Dispensationalism
- Thread starter Pamella
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Does Rom. 7:1-6 prove that "Christian obedience to law" = "spiritual adultery on our Lord" ?
If YES, then you have MUCH to explain!
I set forth 10 detailed reasons disconfirming dispensationalism (and which also disconfirm your position).
Will you engage these reasons?
If not, your view remains undefended.
AND, you have the "spiritual adultery" concept completely backwards.
Spiritual adultery (Heb. "zanah", Ex. 34:15-16) refers to those who turn AWAY from YHVH and then they obey the ways of other false gods.
Spiritual adultery is NOT obedience to God's commands!
Paul says we should KEEP God's comands (1 Cor. 7:19), NOT pretend they are "spiritual adultery"!
Please engage my position....lest your position remain undefended.
blessings...
BibleGuy
I like to do what Paul says to do in these types of discussions with the law and law-keepers that come in after the gospel of the grace of Christ has been preached.
Titus 3:9 (NASB)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
I don't like the aspect of going back to the law when it is committing spiritual adultery on our Lord. Romans 7:1-6.
The law of love and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is all that I need now to walk by the Spirit within me just as Paul says. I don't need to "obey" Lev. 18:23 to know not to have intercourse with animals.
This picture says it all.
View attachment 153177
“Behold! My Servant whom I have chosen,
My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased!
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He will declare justice to the Gentiles.
He will not quarrel nor cry out,
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
A bruised reed He will not break,
And smoking flax He will not quench,
Till He sends forth justice to victory;
And in His name Gentiles will trust.”
Dispensationalism is one of many theological templates that try to explain the Bible.
All theological templates have their flaws - Dispensationalism's main flaw is that they teach that the Law will come back in full force - sacrifices and everything.
Since Christ is the Perfect, Permanent High Priest of the New Covenant, the Law is never coming back (God will never bring it back, though man is determined to do so).
It's fine to learn about the different 'theologies' out there - just measure everything that crosses your path by the finished Work of Christ and His Perfect Permanent High Priesthood. If a theological opinion doesn't align with what Christ has accomplished and who we are in Him, then it should be rejected.
May God grant you discernment in all of these things.
Grace and peace to you as you study,
-JGIG
All theological templates have their flaws - Dispensationalism's main flaw is that they teach that the Law will come back in full force - sacrifices and everything.
Since Christ is the Perfect, Permanent High Priest of the New Covenant, the Law is never coming back (God will never bring it back, though man is determined to do so).
It's fine to learn about the different 'theologies' out there - just measure everything that crosses your path by the finished Work of Christ and His Perfect Permanent High Priesthood. If a theological opinion doesn't align with what Christ has accomplished and who we are in Him, then it should be rejected.
May God grant you discernment in all of these things.
Grace and peace to you as you study,
-JGIG
That's a term the Bible student needs to be very careful with, because it is not simply about the different timings in God's Word about His Salvation working. The doctrine was started by John Darby in 1830's Great Britain, and he is also one of main proponents of the pre-trib rapture theory that also began in Britain in his era. Thus the doctrine of Dispensationalism includes ideas that try to support the pre-trib rapture theory.
But if you agree with that pre-trib rapture theory which began in the Church in 1830's Britain, then go to. I won't try to talk you out of believing on it.
But if you agree with that pre-trib rapture theory which began in the Church in 1830's Britain, then go to. I won't try to talk you out of believing on it.
1 Thess.4 does not... teach a pre-trib rapture. It doesn't teach a post-trib one either!
That chapter doesn't specify the timing of Christ's 2nd coming to gather His saints. Paul is simply giving 'how' type events there.
The main difference with the pre-trib rapture of John Darby in 1830s Britain is that he taught Jesus comes to gather His Church PRIOR... to the start of the "great tribulation". Prior to the 1830s, the Christian Church held to a post-trib coming and gathering by Christ Jesus.
