Why is dispensationalism seen as a heresy?

[NotmebutHim]

Regarding the CC threads where dispensationalism is discussed, it is more often than not seen as a heresy. I'm not taking the stand that it should or shouldn't be; I want to know the reasons why it's viewed that way.

As for my own Christian views, I'm not totally sure whether I'm dispensational or not; all I know is that Christ is my Savior and I'm His.

To God be the glory!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Regarding the CC threads where dispensationalism is discussed, it is more often than not seen as a heresy. I'm not taking the stand that it should or shouldn't be; I want to know the reasons why it's viewed that way

Well the short answer is that when reason will not prevail then a smear campaign is the only option. And that is precisely what has been happening regarding Dispensationalism. All the good and godly men who taught Dispensationalism are slandered as heretics (or worse) and the truths presented in Dispensationalism are attacked without any scriptural basis.

This goes all the way back to the Roman Catholic Church and how it interpreted the Bible. Augustine was a leading light in the RCC, and his teachings were adopted by the Reformers hook, line, and sinker. This led to Covenant Theology, Preterism, and Amillenialism. Dispensationalism came along and exposed all the fallacies in these views, and the result was hatred instead of repentance and a forsaking of falsehood. So now you will see tons of website (primarily from the Reformed Camp) attacking men like Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie, and others, and also attacking Dispensational concepts.

However, the Bible clearly shows that God deals with human beings in different ways at different times, although sinners are always justified by grace through faith from Abel onwards. These periods are rightly called dispensations, since God Himself has planned the ultimate dispensation -- the dispensation of the fulness of times (Eph 1:10). So logically, if there is an ultimate dispensation, there must be others preceding that.

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

 

[Willie-T]

Well, I think Dispensationalism is a rather warped view of Christianity, but I have never thought of it as Heresy,

 

[Nehemiah6]

Well, I think Dispensationalism is a rather warped view of Christianity, but I have never thought of it as Heresy,

Surely you have Scripture to prove this. Why don't you present your case?

 

[Willie-T]

Surely you have Scripture to prove this. Why don't you present your case?

You haven't been here long enough to learn yet that I don't argue. I read and believe what I believe, and you read and believe what you believe.

I have been on this earth long enough to know that just about ANYTHING can be proven, pro or con, by selecting the desired verses..... sometimes, even using the very SAME verses.

 

[MarcR]

I don't see it as heresy.

I see it as a way of looking at God's dealings with man that many find helpful.

I just happen not to be among that many. It is not only not heresy, it is not inherently a doctrinal error.

It is also not necessary to a proper understanding of God's word.

 

[maxwel]

Regarding the sheer "frequency" at which dispensationalism is viewed as heresy... I think it's simply because reformed theology has had a significant resurgence in the last decade or two, and reformed theology is inherently antithetical to dispensationalism.

In a nutshell, it simply isn't as popular as it once was.

Popularity can account for the "frequency" of a thing's love or malignment, but that alone has nothing to do with it's veracity... that's an entirely separate issue.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It is also not necessary to a proper understanding of God's word.

You might want to give that comment some further consideration. A proper understanding of God's Word means a proper understanding of God's plan for the Church, and God's plan for a redeemed and restored Israel on earth (two distinct plans). Since all the other systems of interpretation deny that there will literally be a Millennium, and a literal temple in Jerusalem after Israel is redeemed and restored under Christ, it is only Dispensationalism which sees the literal fulfillment of those prophecies. Then we have the denials that "a (the) thousand years" actually means 1,000 years in Revelation 20, and instead all kinds of fanciful interpretations about almost everything. We see this over and over again, where the teachings regarding the Church are simply applied to "Israel" without rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

 

[Locutus]

It could be seen as hersey, at the least one large doctrinal error in placing the new covenant as yet future and only applicable to Israel.

According to Dwight Pentelost:

Thirdly, that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel is also seen by the fact that in its establishment the perpetuity of the nation Israel and her restoration to the land is vitally linked with it (Jer. 31:35-40)… Thus we conclude that for these three incontrovertible reasons, the very words of the text, the name itself, and the linking with the perpetuity of the nation, the new covenant according to the teaching of the Old Testament is for the people of Israel.4

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Kindle Locations 2285-2289). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

B. The time of the fulfillment of the New Covenant. It has been agreed that the time of the new covenant was future. It was always viewed as future when reference is made to it in the Old Testament prophecies. Hosea (2:18-20), Isaiah (55:3), Ezekiel (16:60, 62; 20:37; 34:25-26) all spoke of it as future. It must be viewed as yet future, for this covenant can not be realized by Israel until God has effected her salvation and restoration to the land.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Kindle Locations 2289-2292). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

 

[Locutus]

It's not a dispensation as the KJV translates it:

Eph 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

 

[Johnny_B]

Regarding the CC threads where dispensationalism is discussed, it is more often than not seen as a heresy. I'm not taking the stand that it should or shouldn't be; I want to know the reasons why it's viewed that way.

As for my own Christian views, I'm not totally sure whether I'm dispensational or not; all I know is that Christ is my Savior and I'm His.

To God be the glory!

