Problems Within Dispensationalism

[Josheb]

I've been discussing Dispensational Premillennialism (DPism) with other Christians in various Christian forums. I've most recently been discussing six basic problems within Dispensationalism that believers in other theological orientations either don't experience at all or don't experience to the severity they occur within Dispensationalism. I'll list six of the problem in summary and if conversation inclines me to do so I'll post separate ops for each. The six problems are

• Dispensationalism is a new and radically different theology that has departed in hermeneutic, doctrine and practice from long-held and well-established Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. It is a theology defined by its eschatology, not the other way around.
• Dispensationalism has a long and consistent history of propagating false teachers. No other theology teaches its teachers to make false predictions the way DPism does.
• Dispensationalism lacks accountability. This occurs in a small number of ways but most notably in the long history of false prognosticators never being corrected and no one ever doing anything to stop these individuals from teaching falsely, no one ever making restitution to those injured by such teaching.
• There is a certain inconsistency in Dispensational practice that is so sever it sometimes borders on hypocrisy. This too occurs in a small number of ways but two of the most obvious are the requirement to read scripture literally and the failure to do so consistently while criticizing those who do. Another example lies in the fact DPism is the single greatest cause of sectarianism in modernity, yet it decries this condition, citing it as evidence of the Church's corruption.
• The conditions listed above lead to a somewhat dissociated life by DPism's adherents. Either the theology teaches one thing or the individual says they believe something but in actual practice something else is done. For example, anyone truly believing they are going to be raptured off the planet this week, next month, next year or in the coming decade should not be saving for retirement. Doing so would be a poor use of God's resources in what time remains before those resources become worthless and inconsistent with this economy (dispensation).
• Dispensationalism compromises long-held and well-established core doctrines held by nearly all of Christendom for 20 centuries. Christianity is quite diverse but we agree in regards to formal Theology (capital "T" = the nature of God), Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and of course eschatology. There is enormous unity shared by the rest of Christendom in these areas not shared by DPism.

I am aware Dispensationalists may read this as a tiresome rag but it's not my intention to rag on DPism for the sake of rancor. TOU violating posts will be ignored. Non-DPers are invited to comment on the above list. So too are DPers. The basic question is "What do you think of Dispensationalism given these facts?" Some of you may dispute the above as facts but I can evidence every single one of these six point even though I suspect we ALL know this list to have veracity.

This op is specifically and solely about these six problems within Dispensational Premillennialism listed above. It is not specifically about all Dispensational teachings. Dispensationalists have a tendency to teach and defend their eschatology and this often ends up with an op being derailed far afield of its original topic. I'll ignore any such post and remind everyone of the topic periodically. If the op goes far afield of the op I'll ask the mods to close the thread. It's also common practice for dispies and non-dispies to show contempt for one another. It violates the tou and if I read it, even if it's not directed at me, I will report it. All views are invited as long as they are posted with manners and respect.

I used to be a Dispensationalist. I have read Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, Lester, Blaising, Bock and many others in their own words, not just second- and third- hand sources who variously support, critique, or criticize Dispensationalism. I don't require anyone else to have done so; I'd simply like to know what you all think about the six concerns listed above. I've noticed several ops in this specific board that do a good job of defining Dispensationalism. That's why I haven't done so in this op. However, I'll provide original source material for anyone asking for an elaboration of DP teachings. I recommend anyone not familiar with Dispensational Premillennialism to read Lew Sperry Chafer's book, "Dispensationalism". It's a big book but one of the best on the topic. Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, the leading Dispensational seminary in the US.

Lastly, I consider each of you my siblings in Christ. I do not think you are not a Christian because you're a Dispensationalist. I assume we are all otherwise sincere and devout regenerate believers in Christ and it is because of that assumed position that I ask these questions. These problems are real.

Blessings on you all.

 

[Clare73]

I've been discussing Dispensational Premillennialism (DPism) with other Christians in various Christian forums. I've most recently been discussing six basic problems within Dispensationalism that believers in other theological orientations either don't experience at all or don't experience to the severity they occur within Dispensationalism. I'll list six of the problem in summary and if conversation inclines me to do so I'll post separate ops for each. The six problems are

--Dispensationalism is a new and radically different theology that has departed in hermeneutic, doctrine and practice
from long-held and well-established Christian thought, doctrine, and practice.
It is a theology defined by its eschatology, not the other way around.
--Dispensationalism has a long and consistway around.ent history of propagating false teachers. No other theology teaches its teachers to make false predictions the way DPism does.