So now... you know what the pre-trib rapture difference is. It's a timing issue, not a debate over Christ coming to gather His Church on earth. Darby even used the term "secret" rapture, which is what many used to call the pre-trib rapture doctrine. It's also been called the 'any moment' doctrine because of how it teaches that Jesus could come at any moment.
That chapter doesn't specify the timing of Christ's 2nd coming to gather His saints. Paul is simply giving 'how' type events there.
The main difference with the pre-trib rapture of John Darby in 1830s Britain is that he taught Jesus comes to gather His Church PRIOR... to the start of the "great tribulation". Prior to the 1830s, the Christian Church held to a post-trib coming and gathering by Christ Jesus.
So now... you know what the pre-trib rapture difference is. It's a timing issue, not a debate over Christ coming to gather His Church on earth. Darby even used the term "secret" rapture, which is what many used to call the pre-trib rapture doctrine. It's also been called the 'any moment' doctrine because of how it teaches that Jesus could come at any moment.
From my understanding dispensationalism is a theology of different times or gospels of salvation for different people and periods of history.
Dividing the bible up into different periods and gospels then becomes the definition of the type of dispensationalist you are.
It appears to try and resolve conflicts of understanding of theological concepts through the bible, rather than working on a balanced single view.
Some people never go beyond their view of the christian gospel, and are happy to leave it there.
I am not a dispensationalist and regard it as a heresy. It leads to some ideas like the age of the Latter rain, which some members here actively believe when the 1,000 year reign of christ will begin with the church governing the world.
NAR or new apostolic reformation is one such group who hold this line.
I think it is helpful to understand what this is and why it is a problem etc. because you will come across it in most churches and active charismatic circles. It is surprising how deeply embedded it is in cc members, but few often want to openly admit it, but a year ago, they were happy to tell me where to go.
Dividing the bible up into different periods and gospels then becomes the definition of the type of dispensationalist you are.
It appears to try and resolve conflicts of understanding of theological concepts through the bible, rather than working on a balanced single view.
Some people never go beyond their view of the christian gospel, and are happy to leave it there.
I am not a dispensationalist and regard it as a heresy. It leads to some ideas like the age of the Latter rain, which some members here actively believe when the 1,000 year reign of christ will begin with the church governing the world.
NAR or new apostolic reformation is one such group who hold this line.
I think it is helpful to understand what this is and why it is a problem etc. because you will come across it in most churches and active charismatic circles. It is surprising how deeply embedded it is in cc members, but few often want to openly admit it, but a year ago, they were happy to tell me where to go.
That actual greek word might shed some light on the meaning of these verses, it has nothing to do with the very last days, as if the end was very near. And in Eph. 1:10 that you mentioned actually says that the order that we are in now is the fulness of times, meaning the economy of God now complete, are are living in that last economy, which does't meant the end will be soon.
the management of a household or of household affairs
the management of a household or of household affairs
[*=left]specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property
[*=left]the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship
[*=left]administration, dispensation
PS. All you dispensationalist need to take the Ephesians road out of dispensationalism.
It wasn't invented by Him, but popularized by him, and before him John Nelson Darby, who heard it from a demented girl named Margaret MacDonald
E
Although some MAY hold to this view.
Mainstream dispensationalists do not hold to this theory. Scofield would reject this outright. He stated that the sacrifices were only a symbol of what truly saved us, and could never save anyone, Only Christ and his sacrifice, which fulfilled what the oT sacrificial system, could.
Mainstream dispensationalists do not hold to this theory. Scofield would reject this outright. He stated that the sacrifices were only a symbol of what truly saved us, and could never save anyone, Only Christ and his sacrifice, which fulfilled what the oT sacrificial system, could.
Hi Bookend,
Thank you for giving some thoughts on dispensations, however, I do not need to go to the actual Greek as you mentioned to get the meaning of, honestly, I am even not a familiar to the Greek alphabets. I cited verses that dispensation is not a mere inventions of men, it is actually recorded in the bible. The system is a product of a careful study of God's word, about rightly dividing the words of truth. I am regular dispensationalist and not MAD or ultra-hyper dispenstionalist.
