is dispensationalism found from within the text of Scripture, or is dispensationalism something being imposed upon Scripture?
Is dispensationalism found through exegesis of Scripture or is it a case of eisegesis of Scripture?

I have to confess that I am coming to the conclusion that dispensationalism is a theological construct, that is being placed upon Scripture. It is a lens through which people are viewing and interpreting the Word of God incorrectly. It is something that is robbing Christians of precious parts of the Bible.

Paul instructed young Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul also told Timothy to 'rightly divide the Word of God', I don't think he had dispensationalism in mind.

Click to expand...

I definitely believe that dispensationalism is a false doctrinal system and does not come through exegesis of scripture. Is there anything specific you want to discuss in relation to it? Dispensationalism promotes the idea of a pre-trib rapture. Do you believe in a pre-trib rapture? What are the things that you have come across that have led you to doubt dispensationalism? You mentioned that you've seen dispensationalists claim that the Sermon on the Mount does not apply to us today and they are wrong about that. Any other examples you can share?

Jeff Carr said:

I still believe in a pre-millennial approach to end times.

Click to expand...

As an amillennialist, I obviously disagree with that approach.

Jeff Carr said:

And yes, I believe in a pre-trib rapture but not for dispensational reasons, but I see it taught in scripture.

Click to expand...

Do you think you would believe in a pre-trib rapture if not for the influence of dispensationalism? If so, I don't mean any offense by this, but I find that hard to believe.

Jeff Carr said:

One of the things I have been looking into is Luke and the book of Acts. Dispensationalists tend to see it as only a 'descriptive' account of the Early Church. However, I believe that Luke was not just a historian but also a theologian, using history to teach doctrine. Thus, Acts is also 'prescriptive' in nature.
From the Book of Acts, I can see valid reasons for a second work of grace in the hearts of believers. Acts clearly teaches that there is a subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit for the believer. This is seen in the various accounts of believers receiving the Holy Spirit, recorded there. This, dispensationalists would stoutly deny. I am not talking about a Pentecostal/Charismatic view of subsequence but rather a confirmation of my own Wesleyan belief in a further work of sanctification in the believer's life subsequent to regeneration.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Can you try to clarify what you mean? Maybe give an example of what you're talking about that you see in the book of Acts?

Jeff Carr said:

Other dispensationalist things I have encountered are people's belief that there are two Gospels, Kingdom and Grace.

Click to expand...

I believe that is a doctrine of demons. There is only one gospel, which is the gospel of Christ. Here is what Paul said about anyone who teaches any gospel besides the one he preached...

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Jeff Carr said:

That only Paul had the revelation that the Church was the Body of Christ. That baptism and the Lord' Supper are not present requirements for the Church today. The list goes on and on!

Click to expand...

That's all complete nonsense and I'm glad you're starting to realize it.

Jeff Carr said:

Sorry if I have confused you. I shall try and make it plainer.


I have many Amillennialist friends, as it is a secondary issue, we don't lose fellowship over it.

I was a premillennialist, pre-tib, before I became a dispensationalist.

My questions about the Book of Acts are,

* Was Luke just a historian when he wrote Acts, or was he a theologian (or maybe both) using the history of the early church to teach truth?

* Were the experiences of believers receiving the Holy Spirit, (chapters 2,8,9,10,19), given in Acts by Luke written to teach us that there is, a second work of the Spirit, subsequent to regeneration?

My Wesleyan faith (and I believe the Bible) teaches that there is a second work of grace, subsequent to regeneration, whereby the Holy Spirit entirely sanctifies the believer.1 Thes 5:23.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I just don't understand what you're talking about. Thanks for trying to clarify your view, anyway.

Jeff Carr said:

My Wesleyan faith (and I believe the Bible) teaches that there is a second work of grace, subsequent to regeneration, whereby the Holy Spirit entirely sanctifies the believer.1 Thes 5:23.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

Sorry, but I just don't understand what you're talking about. Thanks for trying to clarify your view, anyway.

