Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

[NewMan99]

Just curious, Dr. Steve...

Have you ever read "Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism" by Ronald Henzel?

Here is a link on Amazon about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Dualism-Decli...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210538203&sr=8-2

I haven't read all of it yet, but it is an interesting read. Just wondering what your thoughts are if you have read it.

 

[drstevej]

Just curious, Dr. Steve...

Have you ever read "Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism" by Ronald Henzel?

Here is a link on Amazon about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Dualism-Decli...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210538203&sr=8-2

I haven't read all of it yet, but it is an interesting read. Just wondering what your thoughts are if you have read it.

Have not read it. Looks interesting.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just curious, Dr. Steve...

Have you ever read "Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism" by Ronald Henzel?

Here is a link on Amazon about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Dualism-Decli...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210538203&sr=8-2

I haven't read all of it yet, but it is an interesting read. Just wondering what your thoughts are if you have read it.

Have you ever seen this lenghthy "Expose" on Dispensationlism? Everything you wanted to know about Dispyism but were afraid to ask, and for good Reason!!!!!

Jesus is indeed shown returning before the "1000yr periods" in Revelation, but not in the way this shows.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/subcats.asp?id=9|21

Evaluating Premillennialism: Part II - Christ’s Return and the Rapture by Cornelis P. Venema

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture.

The common feature of all premillennial teaching is the claim that Christ’s return at the end of the age will take place before the period known as the millennium. Whatever differences exist between Historic and Dispensational Premillennialism — and they are considerable — this teaching is common to them.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Just curious, Dr. Steve...

Have you ever read "Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism" by Ronald Henzel?

Here is a link on Amazon about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Dualism-Decli...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210538203&sr=8-2

I haven't read all of it yet, but it is an interesting read. Just wondering what your thoughts are if you have read it.

I've read the book, and I'm not impressed by its arguments. Henzel attempts to argue that the problems of dispensationalism are rooted in Darby's dualism. This has supposedly led to a decline in dispensationalism. Henzel though misses the boat on a number of key issues concerning dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is not dependent on Darby. Dispensationalism is not a centralized movement centered around a few individuals or denominations. Most dispensationalists have never even read Darby, and most are not Brethren (Darby's group). So for most dispensationalists, attempts centered around Darby to criticize the origins of dispensationalism are irrelevant. There are certain key beliefs which make a dispensationalist a dispensationalist, regardless if they are classical, revised, progressive or even ultra.

Also classical dispensational views and approaches weren't very radical in their day. There already existed distinctions between Israel and the church, before Darby. Allegorizing hermeneutics were quite common among many Christians in the 19th century, not just classical dispensationalists. The dualism of Darby arose from a dual hermeneutic - one literal and one spiritual - which was applied to the OT text. So there was a literal New Covenant applied to the earthly peoples, which a spiritual New Covenant applied to the heavenly peoples. Later dispensationalists dropped the dual (spiritual) hermeneutic and emphasized only the literal. This shifted the classical view, with an eternal dualism between two peoples of God to the revised view, with a distinction between Israel and the Church.

And its no secret that dispensationalism - just like all other theological systems - has changed over time. The primary impetus for these changes have come from observations and interactions with the Biblical text. Just in the last 50-60 years, changes in hermeneutics has increased and deepened our understanding of the Biblical text. These changes have empacted virtually all other traditions as well, moving many nondispensational exegetes to agree with essentially the dispensational interpretation of Romans 11.

I've read other books which have attempted to declare or predict the "decline" of dispensationalism. They really read like speculative wish fulfillments more than anything else. Plus they ignore - or worse, arrogantly dismiss - the large number of rank and file Evangelical Christians who are dispensationalists...


LDG

 

[Biblewriter]

The historical summary of various doctrines and who taught them is interesting, but what is its point?

What counts is what the Bible says.

I am not discrediting the study of great works of the past. I personally own more than sixty volumes written by J. N. Darby, and have devoted much time to reading them. In doing so I have become convinced that much of what he wrote is correct. I do not believe anything because he said it, but because he convinced me that scripture indeed teaches what he claims it teaches. (But I do not think he was right about everything.)

Actually, I am not certain what I think of this particular subject. My post is not about it, but about an (as i see it) undue level of attention to who taught various ideas, as opposed to whether or not they line up with scripture.

 

[drstevej]

The historical summary of various doctrines and who taught them is interesting, but what is its point?

What counts is what the Bible says.

I am not discrediting the study of great works of the past. I personally own more than sixty volumes written by J. N. Darby, and have devoted much time to reading them. In doing so I have become convinced that much of what he wrote is correct. I do not believe anything because he said it, but because he convinced me that scripture indeed teaches what he claims it teaches. (But I do not think he was right about everything.)

Actually, I am not certain what I think of this particular subject. My post is not about it, but about an (as i see it) undue level of attention to who taught various ideas, as opposed to whether or not they line up with scripture.

It was written as a paper for a historical theology class. It was not intended to be a presentation of my views, it was to show how the various views arose. And it was written by a dispensationalist who was studying at a school that affirms covenant theology.

 

[Biblewriter]

It was written as a paper for a historical theology class. It was not intended to be a presentation of my views, it was to show how the various views arose. And it was written by a dispensationalist who was studying at a school that affirms covenant theology.