For starters like me you may very well please to consider this Dispensationalism, Literal Interpretation, Israel and the Church
or this one if you wish PreservedWords.com
God bless
Thank you for giving some thoughts on dispensations, however, I do not need to go to the actual Greek as you mentioned to get the meaning of, honestly, I am even not a familiar to the Greek alphabets. I cited verses that dispensation is not a mere inventions of men, it is actually recorded in the bible. The system is a product of a careful study of God's word, about rightly dividing the words of truth. I am regular dispensationalist and not MAD or ultra-hyper dispenstionalist.
For starters like me you may very well please to consider this Dispensationalism, Literal Interpretation, Israel and the Church
or this one if you wish PreservedWords.com
God bless
One of the false charges is different gospel. Here is a quote
Dispensationalist William MacDonald (known especially for his one excellent one volume commentary, Believers Bible Commentary), in his book Here's the Difference, wrote the following: "While there are differences among the various ages, there is one thing that never changes, and that is the gospel. Salvation always has been, is now, and always will be by faith in the Lord. And the basis of salvation for every age is the finished work of Christ on Calvary's cross. People in the Old Testament were saved by believing whatever revelation the Lord gave them...We must guard against any idea that people in the Dispensation of Law were saved by keeping the Law" (page 98). Yet in spite of these clarifications, many who are opposed to dispensationalism continue to insist that dispensationalists teach different ways of salvation. Have they not read what leading dispensationalists have said on this issue? Salvation has always been by grace through faith based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Dispensationalist William MacDonald (known especially for his one excellent one volume commentary, Believers Bible Commentary), in his book Here's the Difference, wrote the following: "While there are differences among the various ages, there is one thing that never changes, and that is the gospel. Salvation always has been, is now, and always will be by faith in the Lord. And the basis of salvation for every age is the finished work of Christ on Calvary's cross. People in the Old Testament were saved by believing whatever revelation the Lord gave them...We must guard against any idea that people in the Dispensation of Law were saved by keeping the Law" (page 98). Yet in spite of these clarifications, many who are opposed to dispensationalism continue to insist that dispensationalists teach different ways of salvation. Have they not read what leading dispensationalists have said on this issue? Salvation has always been by grace through faith based on the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I let it go last time you posted this, but twice gets a bit of a reprove. And since you did not post the address of the verse you were talking about either in this post, or the last one, I'm going to go with Matt 16:18.
The word οἰκοδομέω is NOT in future tense. It is the lexical form Present Indicative Active 1st person singular. I saw immediately is was not in future tense, so perhaps in future posts, you could cite both the verse and the correct form of the verb. Because you are trying to prove something about the church being built in the future, but you have the wrong verb form.
In fact, the Future Indicative Active of oikodeomeo is οἰκοδομήσω. Note the sigma in the second last letter. This is the most common way to form the future in Greek. (Another way is to use kappa, but we won't go there right now)
So now you just have to learn that future tense does not always means "time" but rather in Greek "aspect" is more important. Future tense is almost always indicative, and is external with regards to aspect. In other words - future focuses on the entire view from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence.
So rather than Matt 16:18 implying the church had not been built yet - in fact it implies that it was being built, a process which would continue into the future (time).
Whenever you post these long dispensation explanations I have to wonder if you have any understanding of the original languages, which is really vital to understanding what is being said, especially for doctrine and theology. (Not for salvation - the gospel is so simple a child can understand it.)
As for your "literal" interpretation of Revelation, I am very wary of anything you post. For one thing, Revelation is a symbolic book. It was never meant to be interpreted literally, other than the first three chapters. In fact, interpreting Revelation literally forces it into something the author never meant it to be.
I really don't care how many years you have spent studying eschatology. Some of those years would have been better off spent learning Greek and Hebrew, instead of reading books other people have written.