--Dispensationalism lacks accountability. This occurs in a small number of ways but most notably in the long history of false prognosticators never being corrected and no one ever doing anything to stop these individuals from teaching falsely, no one ever making restitution to those injured by such teaching.
--There is a certain inconsistency in Dispensational practice that is so sever it sometimes borders on hypocrisy. This too occurs in a small number of ways but two of the most obvious are the requirement to read scripture literally and the failure to do so consistently while criticizing those who

do. Another example lies in the fact DPism is the single greatest cause of sectarianism in modernity, yet it decries this condition, citing it as evidence of the Church's corruption.
--The conditions listed above lead to a somewhat dissociated life by DPism's adherents. Either the theology teaches one thing or the individual says they believe something but in actual practice something else is done. For example, anyone truly believing they are going to be raptured off

the planet this week, next month, next year or in the coming decade should not be saving for retirement. Doing so would be a poor use of God's resources in what time remains before those resources become worthless and inconsistent with this economy (dispensation).
--Dispensationalism compromises long-held and well-established core doctrines held by nearly all of Christendom for 20 centuries. Christianity is quite diverse but we agree in regards to formal Theology (capital "T" = the nature of God), Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and of course eschatology. There is enormous unity shared by the rest of Christendom in these areas not shared by DPism.

I am aware Dispensationalists may read this as a tiresome rag but it's not my intention to rag on DPism for the sake of rancor. TOU violating posts will be ignored. Non-DPers are invited to comment on the above list. So too are DPers. The basic question is "What do you think of Dispensationalism given these facts?" Some of you may dispute the above as facts but I can evidence every single one of these six point even though I suspect we ALL know this list to have veracity.

This op is specifically and solely about these six problems within Dispensational Premillennialism listed above. It is not specifically about all Dispensational teachings. Dispensationalists have a tendency to teach and defend their eschatology and this often ends up with an op being derailed far afield of its original topic. I'll ignore any such post and remind everyone of the topic periodically. If the op goes far afield of the op I'll ask the mods to close the thread. It's also common practice for dispies and non-dispies to show contempt for one another. It violates the tou and if I read it, even if it's not directed at me, I will report it. All views are invited as long as they are posted with manners and respect.

I used to be a Dispensationalist. I have read Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, Lester, Blaising, Bock and many others in their own words, not just second- and third- hand sources who variously support, critique, or criticize Dispensationalism. I don't require anyone else to have done so; I'd simply like to know what you all think about the six concerns listed above. I've noticed several ops in this specific board that do a good job of defining Dispensationalism. That's why I haven't done so in this op. However, I'll provide original source material for anyone asking for an elaboration of DP teachings. I recommend anyone not familiar with Dispensational Premillennialism to read Lew Sperry Chafer's book, "Dispensationalism". It's a big book but one of the best on the topic. Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, the leading Dispensational seminary in the US.

Lastly, I consider each of you my siblings in Christ. I do not think you are not a Christian because you're a Dispensationalist. I assume we are all otherwise sincere and devout regenerate believers in Christ and it is because of that assumed position that I ask these questions. These problems are real.

Blessings on you all.

Your first and last points are of particular concern to me--the effect of dispensationalism on Christology and ecclesiology.

I find the prevailing focus on the destiny of Israel is diminishing the doctrine of Christ.
We need only check our own thinking.
What is it that captures our interest and attention--is it the working out of the excellency of God's plan in his new creation and bride of Christ, or the (supposed) working out of God's plan for a restoration of Israel. Hands down, it's the (supposed) sensational future of Israel. This doctrine captivates our minds to the diminishment of the doctrine of Christ. In about one more generation, we won't even realize that, although theologically we maintain the centrality of the doctrine of Christ, practically; i.e., in terms of our focus, attention, interest, conversation, anticipation, orientation, etc., the doctrine of Christ has become a stepsister to the (false) doctrine of Israel.

