Too bad that you rely on such an unspiritual authority as Wiki to let you falsely define what dispensational theology teaches.
Too bad you make baseless, derisive claims you cannot prove.
Would you prefer I quote from leading Dispensationalists? I can do that. Will you then repent of the misguided statements you just made?
Here's one of the things Chafer taught in his book, "Dispensationalism,"
It should be observed that though Judaism and Christianity have much in common, they never merge the one into the other. Having each it's own eschatology reaching into eternity, any attempt to fuse these two systems in the interests of a mere unity of the Scriptures is doomed to fail under the acid test of an unprejudiced, faithful searching of the Word of God.... Equally to be desired is an exhaustive work on the soteriology of Judaism; observing in it the first law of a true Old Testament Theology, namely, that in every instance its doctrine shall stand only on the body of truth which obtained in the period under consideration. The all-too-common practice of imposing Christianity back upon Judaism or Judaism forward upon Christianity, is the cause of that dire confusion which appears in some theological literature. The Word of God distinguishes between earth and heaven, even after they are created new. Similarly, as as clearly it distinguishes between God's consistent and eternal earthly purpose, which is the substance of Judaism; and His consistent and eternal heavenly purpose which is the substance of Christianity, and it is as illogical and fanciful to contend that Judaism and Christianity ever merge as it would be to contend that heaven and earth cease to exist as separate spheres. Dispensationalism has its foundation in and is understood in the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity."
The problem is this position is demonstrably incorrect. It can be demonstrated from plainly read scripture - scripture as written, read literally - that Judaism informs Christianity and passages Dispensationalism says are unrelated are in fact stated as related by scripture itself! Acts 2 is one such example.
Acts 2:22-36 KJV
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
So here we have Peter,
speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, stating quite plainly that David was speaking about Jesus when he prophesied in the OT. The prophesies that seem to be about David are in fact about Jesus. David declares the prophesies that were seemingly about hims were in fact about Jesus. Not only was David speaking about Jesus, but Jesus resurrected.
That is what the Jew Peter speaking of Jewish scripture had to say to other Jews gathered in Jerusalem that day of Pentecost. That is what the Scriptures teach. That is what the Scriptures plainly state. That is what the Scriptures literally teach when read literally. Peter
literally states David was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of David's descendants on his throne and seeing what was to come, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah.
Dispensationalism denies this.
In
his commentary on Acts 2 John Darby implied Peter was not speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but was instead speaking from his flesh. In other words, even though Darby asserted scripture should be read literally, he did not on this occasion read scripture literally!
"The character of this testimony will be remarked here. It is essentially that of Peter. It goes no farther than the affirmation of the fact, that He who had been rejected by the Jews is made in heaven Lord and Christ."
The problem is this is not the testimony of Peter. It is the testimony of the Holy Spirit! Verse 4 of Acts 2 states quite literally, "
they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."
The Holy Spirit inspired David spoke of the Messiah ascending David's throne
in heaven. The Holy Spirit inspired Peter, speaking hundreds of years later confirmed this prophesy when it reached fulfillment. The uninspired teacher of Dispensationalism, Lewis Sperry Chafer teaches that Old Testament doctrine David was teaching ""
shall stand only on the body of truth which obtained in the period under consideration." Chafer teaches there is an irrevocable distinction between Judaism and Christianity.
So the
evidence has been presented: One of the most preeminent teacher of Premillennial Dispensationalist has plainly stated in his defining treatise on Dispensationalism what Wiki
correctly summarized. Dispensationalism does in fact, now demonstrably proven, "
reject the idea that the meaning of the Old Testament was hidden and that the New Testament can alter the straightforward meaning of the Old Testament," exactly as Wiki stated.
If you like, nolidad, I can provide quotes from the founder of Dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, more quotes from Dallas Theological Seminary founder Lewis Sperry Chafer, as well as quotes from leading and noted Dispensationalists Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, and others proving what I have posted.
Unlike you, I do not post statements about what a person believes without demonstrable evidence to support what I post.
Now maybe you didn't know this is what Dispensationalism teaches. Now you know. John Darby built his theology on four tenets:
1) The Church is corrupt
2) Scripture must be rendered via the grammatical-historical hermeneutic
3) Prophesy must be read literally
4) There is a strict separation between Israel and the Church
5) The rapture and the Second Coming are two separate and distinct events.
As a consequence, his theology ended up departing from the long-established and well-established thinking, doctrines, and practices of Christianity worldwide. As a consequence of his teachings a large portion of the Church began growing a series of false teachers who were incorrectly predicting and prognosticating the end of the world and/or the return of Christ. That practice has been tempered in recent years but the practice continues and this op is evidence of that fact. For the last 180 years it has been predicting Jesus is coming on this day or that, within this time frame of that one, and he hasn't come. No one else in all of Christendom has these problems.
You can make all the snide, baseless, and derisive comments of derision you like but 1) I am unaffected by them, 2) the evidence of Dispensationalism speaks for itself, and 3) you would benefit from doing a little research yourself on these matters. I have made several reading recommendations to various posters in this op. I'll list them anew if you're interested.