It all depends on who the post or thread is posted by. Many dispensationalist think those that hold to the Doctrine of Grace (T.U.L.I.P.) are heratics as well. When it come to the doctrine of salvation I see T.U.L.I.P. as how the Bible explains it, but when it comes to prophesy from a Reformed view I do not agree with lots of it. Dispensationalist view of salvation I have hard time with/ Lots of their prophesy views I do not agree with, but I do agree with them as to Israel and God not being done with the Jewish people. In what way I am not sure, but Romans 9-11 need to be understood, with Romans 11:24-25 as and a guideline to Israel.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's not a dispensation as the KJV translates it:

Eph 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

Oh so we have nit-picking by one of the enemies of Dispensationalism. How about "stewardship", if you really want to nit-pick.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ τὰ τε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

King James Bible
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

American Standard Version
unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,

English Revised Version
unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,

Douay-Rheims Bible
In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him.

Webster's Bible Translation
That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might collect in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Young's Literal Translation
in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;

Strong's Concordance

oikonomia: stewardship, administration​

​

​

Original Word: οἰκονομία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: oikonomia
Phonetic Spelling: (oy-kon-om-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: stewardship
Definition: management of household affairs, stewardship, administration.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3622: οἰκονομία
ἡ, οἰκονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ, the office of administrator (stewardship) intrusted by God, Colossians 1:25. universally, administration, dispensation, which in a theocratic sense is ascribed to God himself as providing for man's salvation:

 

[Nehemiah6]

It could be seen as heresey, at the least one large doctrinal error in placing the new covenant as yet future and only applicable to Israel.

Unless one reads everything that Pentecost writes about the New Covenant, it would be premature to decide that he is presenting a heretical view. Also, there could be individuals who have developed their own beliefs, so Pentecost should not be taken a final representative or the only representative of Dispensationalists. Scofield -- who was much more influential than Pentecost is -- believed as follows:

"C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), chief editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, treats the new covenant in a fashion somewhat different than Darby. Scofield and those holding a similar position (C. F. Lincoln, and F. W. Grant for example ), [9] like Darby see only one new covenant in Scripture. Scofield's view differs, however, in that he affirms that this covenant has a two fold applications 1) to Israel in the future (i.e. it "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel."); and 2) to the Church in the present (i.e. it "secures the eternal blessedness... of all who believe."

 

[Locutus]

Lets look at the father of the dispensationalist view:

Darby's snopis:


The old was established at Sinai. The new covenant is made also with the two houses of Israel.[See Footnote #15]

The gospel is not a covenant, but the revelation of the salvation of God. It proclaims the, great salvation of God. We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God's part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter.

The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium. Meanwhile the old covenant is judged by the fact that there is a new one.

This is one load of doublespeak if ever I say it.

Full load of cobblers at:

Hebrews 8 Commentary - John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament

 

[PHart]

It's not a dispensation as the KJV translates it:

Eph 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

And that is what I find fundamentally wrong with Dispensationism. A dispensation is an administering of something, not a period of time.

 

[notmyown]

Regarding the CC threads where dispensationalism is discussed, it is more often than not seen as a heresy. I'm not taking the stand that it should or shouldn't be; I want to know the reasons why it's viewed that way.

As for my own Christian views, I'm not totally sure whether I'm dispensational or not; all I know is that Christ is my Savior and I'm His.

To God be the glory!

i wouldn't say heresy.

i mean, dispensationalists are wrong (lol), but they're my brothers and sisters in Christ.

c'mon, now, let's save the 'heresy' word for the topics that really need it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

And that is what I find fundamentally wrong with Dispensationism. A dispensation is an administering of something, not a period of time.

It is both a period of time as well as a stewardship (or administration or economy) which is distinct from others. The Greek word oikonomea literally means an economy. There was a period of time from Adam to Noah, another period of time from Noah to Abraham, another period of time from Abraham to Moses, and another period of time from Moses to Christ. Each of these periods was distinct from the others in how God dealt with men, and what stewardship God gave His people.

"A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose." -Ryrie, Charles C., Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 115

 

[Issachar92]

I am called a dispensationalist all the time.

I agree and disagree with the charges. I agree with some of the stuff I hear em preach.

But some folks go too far by throwing outt the words of Jesus and saying they only apply to Israel. Many of my gentile friends have been blessed by the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. His words remain forever.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The old was established at Sinai. The new covenant is made also with the two houses of Israel.

What he should have added is that the New Covenant is ALSO for the Church and the Church Age.

The gospel is not a covenant

, but the revelation of the salvation of God. It proclaims the, great salvation of God. We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God's part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter.

He could have omitted "but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter" since God expects both the spirit and the letter to be observed at all times. Christ called the one who omitted the spirit "hypocrites". At the same time we are commanded to be "doers of the Word" (the letter).

The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium

. Meanwhile the old covenant is judged by the fact that there is a new one.

This is clearly incorrect. The New Covenant was established the day Christ died on the cross and said "It is finished".

What these quotations teach us is that men should be extremely careful in presenting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[Locutus]

I think you need to make up your mind on having your dispensational cake and eating it.

What these quotations teach us is that men should be extremely careful in presenting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

All the good and godly men who taught Dispensationalism are slandered as heretics (or worse) and the truths presented in Dispensationalism are attacked without any scriptural basis.

Dispensationalism came along and exposed all the fallacies in these views, and the result was hatred instead of repentance and a forsaking of falsehood. So now you will see tons of website (primarily from the Reformed Camp) attacking men like Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie, and others, and also attacking Dispensational concepts.

​