The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jeff: "(IF and ) When was Jesus' offer of kingship made to the Jews ? (any offer of kingship : temporal, eternal, physical, spiritual .... in Scripture)"
I never said there was such an offer, but it is the central pointof Dispensationalism, particularly Classic Dispensationalism. In one form or another, Dispensationalism is very influential these days. The Left Behind books and movies are based on it.
I reject Dispensationalism. On the Eschatology forum, it is the norm.

footnote fwiw: the left behind books are fraudulent, very bad influence, opposed to Scripture - no one should read them nor see the movies.

Back to a question then:

Well, when do they say Jesus made an offer of kingship to the Jews, the offer they say the Jews(most of them) rejected ?

If anyone, disp or non-disp made that claim/post, I would ask them directly.

Is the Eschatology forum all or primarily made up of dispensationalists ? I noted some continuous bad errors by different posters there, but never noticed if they were disp or not... and they don't allow to be corrected, whichever they are .... (weird how some sections are self-protective in error, so the errors cannot even be exposed in their sections) (or at least takes getting used to allowing glaring errors, eh? )

 

[Dale]

footnote fwiw: the left behind books are fraudulent, very bad influence, opposed to Scripture - no one should read them nor see the movies.

Back to a question then:

Well, when do they say Jesus made an offer of kingship to the Jews, the offer they say the Jews(most of them) rejected ?

If anyone, disp or non-disp made that claim/post, I would ask them directly.

Is the Eschatology forum all or primarily made up of dispensationalists ? I noted some continuous bad errors by different posters there, but never noticed if they were disp or not... and they don't allow to be corrected, whichever they are .... (weird how some sections are self-protective in error, so the errors cannot even be exposed in their sections) (or at least takes getting used to allowing glaring errors, eh? )

I agree that the Left Behind books and movies are a bad influence. I haven't read any of them but I have looked at reviews on Amazon. One thing that more than one reviewer has said is that they seem to be written on a "third grade" level. It's like they aren't intended for adults.

As best I can understand the Dispensational position, the ministry of Jesus as a whole was the offer of kingship. The Sanhedrin made the decision for the whole nation when they decided to crucify Jesus, since that is the opposite extreme from making Him king.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree that the Left Behind books and movies are a bad influence. I haven't read any of them but I have looked at reviews on Amazon. One thing that more than one reviewer has said is that they seem to be written on a "third grade" level. It's like they aren't intended for adults.

Sometime in the last couple decades, it was pointed out that most television shows, and a lot of 'literature', is written for the 6 year old to 12 year old level, that that is the goal and main market in the untied states (for books and movies to sell more of and make more money) (both religious and non-religious ones) .... This might not be far off. Also, it seems from studies, most people over 21 years old hardly ever read a book, if ever.
A small point then is that the age/ level of reading/or of a movie/ does not make those books and movies evil and wrong. There is so much that may be making them wrong, yes, but the main one is that they lie to people, distracting them from Scripture Truth, and make it harder for them to learn the truth - even more difficult for them to WANT TO LEARN THE TRUTH. (tickled ears like to be tickled more, and love the company arm in arm with others approving of them) ....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As best I can understand the Dispensational position, the ministry of Jesus as a whole was the offer of kingship. The Sanhedrin made the decision for the whole nation when they decided to crucify Jesus, since that is the opposite extreme from making Him king.

I don't remember ever hearing this before this thread, so I don't really know what to do unless some living Dispensationalists care to make a post to say what they think,
and if they think it is standard for Dispensationalists or unusual / unique/ for some.

It is obviously true, as Scripture plainly says, "His Own people rejected Him".....

but I don't know how this fits in with Dispensationalist's or non-Dispensationalist's teachings, doctrines or lives (or dogmas) ?

 

[Guojing]

Jeff: "(IF and ) When was Jesus' offer of kingship made to the Jews ? (any offer of kingship : temporal, eternal, physical, spiritual .... in Scripture)"


I never said there was such an offer, but it is the central pointof Dispensationalism, particularly Classic Dispensationalism. In one form or another, Dispensationalism is very influential these days. The Left Behind books and movies are based on it.

I reject Dispensationalism. On the Eschatology forum, it is the norm.

what gospel was Jesus, John the Baptist, as well as the 12 preaching during, say Luke 9:6?

it was certainly not Jesus coming to die for their sins and reconcile them to God.