But it is the Church, the bride of Christ and the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), that is the center of God's plan (Ephesians 3:10-11), and not a future restoration of Israel.
It is the Church, the new creation of God, that is the fulfillmnt of the ages (1 Corinthians 10:11; Ephesians 1:22-23) and the goal to which all history has moved (Ephesians 1:9-10), and not some future restoration of Israel apart from the Church.
And it is the Church that is the end of the ages and time (Hebrews 9:26), and not some future age of Israel after the Church.
And finally, it is Israel's destiny to be grafted back into the Church (Romans 11:23), the one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:16-17, Romans 11:23).
A future of Israel apart from the Church cannot be reconciled to NT authoritative teaching.

 

[Josheb]

I'll take this incrementally.

Your first and last points are of particular concern to me--the effect of dispensationalism on Christology and ecclesiology.

I find the prevailing focus on the destiny of Israel is diminishing the doctrine of Christ.

I completely agree but before get to far down this avenue we should ALL first acknowledge something many Dispensationalists may not know: The entire rest of Christendom does NOT view Israel as eschatologically relevant. There are five main eschatologies: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Idealism, and Dispensational Premillennialism, and only DPism considers Israel or its temple relevant. Everyone else says no to that premise. This view was invented in the mid-1800s by John Darby.

Does something new automatically mean it is wrong? No! That is not my argument. The problem lies in this simple undeniable fact: if Dispensational Premillennialism is correct then all the rest of Christendom is wrong and has been wrong for 20 centuries going all the way back to the fledgling days of the ekklesia in the NT era. Can't be had both ways.

So... getting back to what you've said, if that view of Israel and the separation of Church and Israel is correct then this is also a very different doctrine of the Church than has ever been taught and it is one that leads to the unavoidable conclusion: if they are correct then everyone else in the entire history of the Church has been wrong. Our doctrine of Christ and the Church are wrong and they've always been wrong. John Darby has set us straight.

That's a problem.

 

[Josheb]

What is it that captures our interest and attention--is it the working out of the excellency of God's plan in his new creation and bride of Christ, or the (supposed) working out of God's plan for a restoration of Israel. Hands down, it's the (supposed) sensational future of Israel. This doctrine captivates our minds to the diminishment of the doctrine of Christ.

Curiously someone in another fourm just brought up the same question. Their answer was emotional pleasure and profit (it sells a lot of airtime, books, and movies).

I'm less interested in the speculative psychology. There are very real and objectively observable problems. Get those addressed and the psychology takes care of itself (truth has a way of doing that ).

 

[Josheb]

But it is the Church, the bride of Christ and the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), that is the center of God's plan (Ephesians 3:10-11),
and not a future restoration of Israel.
It is the Church, the new creation of God, that is the fulfillmnt of the ages (1 Corinthians 10:11; Ephesians 1:22-23) and the goal to which all history has moved (Ephesians 1:9-10), and not some future restoration of Israel apart from the Church.
And it is the Church that is the end of the ages and time (Hebrews 9:26), and not some future age of Israel after the Church.
And finally, it is Israel's destiny to be grafted back into the Church (Romans 11:23), the one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:16-17, Romans 11:23).
A future of Israel apart from the Church cannot be reconciled to NT authoritative teaching.

The problem is bigger than that. Dispensationalism's Jesus is not currently ruling. He's in heaven and his reign doesn't start until the millennium, the one here on earth. It does not matter that he is God and God is always and everywhere almighty and sovereign. He's a God that does not always or everywhere rule. That is a radically different Christology. Even when he comes to rule here on earth he's not going to be successful. In the end there's a rebellion and he's gonna have to kill everyone eek: josh says hyperbolically). That too is a very different Christology. Either Dispensationalism is correct and the entire rest of Christendom for its entire 20 centuries of existence is wrong Christologically or Dispensationalism is wrong. This view of Christ was the invention of John Darby.

Let me again remind everyone this op is not about comparative theology. There are problems within DPism. Yes, they must be understood in the context of alternatives but when it comes to the core doctrines we don't need to post a lot of exposition. Everyone agrees Jesus is God (except the non-Trins). The word "God" means something. Anything inconsistent with that meaning is a problem. Likewise the word ekklesia (church) means something and it is scripture that defines the Church as the body of Christ. The Church, despite its diversity hasn't been divided on what those called out as Christ's body over whom not even the gates of heel will prevail means. That is until John Darby came along.