Click to expand...

The Wesleyan understanding has to do with a necessary second work of grace. Jeff's term, "sanctification", here, is not about a growing in Christ bit by bit, or even by leaps and bounds, but a change done in them, completely converting them from slavery to sin—some of them even say that after this second work of grace, there is no more "the old man" within them, fighting them for control. It is very similar to the Keswick view of sanctification. https://bible.org/article/wesleyan-amp-keswick-models-sanctification

I knew personally two people, one a Bible College President, and one a good friend, a Wesleyan pastor, who claimed they had, after a certain date, never sinned again. The friend, I asked, if he would let me speak to his wife about that, for maybe 5 minutes. He laughed, and said that he meant that his spirit, his will, were never in any way in rebellion against God, anymore. Both believed this was a necessary step in the life of any believer, subsequent to regeneration.

Neither seemed to think that this too was part of justification, but only subsequent to justification.

Jeff Carr said:

Were the experiences of believers receiving the Holy Spirit, (chapters 2,8,9,10,19), given in Acts by Luke written to teach us that there is, a second work of the Spirit, subsequent to regeneration?

Click to expand...

This is a separate topic from your original post so I will give my understanding of the baptism of His Holy Spirit here since Spiritual Jew does not know what you are talking about.

First we should look back at what John the Baptist said about His Holy Spirit.

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." —
Matthew 3:11 (NKJV)

Clearly John did not say it was a " second work" but what he did say is , after repentance from unbelief to belief, Jesus Christ of Nazareth through His Holy Spirit, will immerse the believer in His Spirit. This is the process of regeneration, the new man, the new wine and many other metaphors used to explain this gift of Grace. Now after that, His Holy Spirit equips the believer with gifts. These are all listed in scripture. This is where the confusion comes in as a "second work". It is not a second work.It is a continuation. Gifts are highly regarded by pentecostals and charismatics and should be sought after however, they repackaged the one and only event into two , because this was the only way to reconcile the the errors that came out of the Azusa revival and frankly the birth of a whole new denomination.
It is so simple to request a gift from our Father. If true regeneration occurred , there is no reason to deny such gifts to a believer. Simply ask!

Hope this helps.

Mark Quayle said:

The Wesleyan understanding has to do with a necessary second work of grace. Jeff's term, "sanctification", here, is not about a growing in Christ bit by bit, or even by leaps and bounds, but a change done in them, completely converting them from slavery to sin—some of them even say that after this second work of grace, there is no more "the old man" within them, fighting them for control. It is very similar to the Keswick view of sanctification. https://bible.org/article/wesleyan-amp-keswick-models-sanctification

I knew personally two people, one a Bible College President, and one a good friend, a Wesleyan pastor, who claimed they had, after a certain date, never sinned again. The friend, I asked, if he would let me speak to his wife about that, for maybe 5 minutes. He laughed, and said that he meant that his spirit, his will, were never in any way in rebellion against God, anymore. Both believed this was a necessary step in the life of any believer, subsequent to regeneration.

Neither seemed to think that this too was part of justification, but only subsequent to justification.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Not really sure what to think about all that. But, thanks for the info.

Jeff Carr said:

I have been a Classic Dispensationalist for many, many years. Over the past 2 years I have become doubtful about it, becoming what John MacArthur called, a 'leaky dispensationalist'. I still believe Israel is special to God and is not to be confused with the Church and has future restoration when 'all Israel will be saved'.
Having encountered other dispensationalists, especially on Forums such as this, I have been troubled in the way some Scripture is dismissed by saying, 'that not for us, that's Jewish'. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is said to be 'old dispensation' or for the future Millenium and has no claim on us today. Most of the Old Testament I am being told is for Israel not the Church, and so vast amounts of the Bible are made off limits to today's Christian. This has gradually become disturbing to me and called into question the veracity of dispensationalism.