 

[Dave L]

Scofield says on Mt 5:2-12; "For these reasons, the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church. These are found only in the Epistles."

Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 7:28).
And John says any who do not have the doctrine of Christ do not have God (2 John 9–11). Nor are we to bid them a good day, or let them into our house.

 

[HardHead]

As best I can understand the Dispensational position, the ministry of Jesus as a whole was the offer of kingship. The Sanhedrin made the decision for the whole nation when they decided to crucify Jesus, since that is the opposite extreme from making Him king.

Interesting.

Does any satanic or some other evil influence enter into this view from what you know? What was the motivation of the Sanhedrin decision to do this the way they did it?

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from General Theology to a forum for Dispensationalism.​

 

[ralliann]

Most criticism of Dispensationalism has centered on the Rapture, the most well known belief of Dispensationalists. Much criticism has been focused on their treatment of Jews and Israel, which sometimes sets up a two-tiered scheme of salvation. A lot of criticism has been focused on Dispensationalism as a surprisingly recent belief system. Dispensationalists are extreme literalists but this doesn't mean that they agree with other literalists.

As we shall see, the Dispensationalists say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that followed, is only a "parenthesis" in God's plan. God's original plan is on hold. Most Christians find this rather jarring, considering the emphasis that Paul put on "Christ crucified." A critic would say that the whole notion of a parenthesis is only needed to make their end-of-the-world calculations come out right.

This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).

"This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized."

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. The Collected Works of Lewis Sperry Chafer - Seven books in one. Jawbone Digital. Kindle Edition. The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, Chapter V: The Kingdom Rejected and Postponed, Kindle location 3470-3473.

Chafer (1871-1952) founded the Dallas Theological Seminary. He is one of the most frequently quoted Dispensationalists. According to Chafer, there are seven Dispensations in the Bible. Other interpreters have added or subtracted from this. More conventional theologians say there are only two, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The claim of a Kingdom offer made by Chafer and other Dispensationalists is flatly contrary to the Bible. It also leaves Christian theology in chaos.

"14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."
John 6: 14-15 NIV

According to John, it was not the Jews who rejected the offer of a Kingdom, but Jesus who fled from those who wanted to make Him a King. Jesus did not intend to lead a revolt against Rome and local monarchs like Herod.

There are other Gospel verses that contradict Chafer's notion of Jesus setting up a theocratic Jewish kingdom.

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”[c]
Luke 17:20-21 NIV
c:Luke 17:21 Or is within you

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”[c]
Luke 17: 20-21 RSV
c: Luke 17:21 Or within you

When the Pharisees ask when is the Kingdom coming, Jesus doesn't say that the Jews have to accept a theocratic kingdom for it to happen. Instead He says that the Kingdom of Heaven is more subtle than the one they are expecting.

Rev. Chafer's notion that the crucifixion wasn't planed from the beginning is apparently contradicted by this verse.

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
John 6:70-71 RSV

It looks like Judas was chosen as an Apostle precisely because the crucifixion was the plan from the beginning.

Abraham expected it to be the plan.

Heb 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Covenants = Wills of inheritance......
Genesis 15...….
** The first covenant made with Abraham was to the fourth generation of his seed. Isaac, and Jacob were not the heirs of this covenant.

Ge 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

**Abraham would be dead when this covenant came into effect...

Ge 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

** Not only would Abraham be dead, but the second and third generation of his seed. As this covenant (inheritance) was to the fourth generation.

Ge 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

**Third generation dies, as Joseph expected
Ex 1:6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

Ex 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

Therefore, yes the resurrection was expected by the fathers, as they would be dead when the inheritance to the fourth generation was put into force. So, the necessity of being raised from the dead for the inheritance promised to all Abrahams seed was set.

The inheritance established in Isaac, Genesis 17 , the first generation of his seed (Jacob, 2nd generation and Joseph 3rd generation) would necessitate a resurrection from the dead.
So God tested Abrahams faith by the sacrifice of Isaac, his only born son (heir apparent) of all Abrahams sons.

Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

No force of a testament ( will inheritance) Abraham, the testator was yet living.....
Ge 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

Isaac given the estate of Abraham
Ge 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

 

[Josheb]

Yahuweh's Choice. (or Yahuweh Willing). There are many posters/ posts/ I , without trying to even, find common ground with - like @Der Alter , who is wonderful combatting the false gospel of u.r. ... on other things, we have strong disagreements so far. It will take a number of months to work those out, probably.