To be fair, Dispensationalism was simply one of many sects that arose during the restoration movements of the 1800s. The CoC, SDA, JWs, LDS and others all became prominent during this period but Darbyism has proved to be the view within the pale of orthodoxy under which the other mainstream sects fall. I can post the history on this if anyone is interested but I'll probably do it in a separate op. I'd like this op to focus on the problems listed. We should all, even DPists, agree the problems exist. What to think and do about them is the purpose of the op.

 

[Guojing]

I've been discussing Dispensational Premillennialism (DPism) with other Christians in various Christian forums. I've most recently been discussing six basic problems within Dispensationalism that believers in other theological orientations either don't experience at all or don't experience to the severity they occur within Dispensationalism. I'll list six of the problem in summary and if conversation inclines me to do so I'll post separate ops for each. The six problems are

• Dispensationalism is a new and radically different theology that has departed in hermeneutic, doctrine and practice from long-held and well-established Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. It is a theology defined by its eschatology, not the other way around.
• Dispensationalism has a long and consistent history of propagating false teachers. No other theology teaches its teachers to make false predictions the way DPism does.
• Dispensationalism lacks accountability. This occurs in a small number of ways but most notably in the long history of false prognosticators never being corrected and no one ever doing anything to stop these individuals from teaching falsely, no one ever making restitution to those injured by such teaching.
• There is a certain inconsistency in Dispensational practice that is so sever it sometimes borders on hypocrisy. This too occurs in a small number of ways but two of the most obvious are the requirement to read scripture literally and the failure to do so consistently while criticizing those who do. Another example lies in the fact DPism is the single greatest cause of sectarianism in modernity, yet it decries this condition, citing it as evidence of the Church's corruption.
• The conditions listed above lead to a somewhat dissociated life by DPism's adherents. Either the theology teaches one thing or the individual says they believe something but in actual practice something else is done. For example, anyone truly believing they are going to be raptured off the planet this week, next month, next year or in the coming decade should not be saving for retirement. Doing so would be a poor use of God's resources in what time remains before those resources become worthless and inconsistent with this economy (dispensation).
• Dispensationalism compromises long-held and well-established core doctrines held by nearly all of Christendom for 20 centuries. Christianity is quite diverse but we agree in regards to formal Theology (capital "T" = the nature of God), Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and of course eschatology. There is enormous unity shared by the rest of Christendom in these areas not shared by DPism.

I am aware Dispensationalists may read this as a tiresome rag but it's not my intention to rag on DPism for the sake of rancor. TOU violating posts will be ignored. Non-DPers are invited to comment on the above list. So too are DPers. The basic question is "What do you think of Dispensationalism given these facts?" Some of you may dispute the above as facts but I can evidence every single one of these six point even though I suspect we ALL know this list to have veracity.

This op is specifically and solely about these six problems within Dispensational Premillennialism listed above. It is not specifically about all Dispensational teachings. Dispensationalists have a tendency to teach and defend their eschatology and this often ends up with an op being derailed far afield of its original topic. I'll ignore any such post and remind everyone of the topic periodically. If the op goes far afield of the op I'll ask the mods to close the thread. It's also common practice for dispies and non-dispies to show contempt for one another. It violates the tou and if I read it, even if it's not directed at me, I will report it. All views are invited as long as they are posted with manners and respect.

I used to be a Dispensationalist. I have read Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, Lester, Blaising, Bock and many others in their own words, not just second- and third- hand sources who variously support, critique, or criticize Dispensationalism. I don't require anyone else to have done so; I'd simply like to know what you all think about the six concerns listed above. I've noticed several ops in this specific board that do a good job of defining Dispensationalism. That's why I haven't done so in this op. However, I'll provide original source material for anyone asking for an elaboration of DP teachings. I recommend anyone not familiar with Dispensational Premillennialism to read Lew Sperry Chafer's book, "Dispensationalism". It's a big book but one of the best on the topic. Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, the leading Dispensational seminary in the US.

Lastly, I consider each of you my siblings in Christ. I do not think you are not a Christian because you're a Dispensationalist. I assume we are all otherwise sincere and devout regenerate believers in Christ and it is because of that assumed position that I ask these questions. These problems are real.

Blessings on you all.

