I believe those who receive God's mercy and grace after dying spend time in Paradise and Heaven, and are sanctified before the resurrection of the body and glorification, which is more than complete sanctification. Their bodies are still in the Earth and they don't have new material bodies.
You're repeating yourself and doing so unnecessarily. The point made in the last post was that your views skewed your poll. It's not a poll folks without that bias would recognize as a reflection of their beliefs. That, in turn, will lead to biased results.
I think I am a Dispensationalist. What are the alternatives, and how do you find them to be more popular?
Before I proceed, I want to make sure you are alright with this digression. I don't want to hijack your op to explain Dispensationalism and how it's different from more historical thought, doctrine, and practice in Christianity - even though doing so might help others less familiar with the various theologies held in Christendom (and their accompanying hermeneutics. I used to be Dispensationalist and, having learned Dispensationalism as a young convert to Christ I thought that was the only theology that exists. I thought what I learned had been learned and was believed by all other Christians. Only after being a Christian for more than a decade did I learn that was not the case. I've spent much of my Christan walk since then learning the flow of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice dating back to the New Testament, especially in the areas of Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. I don't claim to be an expert, but I can have this conversation with you. My earlier point is a simple one: you personal beliefs limited (or skewed) the poll, and as a consequence many won't relate to it because their answer(s) will be different than any of the options listed (and that is clearly evidence by the posts). If you'd like to know how that's the case, then just open up the thread for that exchange or PM me.
For now, I'll say the following: The term "
dispensation" is used in scripture and the use of the term observably goes back to the NT and the ECFs but none of them used the term the way Dispensationalists use the term. Dispensationalists use the term to divide scripture into different periods of time, or means of God relating to man. Scripture itself does not do that. The word scripture uses is "
covenant". Dispensationalists do not deny that fact, nor do they exclude the use of covenant. They do, however, often pit dispensation against covenant, and they do so openly because they do not see a problem doing so. Dispensationalism was invented in the 19th century by a man named John Darby. Darby also invented his own hermeneutic, or structure for parsing scripture, and he also developed a new premillennial eschatology. His eschatology was so intrinsic to his dispensationalism the theology is known as Dispensational Premillennialism, although the structural use of dispensations can somewhat be applied on its own apart from the Darby's specific premillennial views. What's important eschatologically is that there have been premillennialists going all the way back to the ECFs but it was a vastly different premillennialism than the one created by Darby. The two are so substantively different that the other premils resisted Darbyism. The older, more historical, and more orthodox version of premillennialism is Historic Premillennialism. It is the earliest held eschatology, but the most prominent view (dating back to before Augustine) is Amillennialism. Postmillennialism and Idealism developed later but both have their roots going back as far as the ECFs. Eschatology was not considered a prominent doctrine until the 19th century, so there was an accepted diversity within orthodoxy.
Darby didn't do Dispensationalism all on his own. He compiled theological threads common in his era but his product is unique. Other notable Dispensationalists and their predecessors (like Watts, or Scofield) had different views but Darbyism one the day historically, primarily due to the invention of the radio in 1893 and the creation of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer and his brother, Rollin. Darby was an Anglican minister who switched over to the Brethren movement. The 1800s saw an explosion of sectarian views all centering on two main positions: 1) the Church is corrupt and in need of restoration because 2) Jesus is coming back soon (and by "soon" they meant the 1800s). Among the sects developing during that time are the Campbellites, Millerites, Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), Plymouth Brethren, Church of Christ (CoC), Jehovah's Witness, and the Latter-Day Saints. Not all of them were orthodox. Most managed to land somewhere within the pale of orthodoxy but they all contain teachings outside of what had previously been held historically in Christendom. These departures were, at the time, justified by the belief the Church was corrupt and in need of restoration. That is why that period of time in Church history is called the "Restoration Movement." It was, in some ways, a form of reformation, but it was also very apocalyptic. Every one of the sects in the restoration movement predicted Jesus' imminent return and all had problems when that did not happen in the predicted time. I'm sure you're aware how that problem persists even to this day.
It does not happen in none-Dispensationalist denominations.
At all.
There are reasons for that but they have to do with details not necessary for this op. If you want to study Dispensationalism on your own then I highly recommend reading Chafer's book titled, "
Dispensationalism." Chafer is still referenced by modern leading Dispensationalist and it is the single best volume on the theology I've read (and I have read many). If you do read it, read it with your Bible in hand and open. If you'd like alternative views, I can also recommend some short comparative compilations and separate works from each perspective. If you have questions or want to know more just let me know here or PM me. I can provide greater detail regarding views commonly taught in Dispensationalism. I think it might benefit others to read the exchange, but I completely understand if you don't want to digress far afield of the op.
*
I've been a member of this forum for many, many years but have been absent for a while and returned recently to find the forum has changed quite a bit. I have yet to find where I can critically engage Dispensationalists because the Boards for that topic are Dispensationalist-only. I'm amenable to a separate thread instead of adding more here or PMing, so feel free to start a separate thread because I am very confident many others will be happy to add what they know about the history, similarities, and differences.
.