It won't happen at all if you are not looking and working for it. I asked a yes or no question and received a response but not an actual answer to the specific question asked.

That might not be important.

You just went on record as a Christian in a Christian forum stating finding, noting, and accept what fact/truth might not be important.

Are you sure you don't want to amend that statement?

Not only was there a blunt statement reporting finding, noting, accepting fact/truth unimportant but the subsequent comments both declared and proved a bend toward ignoring the 99% for the sake of the negative 1%. Can you understand 1) scripture has much to say about that orientation and 2) it biases any conversation in which you'd participate in this op?

Even if 99 things are right in a message, if there is just one contradiction to Scripture, then the message is not accepted.

That is most definitely, certainly, definitively, absolutely, undeniably, irrefutably, inextricably the case with Premillennial Dispensationalism. I (and I suspect Dale, too) completely agree with you a single flaw could be fatal to a given doctrine or theology.

That's why this conversation is being had. Is Premillennial Dispensationalism fatally flawed? According to you it takes only one percent. Will you be as critical of DPism as you are of the dissenting posts? Will that parity be observable in what we read?

Not at all the way you put it, no.

So looking for, noting, and accepting truth is not important and the 99% is inconsequential if there is a fatal 1% but you're not proactively looking for flaws.

You are not looking for fact/truth but are not looking for flaws, either.

Would you mind clarifying that?

I realized that the title itself was a hint that there was probably an error so to be cautious at least while reading the content.

A hint of a probable error. That is what you saw. Seeing a hint of probable error you want to be cautious and in so being finding, noting, accepting truth is not important but finding the fatal 1% is but you're not proactively looking for flaws.

What is written to do with any message before accepting it ?

That is incomprehensible. Flawed syntax.

I don't know what you mean by that question, nor by that term.

Hmmmmm…

You've entered a discussion in which the opening post is titled, "The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism, and you do not understand the term "Dispensationalist"? You seek to discover and discuss some possible or probable fatal 1% without understanding the very term being discussed? And you answer my question even though a simple Google search and cursory reading of four different search result websites (Wiki, Theopedia, CARM, and GotQuestions) took me only 56 seconds?

Furthermore, I read the statement you don't understand what I mean by using the term "dispensationalist," but in your very first contribution to this conversation I read, "This isn't true of 'dispensationalism' ...nor in line with Scripture, nor in line with God's Plan," so I wonder who it can be claimed something is or isn't true if 1) finding, noting, and accepting fact/truth is unimportant and 2) you don't understand the term "dispensationalist," apparently because Dispensationalists believe some of what Jesus said but maybe not all.

I invite you to clarify and reconcile those statements.

 

[Josheb]

I don't think I've seen that one. Maybe I'll look for it.

Dispensational Premillennialism, as you noted previously, is a relatively new theology, historicall or chronologically speaking. Historical Premillennialism has been around since the ECFs. There is nothing particularly noteworthy in and of new thought itself because Christian thought evolves as our collective understanding of scripture improves. It took almost 400 years to pwork out some of our core doctrines (like the divinity of Christ and the Trinity) and there have been episodes in which radical change occurred in our thinking and subsequent doctrine(s), as was the case with the Reformation. The concept of dispensations can be found in the ECFs but they always used that term in relationship to the covenants mentioned in the Bible, never as an alternative or competing paradigm.

DPism is a radical departure from well- and long-established thought, practice, and doctrine. It is also a theology still in process of defining itself. Darby and Scofield had some differences. Ryrie, Chafer, and Pentecost also had some slightly different perspectives (and each of the latter three wrote large volumes specifically on Dispensationalism). After them the likes of Walvoord (who took over the leadership of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) from Chafer), Smith, Lindsay, and others popularized their views, especially the eschatology. The Progressive Dispensationalists and the traditionalists (like Thomas Ice) have been sorting things out following the debacle of false predictions rampant in the last quarter of the 1900s. I encourage you to read the DPers in their own words (with Bible in hand).

If you're not already aware of it, I also encourage you to make the historical connections with the influence of Methodism on the restoration movements of the 1900s and the subsequent emphasis on experientialism found in the Pentecostal, AoG, and WoF veins. None of that was considered mainstream or orthodox prior to the 1800s.