The question I am now facing is this, is dispensationalism found from within the text of Scripture, or is dispensationalism something being imposed upon Scripture?
Is dispensationalism found through exegesis of Scripture or is it a case of eisegesis of Scripture?

I have to confess that I am coming to the conclusion that dispensationalism is a theological construct, that is being placed upon Scripture. It is a lens through which people are viewing and interpreting the Word of God incorrectly. It is something that is robbing Christians of precious parts of the Bible.

Paul instructed young Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul also told Timothy to 'rightly divide the Word of God', I don't think he had dispensationalism in mind.

Click to expand...

I am very happy to hear that you are going through a reconstruction process. Seek and ye shall find! Just be aware, there are different levels of dispensationalism. Most of what you're saying is hyper, John hagee and the like and unfortunately there is a forum poster here who has introduced what I would call, heretical hyper dispensationalism, do not pay any attention to that!
What you do need to do is really discern Gospel truth from man-made doctrine. Now you can literally fast track all this information , if you just ask our Father to impress upon you this truth. Believe it or not , that's how I got out of dispensational futurism overnight.
Meanwhile, you are on the right track!

Be blessed.

Maria Billingsley said:

I am very happy to hear that you are going through a reconstruction process. Seek and ye shall find! Just be aware, there are different levels of dispensationalism. Most of what you're saying is hyper, John hagee and the like and unfortunately there is a forum poster here who has introduced what I would call, heretical hyper dispensationalism, do not pay any attention to that!
What you do need to do is really discern Gospel truth from man-made doctrine. Now you can literally fast track all this information , if you just ask our Father to impress upon you this truth. Believe it or not , that's how I got out of dispensational futurism overnight.
Meanwhile, you are on the right track!

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the key to understanding scripture is to ask God for wisdom, as James said to do, and He will give it to us if we don't doubt (James 1:5-7). I think people try to rely too much on their own fallible understanding instead of relying on the Holy Spirit for discernment (1 Corinthians 2:9-16) and end up believing in false doctrinal systems like dispensationalism as a result.

Jeff Carr said:

The doctrine of entire sanctification is grounded in the Scriptures not people's experiences. For every one person you can show whose experience is 'suspect', I can show you ten whose lives demonstrate the beauty of holiness.

Click to expand...

"Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."1 Sam 16:7
"The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked—who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

Jeff Carr said:

The Wesleyan view of sanctification is very different from the Keswick view. The Wesleyan view is that the blood of Christ cleanses from ALL sin and fills the heart with perfect love. The Keswick view has indwelling sin remaining in the heart, counteracted upon by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

And both are suspect. 1 John 1 says, "8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

There are many passages like this one: “You were taught with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires.” – Ephesians 4:22 (Notice the present tense continuous action, of, "being corrupted".) Sadly, though it tells us what to do, we must continue to do so, and the old self will plague us until the day we die. And many more that sound like what you are saying, which must not be taken out of context.

Jeff Carr said:

I have been a Classic Dispensationalist for many, many years. Over the past 2 years I have become doubtful about it, becoming what John MacArthur called, a 'leaky dispensationalist'. I still believe Israel is special to God and is not to be confused with the Church and has future restoration when 'all Israel will be saved'.
Having encountered other dispensationalists, especially on Forums such as this, I have been troubled in the way some Scripture is dismissed by saying, 'that not for us, that's Jewish'. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is said to be 'old dispensation' or for the future Millenium and has no claim on us today. Most of the Old Testament I am being told is for Israel not the Church, and so vast amounts of the Bible are made off limits to today's Christian. This has gradually become disturbing to me and called into question the veracity of dispensationalism.

The question I am now facing is this, is dispensationalism found from within the text of Scripture, or is dispensationalism something being imposed upon Scripture?
Is dispensationalism found through exegesis of Scripture or is it a case of eisegesis of Scripture?

I have to confess that I am coming to the conclusion that dispensationalism is a theological construct, that is being placed upon Scripture. It is a lens through which people are viewing and interpreting the Word of God incorrectly. It is something that is robbing Christians of precious parts of the Bible.