Would you agree that everyone is a dispensationalist, even if they are unaware of it?

If you believe physical circumcision was necessary in the past to be right with God (Genesis 17:14), but no longer necessary now, you are a dispy.

If you believe animal sacrifices for sins were necessary in the past but no longer necessary now, you are a dispy.

 

[Josheb]

Would you agree that everyone is a dispensationalist, even if they are unaware of it?

I assume you mean every Christian. Yes, in the generic sense that scripture does speak of dispensation and scripture is taken as written all Christians are dispensationalist. All Christians are preterist, too. We believe the messianic prophecies of the OT have in fact been fulfilled. That is preterist. However, there is a fundamental difference between acknowledging a dispensation and being a Dispensational Premillennialist. I believe I noted the concept of "dispensation" has been written about in Christian literature going all the way back to the ECFs. However, dispensations were always approached from within the context of the more explicitly stated covenants. They were never seen as separate or disparate and the whole of scripture was viewed with continuity. None of that is the case with DPism. So we are all to one degree or another dispensationalist but we are not Dispensationalist.

As to the remainder of your post I explicitly stated the op is not for the purpose of teaching Dispensationalism. And you're wrong. Those two conditions don't make me a dispy. Vlach would like his audience to think that is the case but he's arguing a false cause. There are many reasons for believing those two things were necessary at that time. Being a Covenantalist, for example would satisfy that matter. That false-cause is an invention.

And it is not a scriptural one, a rational one, or a true one.

And that is a problem, a problem within Dispensationalism.

 

[Guojing]

Those two conditions don't make me a dispy. Vlach would like his audience to think that is the case but he's arguing a false cause. There are many reasons for believing those two things were necessary at that time. Being a Covenantalist, for example would satisfy that matter. That false-cause is an invention.

And it is not a scriptural one, a rational one, or a true one.

And that is a problem, a problem within Dispensationalism.

Wait, you do agree that God did change in his requirements for what Man must do, to be right with him, in those 2 examples I have provided correct?

That is basically what dispy is, God does not deal with Man the same way, throughout the entire Bible.

 

[Josheb]

Wait, you do agree that God did change in his requirements for what Man must do, to be right with him, in those 2 examples I have provided correct?

That is basically what dispy is, God does not deal with Man the same way, throughout the entire Bible.

No, I do not agree. The two examples you cited are better understood through the covenant, not an unstated dispensation imposed on the text.

The righteous live by faith.

The righteous have all always lived by faith. Your two examples were for the Jews, not all people. Your two examples were testimonies to Christ, the one by whom all people live or die....... by grace through faith for works. No one was ever saved by works. Yes, it is part of what constitutes being a Dispensationalist, but it is not what constitutes being dispensationalist. Dispensationalism redefines "dispensation".

It's a problem.

They do not teach the historical use of the term.

That's a problem.

God has always dealt with humanity in the same way. Only Dispensational Premillennialism, a theology invented by John Darby in the 1800s, teaches differently. ALL the rest of Christendom believes in the continuity of scripture (the continuity of history). Dispensationalism does not. All the rest of Christendom understands dispensation via the covenants. Dispensationalism does not.

 

[Guojing]

No, I do not agree. The two examples you cited are better understood through the covenant, not an unstated dispensation imposed on the text.

The righteous live by faith.

The righteous have all always lived by faith. Your two examples were for the Jews, not all people. Your two examples were testimonies to Christ, the one by whom all people live or die....... by grace through faith for works. No one was ever saved by works. Yes, it is part of what constitutes being a Dispensationalist, but it is not what constitutes being dispensationalist. Dispensationalism redefines "dispensation".

It's a problem.

They do not teach the historical use of the term.

That's a problem.

God has always dealt with humanity in the same way. Only Dispensational Premillennialism, a theology invented by John Darby in the 1800s, teaches differently. ALL the rest of Christendom believes in the continuity of scripture (the continuity of history). Dispensationalism does not. All the rest of Christendom understands dispensation via the covenants. Dispensationalism does not.

No one is claiming that anyone is saved by works.

I am claiming that physical circumcision was necessary, after Genesis 17:14, to be right with God.

A necessary condition is NOT a sufficient condition. Do you agree that Genesis 17:14 stated it as necessary?