Simply put, DPism began as a restoration movement (like the SDAs, JWs, and LDS) but managed to stay within the pale of orthodoxy and the mainstream Christian thought but it was vigorously resisted from its inception. In its inception Darbyism held 1) the church is corrupt (bad ecclesiology), 2) the church will become impotent in its battle against satan's influence in the world and need rescuing (bad ecclesiology), 3) the church needs to separate itself from political involvement and influence in social policy (two kingdoms theology), 4) there is a bloodline salvation (bad soteriology), 5) that will entail the murderous destruction of millions of Jews (anti-Semitic), 6) that is going to happen literally (no pun intended) any day now (bad eschatology), and 7) a claimed but not actual literal hermeneutic (bad exegesis).

The dispensationalists are unabashed in their beliefs and the theses Ryrie, Chafer, and Pentecost wrote readily assert what I've just posted. There was a dualism about their belief the church should be involved in politics during the 70s-80s because of Roe v Wade but Falwell's and Walvoord's treatises on DPism aren't significantly different than Darby's or Chafer's. Blaising and Bock met a great deal of resistance when they first attempted to integrate more Reformed perspectives into DPism but they are increasingly accepted within the pale of DP orthodoxy and both have taught at DTS.

It's mostly my personal opinion, but having read the big three treatises, I find Chafer's the most thorough and articulate. He also references scripture better, even if I find his interpretations and applications highly eisegetic.

 

[His student]

As we shall see, the Dispensationalists say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that followed, is only a "parenthesis" in God's plan.

Can you show us in the quotes of Chafer or some other dispensationalists where they say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that has followed is "ONLY" a parenthesis, (as you tell us they say)?

I don't see it any of the quotes you provided.

When you purposefully use the word "only", it makes their view of Christ and His sacrifice and the building of His Body seem of little importance to them. Unless you can provide statements where they do so minimize their importance - I will consider your charges as rather disingenuous and, excuse the expression, you are up to no good as you are misrepresenting their view of Christ and His centrality in history and in God's plan.

Please show me that that isn't so and I am mistaken about you. Please provide a quote where Chafer minimizes the importance of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Most criticism of Dispensationalism has centered on the Rapture, the most well known belief of Dispensationalists. Much criticism has been focused on their treatment of Jews and Israel, which sometimes sets up a two-tiered scheme of salvation. A lot of criticism has been focused on Dispensationalism as a surprisingly recent belief system. Dispensationalists are extreme literalists but this doesn't mean that they agree with other literalists.

As we shall see, the Dispensationalists say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that followed, is only a "parenthesis" in God's plan. God's original plan is on hold. Most Christians find this rather jarring, considering the emphasis that Paul put on "Christ crucified." A critic would say that the whole notion of a parenthesis is only needed to make their end-of-the-world calculations come out right.

This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).

"This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized."

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. The Collected Works of Lewis Sperry Chafer - Seven books in one. Jawbone Digital. Kindle Edition. The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, Chapter V: The Kingdom Rejected and Postponed, Kindle location 3470-3473.

Chafer (1871-1952) founded the Dallas Theological Seminary. He is one of the most frequently quoted Dispensationalists. According to Chafer, there are seven Dispensations in the Bible. Other interpreters have added or subtracted from this. More conventional theologians say there are only two, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The claim of a Kingdom offer made by Chafer and other Dispensationalists is flatly contrary to the Bible. It also leaves Christian theology in chaos.

"14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."
John 6: 14-15 NIV

According to John, it was not the Jews who rejected the offer of a Kingdom, but Jesus who fled from those who wanted to make Him a King. Jesus did not intend to lead a revolt against Rome and local monarchs like Herod.

There are other Gospel verses that contradict Chafer's notion of Jesus setting up a theocratic Jewish kingdom.

20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”[c]
Luke 17:20-21 NIV
c:Luke 17:21 Or is within you

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”[c]
Luke 17: 20-21 RSV
c: Luke 17:21 Or within you

When the Pharisees ask when is the Kingdom coming, Jesus doesn't say that the Jews have to accept a theocratic kingdom for it to happen. Instead He says that the Kingdom of Heaven is more subtle than the one they are expecting.

Rev. Chafer's notion that the crucifixion wasn't planed from the beginning is apparently contradicted by this verse.