Paul instructed young Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul also told Timothy to 'rightly divide the Word of God', I don't think he had dispensationalism in mind.

Click to expand...

Your instincts here are sound, and from a Catholic standpoint your concerns are not only understandable but genuinely praiseworthy. The Catholic Church has always held that Scripture is one unified revelation, centred on Christ, and entrusted to the Church for authentic interpretation (Dei Verbum 10). Because of that, the idea that vast portions of Scripture are “not for Christians” simply cannot be reconciled with the apostolic faith. Jesus Himself teaches from the Law and the Prophets as the living Word addressed to His disciples (Luke 24:27), and the Church has always proclaimed that the Old Testament is “an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 121). So when you feel disturbed by the dismissal of the Sermon on the Mount or the sidelining of the Old Testament, that unease is the Holy Spirit nudging you toward the Church’s perennial teaching that all Scripture speaks to the one People of God (CCC 702–716).

From a Catholic perspective, the difficulty with dispensationalism is precisely what you’ve begun to articulate: it is not something that arises organically from the text but a framework imposed upon it. The apostles never teach multiple peoples of God, multiple gospels, or multiple divine plans; rather, they proclaim that in Christ “there is one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:4–5). Paul’s teaching that “all Scripture is profitable” (2 Tim 3:16) is taken at full strength in Catholic tradition, and his exhortation to “rightly divide” (2 Tim 2:15) has always been understood as rightly handling, not partitioning Scripture into separate covenants with separate destinies. The Church Fathers—from Irenaeus to Augustine—consistently read the entire Bible as a single, unfolding economy of salvation culminating in Christ and His Church, not as a set of disconnected dispensations.

So please be encouraged: the questions you’re wrestling with are leading you toward a richer, more integrated reading of the Word of God. The Catholic vision doesn’t rob Israel of its dignity—far from it. It sees Israel’s vocation fulfilled, not cancelled, in Christ (Rom 11:17–24), and it sees the Church as the continuation of God’s one saving plan, not a parenthesis. If anything, stepping away from dispensationalism opens the door to reclaiming the whole of Scripture as your inheritance in Christ. And that’s a beautiful place to be.

Jeff Carr said:

I have been a Classic Dispensationalist for many, many years. Over the past 2 years I have become doubtful about it, becoming what John MacArthur called, a 'leaky dispensationalist'. I still believe Israel is special to God and is not to be confused with the Church and has future restoration when 'all Israel will be saved'.
Having encountered other dispensationalists, especially on Forums such as this, I have been troubled in the way some Scripture is dismissed by saying, 'that not for us, that's Jewish'. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is said to be 'old dispensation' or for the future Millenium and has no claim on us today. Most of the Old Testament I am being told is for Israel not the Church, and so vast amounts of the Bible are made off limits to today's Christian. This has gradually become disturbing to me and called into question the veracity of dispensationalism.

The question I am now facing is this, is dispensationalism found from within the text of Scripture, or is dispensationalism something being imposed upon Scripture?
Is dispensationalism found through exegesis of Scripture or is it a case of eisegesis of Scripture?

I have to confess that I am coming to the conclusion that dispensationalism is a theological construct, that is being placed upon Scripture. It is a lens through which people are viewing and interpreting the Word of God incorrectly. It is something that is robbing Christians of precious parts of the Bible.

Paul instructed young Timothy that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 3:16. When Paul also told Timothy to 'rightly divide the Word of God', I don't think he had dispensationalism in mind.

Click to expand...

Wow. I've never heard anyone say that the Sermon on the Mount was 'old dispensation' or for a future millennium. That's just mindless. Surely those same folks don't relegate the Beatitudes to the past or to the future too, right?

On the topic of Dispensationalism, like any '--ism' out there, we have to be careful to critically assess the gold from the dross and not just swallow the whole hog bones and all.