 

[Josheb]

No one is claiming that anyone is saved by works.

I am claiming that physical circumcision was necessary...

You stated, "circumcision was necessary to be right with God...," and "circumcision was necessary in the past to be right with God, but no longer necessary now, you are a dispy," but neither is a correct understanding of the Bible. The last sentence is something a leading Dispensationalist, Michale Vlach, has said to persuade others they too are Dispensationalist in an effort to normalize DPism but there are very real problems with that statement beginning with the fact God required circumcision only of Abraham's descendants but it did not make them right with God. Paul argues quite plainly Abraham was justified by faith before being circumcised.

And Dispensationalists do claim some are saved by works. You probably haven't considered this before. Dispensational Premillennialism agrees with the rest of the Church tat anyone can be saved by grace through faith in Christ. However, the theology also separate Israel from the Church (no other theology does so) AND says there are two completely different divine purposes for each (no other theology does so) AND plainly teach Israel will have to be reconstituted, rebuild the temple, re-establish the Levitical priesthood, re-establish animal sacrifices and go through a terrible tribulation before coming to faith in Christ.

That is a works-based soteriology.

Never acknowledged but that is the logically necessary conclusion of their teachings. It is a two-kingdom theology that teaches two avenues of salvation. They ignore all the works their eschatology teaches Israel will have to do by emphasizing Israel's coming to faith.

The Bible does not label circumcision as a dispensation. Dispensationalist do that. The Bible explicitly states circumcision was a sign of a covenant, the covenant initiated by God with Abraham to whom He preached the gospel (Gal 3). Believing circumcision was a temporary requirement indicative of a greater future reality does not make one a dispensationalist or a Dispensationalist.

Acknowledging dispensations exist is scriptural. Teaching the kinds of dispensations the Dispensations teach is may or may not be. In order to accept they manner in which Dispensationalism uses the concept of dispensation a person has to 1) ignore what scripture does explicitly state (covenants) to 2) ignore centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, and 3) accept the very unique way Dispensationalists handle what is otherwise a truth of God's word.

So, there problems with Vlach's assertions. Very real problems. Vlach is a very intelligent, well-educated, and experienced believe so we must ask why he himself teaches these things and isn't more critical of his sources. If you find problems with my posts then I will ask if your are critically examining your sources as you might be of my posts because I am not seeking to divide us.

 

[Guojing]

but there are very real problems with that statement beginning with the fact God required circumcision only of Abraham's descendants but it did not make them right with God. Paul argues quite plainly Abraham was justified by faith before being circumcised.

To understand what exactly you meant by "required circumcision only of Abraham's descendants", if I did not descend from Abraham, can I be right with God at all during the OT after Genesis 17:14, and how do I achieve that?

 

[Biblewriter]

The OP, and a number of the comments, present a completely false concept of the history of Dispensational doctrine.

Two recent books have completely disproved this widely held, but completely incorrect, impression of the history of Christian doctrine.

The first of these two books to appear on the scene was "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by the late William C. Watson. When his book appeared, I sent him my notes on the subject, and he pressed me to pull them together into a book, which was published under the title of "Ancient Dispensational Truth," by James C. Morris (me.)

Brother Watson published over 300 pages of actual examples of Dispensational doctrine having been taught by literally dozens of writers in the 1600s and 1700s, all of them LONG before Darby was even born.

And I presented HARD PROOF, from ACTUAL QUOTATIONS, that most of the main doctrines of Dispensationalism were, not only taught, but CLEARLY set forth, and INSISTED UPON, in the very oldest surviving Christian documents that even touched upon the subjects involved, and continued to be STANDARD DOCTRINE in the church, at least up to the fifth century.

The doctrines that I demonstrated from the most ancient Christian wrirings on the subject were:

The ancient writers used the word "Dispensations" (of course, the Greek word so translated) in exactly the same way that modern Dispensationalists do, as different periods of time during which God dealt with mankind in different ways. (27 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers insisted that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally. (19 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers described an unfulfilled prophetic program for "the Jews." (15 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers taught an end time spiritual revival of "the Jews." (5 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers taught an end times fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week. (19 pages of quotations)

Several ancient writers taught that the church would be "suddenly caught up" BEFORE the "great tribulation." (15 pages of quotations)

And, in an appendix, the true sources of Darby's Dispensational ideas. Which were LONG before the documents alleged to be where he got the ideas, with comments by Darby about THOSE sources, documented by 34 pages of quotations.