And my post was not really about your OP (which, by the way, I liked.)
It was rather about a general thrust of many theological papers.

 

[Notrash]

The historical summary of various doctrines and who taught them is interesting, but what is its point?

What counts is what the Bible says.

I am not discrediting the study of great works of the past. I personally own more than sixty volumes written by J. N. Darby, and have devoted much time to reading them. In doing so I have become convinced that much of what he wrote is correct. I do not believe anything because he said it, but because he convinced me that scripture indeed teaches what he claims it teaches. (But I do not think he was right about everything.)

Actually, I am not certain what I think of this particular subject. My post is not about it, but about an (as i see it) undue level of attention to who taught various ideas, as opposed to whether or not they line up with scripture.

Hi BW,
Just wondering if you have the editions edited by Kelly or original editions.
According to McPherson, Kelly edited Darby's writings to further advance the dualism theology and also to attribute pretribulationalism to Darby rather than Irving.

Ovin Need reviewed MacPhersons book and noted the same biblical interpretation differences that we have noted that allow for the differences of outcome of study. Need also noted Macphersons study of papers showing Kelly's reworking of Darbys works and writings. So, again, just wondering, are you reading Kelly or Darby? or both.. since I think you've mentioned Kellys name before.

For example, Darby defined "sovereign grace" as a God given ability to remain heavenly minded, detached from earthly things. [Writings, II.381, 425.] Darby readily admitted that his doctrine of withdrawal and soon coming of Christ changed multitudes of Scriptures. Thus he studied, translated and taught all Scripture in light of the new doctrines he propagated around the world. The new "Bible Reading" method of study developed by the Brethren, and popularized in America by D.L. Moody, permitted Scripture to be "studied" apart from its context. His new doctrines changed the traditional understanding of multitudes of Scriptures as he intentionally went against the orthodox Christian doctrine of his day.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/1996_need_rapture-plot.html

This studying scripture apart from it's context woudl also allow the attatchment of present day scenario's to Matt 24 as you have related in the 1948 revisited thread, acknowledging that some taught that "this generation" was to be applied to those who saw Israel become a Nation again. Surely we dont' still equate the verses that speak of the fig trees and all the trees pushing forth their leaves as being a sign for summer as being associated with the political establishment of Rothschildain Palestine through the Balfour delclaration (1917) and the bareley majority U.N. vote of 1948..... do we?

Was not the pushing forth of the leaves on all the trees as an indication of summer to refer to the signs of the armies circling Jerusalem signifying that it's (Jerusalems) desolation was nigh?

 

[ddub85]

@ JM

Romans 2:9.

Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

This says absolutely nothing about Gentiles becoming Jews.

More background...
Abraham’s justification was used by Paul in Romans 4 to illustrate God’s pattern for saving all believers in all ages, from Gen. 12 to Rev. we find the story of Abraham’s seed in the world...Christ came into this world "to show mercy to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, the oath He swore to our father Abraham." (Luke 1:72,73 ) and the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Covenant made with Abraham.

When was this covenant fulfilled? Where do we see it's fulfillment in scripture?

Galatians 3:7 = all who have faith are Abraham’s children, we are blessed with Abraham v.9 because of this faith and Christ died so this blessing might come onto the gentiles v. 14.

Paul is very clear that the blessing to Gentiles he's speaking of is the same blessing promised TO GENTILES in Gen. 12:3. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that Paul is in no way referring to Gentiles as Israel, Jews, or anything of the like.

Abraham experienced the justification of faith in the promise of the Gospel (Gal. 3:6-9, 18 ), we experience the same justification because we are Abraham’s true seed (Gal. 3:29 ).

We Gentiles are Abraham's seed. But the Jews are from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We Gentiles ARE NOT.

The idea of historic redemption is related to “Abraham and his seed,” only Christ is found in both the Old and New Testaments linking salvation to the seed. Both Reformed Covenantalism and Dispensationalism make the physical children the heirs of the covenant.

According to Gal 3:7-9, we are heirs to the promise of salvation only. There are no other promises that we are associated with.

"In thee shall all nations be blessed."

That promise, and THAT PROMISE ONLY, did Paul associate us with.

In Gal. 3:16 Paul argues for ‘seed’ and not ‘seeds’ and that one seed is Christ. “If our theological view holds that the "promise to Abraham and his seed" (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16.”
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The seed of Abraham includes both. However, there is no requirement that you must be Jewish in order to be in the seed of Abraham. We Gentiles are included in the seed of Abraham and in Christ as Gentiles.

If we apply Gal. 3:16 to Christian parents [as paedobaptists do] or Jews [as dispey's do], it voids Paul’s argument, and contradicts the promise to the seed of Abraham because it has nothing to do with physical birth…but faith.

Again, being the seed of Abraham has nothing to do with being Jewish, but has to do with being in Christ. Both Jew and Gentile are in Christ. Under the scenario you paint, one must be Israel in order to be in Christ, and that contradicts the Bible.

True faith and not birthright determined and still determines salvation. The work of the Holy Ghost [AV reading ] in election [by Grace] is the only way one can access the promise made by Abraham (Romans 9:11, 23-24; Hebrews 6:13-15).
Believers are now heirs to the promise!

Gentiles have always been a part of the promise in Gen 12:3. That has always been the intention. We are heirs to the promise, but in no way are we Israel. The Bible says no such thing.

God Bless!