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
John 6:70-71 RSV

It looks like Judas was chosen as an Apostle precisely because the crucifixion was the plan from the beginning.

So to put it in a few words. The fatal flaw in dispensationalism is that the dispensations in the Bible ain’t what they say they are.

 

[Al Touthentop]

When did the Apostles and permanent disciples /Ekklesia/ learn of His kingship and accept it His Way (not as if earthly king at the time which apparently so many expected including some disciples) .... ?
On Pentecost, did those who were saved knowingly and wittingly believe and accept Jesus' kingship at that time ?

I would expect so.

[quote url="[URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2&version=NKJV"]Bible Gateway passage: Acts 2 - New King James Version[/URL]"]
Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.[/quote] [Emphasis added]

 

[Al Touthentop]

Jeff: "(IF and ) When was Jesus' offer of kingship made to the Jews ? (any offer of kingship : temporal, eternal, physical, spiritual .... in Scripture)"


I never said there was such an offer, but it is the central pointof Dispensationalism, particularly Classic Dispensationalism. In one form or another, Dispensationalism is very influential these days. The Left Behind books and movies are based on it.

I reject Dispensationalism. On the Eschatology forum, it is the norm.

Jesus himself repudiates premillennial dispensationalism. Nay, he mocks it.

So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. 22Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. 23When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. 24And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.”

25Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He [g]expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

(Lk. 24:19-27)

 

[Dale]

what gospel was Jesus, John the Baptist, as well as the 12 preaching during, say Luke 9:6?

it was certainly not Jesus coming to die for their sins and reconcile them to God.

We don't have a lot of details about what the disciples of Jesus were saying at that time, but look at what the Gospels tell us about the teaching of John the Baptist. Considering the praise that Jesus gave to John the Baptist, He must have thought highly of this teaching.


3 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”

4 John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6 Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Matthew 3:1-12 NIV


7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
Luke 3:7-14 NIV

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So to put it in a few words. The fatal flaw in dispensationalism is that the dispensations in the Bible ain’t what they say they are.

No.
It looks like that depends on who you are talking to, each time, and what they say (it is often different than the preconceived notions put forward here or anywhere, I think).

 

[Josheb]

Can you show us in the quotes of Chafer or some other dispensationalists where they say that the crucifixion of Christ and the entire church age that has followed is "ONLY" a parenthesis, (as you tell us they say)?

I don't see it any of the quotes you provided.

When you purposefully use the word "only", it makes their view of Christ and His sacrifice and the building of His Body seem of little importance to them. Unless you can provide statements where they do so minimize their importance - I will consider your charges as rather disingenuous and, excuse the expression, you are up to no good as you are misrepresenting their view of Christ and His centrality in history and in God's plan.

Please show me that that isn't so and I am mistaken about you. Please provide a quote where Chafer minimizes the importance of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary.

Can you show us where Chafer or any other Dispensational Premillennialist mentions some other parenthesis? In the absence of any other asserted parenthesis the one on record is in fact the only one. Works both ways, His student.

 

[Josheb]

So to put it in a few words. The fatal flaw in dispensationalism is that the dispensations in the Bible ain’t what they say they are.

As I read the op the fatal flaw is the belief God planned to institute a physical kingdom on the physical planet with Jesus as the physical king.

From the OP:

"This thread focuses on the most basic idea of Dispensationalism, besides dispensations. Dispensationalism claims that God offered the Jews a chance to make Jesus their earthly King. Jesus would then have overthrown the Romans and established Israel as a theocratic Kingdom, eventually covering the world. Since this was God's original plan, Christianity came about when the Jews rejected the Kingship of Jesus. God went to Plan B, which included the (crucifixion), the (resurrection), the (ascension), (Pentecost), and the (church age).

'This offer of the kingdom which was extended through Christ, John, and the disciples to the nation [Israel] was rejected by that nation, notwithstanding the fact that it was in complete fulfillment of every divinely given prediction. It was a bona fide offer and, had they received Him as their King, the nation's hope would have been realized.'"​

 

[David Kent]

This isn't true of 'dispensationalism' (unless you found a rare or unique group somewhere).., nor in line with Scripture, nor in line with God's Plan.

Nor is this premise truth >>>

I have met many dispies, and been on forums that are mainly them and I have never come across any that did not believe in the parenthesis teaching.