 

[BABerean2]

The OP, and a number of the comments, present a completely false concept of the history of Dispensational doctrine.

Two recent books have completely disproved this widely held, but completely incorrect, impression of the history of Christian doctrine.

The first of these two books to appear on the scene was "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by the late William C. Watson. When his book appeared, I sent him my notes on the subject, and he pressed me to pull them together into a book, which was published under the title of "ancient Dispensational Truth," by James C. Morris (me.)

Brother Watson published over 300 pages of actual examples of Dispensational doctrine having been taught by literally dozens of writers in the 1600s and 1700s, all of them LONG before Darby was even born.

And I presented HARD PROOF, from ACTUAL QUOTATIONS, that most of the main doctrines of Dispensationalism were, not only taught, but CLEARLY set forth, and INSISTED UPON, in the very oldest surviving Christian documents that even touched upon the subjects involved, and continued to be STANDARD DOCTRINE in the church, at least up to the fifth century.

The doctrines that I demonstrated from the most ancient Christian wrirings on the subject were:

The ancient writers used the word "Dispensations" (of course, the Greek word so translated) in exactly the same way that modern Dispensationalists do, as different periods of time during which God dealt with mankind in different ways. (27 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers insisted that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally. (19 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers described an unfulfilled prophetic program for "the Jews." (15 pages of quotations)

The ancient writers taught an end time spiritual revival of "the Jews." (5 ages of quotations)

The ancient writers taught an end times fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week. (19 pages of quotations)

Several ancient writers taught that the church would be "suddenly caught up" BEFORE the "great tribulation." (15 pages of quotations)

And, in an appendix, the true sources of Darby's Dispensational ideas. Which were LONG before the documents alleged to be where he got the ideas, with comments by Darby about THOSE sources, documented by 34 pages of quotations.

How many of these earlier sources claimed modern Orthodox Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church?

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants?


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?


.

 

[Biblewriter]

How many of these earlier sources claimed modern Orthodox Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church?

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants?


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?


.

I have already exposed the intentionally deceptive nature of your first question. And as to the rest of your post, the two books I cited present HARD PROOF that everything you said there was incorrect.

 

[BABerean2]

I have already exposed the intentionally deceptive nature of your first question. And as to the rest of your post, the two books I cited present HARD PROOF that everything you said there was incorrect.

I have Watson's book in my library, because you recommended it.

Watson labels all of those who believe Christ gathers His church before the final conflagration as a "Dispensationalist". I believe Christ gathers the Church before the final conflagration, but that does not make me a "Dispensationalist".

In other words, Watson has changed the meaning of the word "Dispensationalist" in order to claim an ancient history of the doctrine.

The original source of the doctrine is found below for all those who want the truth in black and white.

There is... One Gospel, One New Covenant Church, One People of God.


Genesis of Dispensational Theology: This video shows the doctrine came from a Jesuit book.

.

 

[Clare73]

I have Watson's book in my library, because you recommended it.
Watson labels all of those who believe Christ gathers His church before the final conflagration as a "Dispensationalist". I believe Christ gathers the Church before the final conflagration, but that does not make me a "Dispensationalist".
In other words, Watson has changed the meaning of the word "Dispensationalist" in order to claim an ancient history of the doctrine.

The original source of the doctrine is found below for all those who want the truth in black and white.
There is... One Gospel, One New Covenant Church, One People of God.
Genesis of Dispensational Theology: This video shows the doctrine came from a Jesuit book.

However, I do not think it is a Catholic doctrine.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have Watson's book in my library, because you recommended it.

Watson labels all of those who believe Christ gathers His church before the final conflagration as a "Dispensationalist". I believe Christ gathers the Church before the final conflagration, but that does not make me a "Dispensationalist".

In other words, Watson has changed the meaning of the word "Dispensationalist" in order to claim an ancient history of the doctrine.

The original source of the doctrine is found below for all those who want the truth in black and white.

There is... One Gospel, One New Covenant Church, One People of God.


Genesis of Dispensational Theology: This video shows the doctrine came from a Jesuit book.

.

In the first place, you are, as usual, misrepresenting what Watson said. He most certainly did NOT all all these people "Dispensationalists." He truthfully pointed out that they taught doctrine that was "dispensational." And, sadly, yes, he included as "pre-trib," some who were only "pre-conflagration." But a significant number of those he quoted were ACTUALLY pre-trib.

But brother Watson is no longer here to defend himself, so let's leave his book alone, and address mine.

I have POSITIVELY PROVED that the doctrine that you FALSELY claim originated with "the Jesuits" was not only implied, but CLEARLY taught, more than a thousand years before the Jesuits were fomed, in the first two centuries of the church. And in my book, I addressed the erroneous arguments that these early documents did not ACTUALLY teach what they so plainly SAID, and showed WHY these arguments are erroneous, PROVING that Irenaeus, Victorianus, and the unknown writer that modern scholars call "pseudo-Ephraem," ACTUALLY taught that the church would be "suddenly caught up" BEFORE the "great tribulation."

 

[BABerean2]

In the first place, you are, as usual, misrepresenting what Watson said. He most certainly did NOT all all these people "Dispensationalists." He truthfully pointed out that they taught doctrine that was "dispensational." And, sadly, yes, he included as "pre-trib," some who were only "pre-conflagration." But a significant number of those he quoted were ACTUALLY pre-trib.

But brother Watson is no longer here to defend himself, so let's leave his book alone, and address mine.

I have POSITIVELY PROVED that the doctrine that you FALSELY claim originated with "the Jesuits" was not only implied, but CLEARLY taught, more than a thousand years before the Jesuits were fomed, in the first two centuries of the church. And in my book, I addressed the erroneous arguments that these early documents did not ACTUALLY teach what they so plainly SAID, and showed WHY these arguments are erroneous, PROVING that Irenaeus, Victorianus, and the unknown writer that modern scholars call "pseudo-Ephraem," ACTUALLY taught that the church would be "suddenly caught up" BEFORE the "great tribulation."

I have read what you said about Irenaeus. Your assessment of his writings is meant to make the pre-trib doctrine work.

I also contacted Dr. John C. Reeves of UNC-Charlotte about "pseudo-Ephraem". He is an expert on ancient texts. His assessment of pseudo-Ephraem is not the same as the one promoted by author Grant Jeffrey. (see the link)
John C. Reeves | Pseudo-Ephrem (Syriac) (uncc.edu)

"pseudo-" means we do not really know who this guy was. Dr. Reeves has stated in the past the possibility that it is based on the writing of more than one person.

All unbiased witnesses here can find the truth in the sources below.

The last source reveals how "pseudo-Ephraem" promoter Grant Jeffrey selectively quoted the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to make his pre-trib doctrine work.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS

with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.

F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26

http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418



Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine

Pastor Tim Warner

http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


Pretribulationist Revisionism

(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)

Pastor Tim Warner

http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have read what you said about Irenaeus. Your assessment of his writings is meant to make the pre-trib doctrine work.

I also contacted Dr. John C. Reeves of UNC-Charlotte about "pseudo-Ephraem". He is an expert on ancient texts. His assessment of pseudo-Ephraem is not the same as the one promoted by author Grant Jeffrey. (see the link)
John C. Reeves | Pseudo-Ephrem (Syriac) (uncc.edu)

"pseudo-" means we do not really know who this guy was. Dr. Reeves has stated in the past the possibility that it is based on the writing of more than one person.

All unbiased witnesses here can find the truth in the sources below.

The last source reveals how "pseudo-Ephraem" promoter Grant Jeffrey selectively quoted the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to make his pre-trib doctrine work.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS

with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.

F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26

http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418



Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine

Pastor Tim Warner

http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


Pretribulationist Revisionism

(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)

Pastor Tim Warner

http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


.

Who actually wrote the "pseudo-Ephraem" document, or even if it was a compendium, is TOTALLY immaterial. For what IS known, OF A CERTAINTY, is that the records of church libraries show that it was in their collections BEFORE the year 800. That is, a full MILLENNIUM before the time your sources FALSELY claim this doctrine originated.

And as to my book, the fact that others have reached "different conclusions" is immaterial. For NO ONE has been able to answer the IRREFUTABLE arguments that I presented there.