The Error of Dispensationalism

Interesting that you "BS" my thread, because in another thread you have this to say: "This thread proves, without a doubt, that fundamentalists and dispensationalists are the most idiotic individuals on the face of the earth. No wonder people leave the church in droves."

No, I am equal opportunity, dear. It's all xtians :) I was merely pointing out the stupidity of fundies and dispensationalists in that particular instance. I am certain you are capable of the comprehension of such things.

That article is a clear misrepresentation, it's clear that whoever wrote that don't under dispensationalism nor much else. Must have been a Charismaniac.

I am a christian but this article is too long for me to read.

I have no idea what Dispensationalism means.

I do know what no christian woman wants to marry me because I don't have a lot of money and I don't want to have children.

Hi Michelle,

Remember it tells us in Romans that All Israel will be saved when the fullness of the gentiles has come in, and that is close. We see many Jews coming to Christ as this is that time.

So believing in a supernatural return of Christ does not leave out Israel. In fact most christians today are those from the House of Israel as the Apostles targeted these at Jesus's command. It is only Judah, Benjamin, and some of Simeon that are what we call the jewish people today who mostly refute Jesus as the Messiah. But many are now starting to accept Christ.

I don't find any conflict in a rapture, my personal view is that it will be all at once, meaning Jesus will come back and rapture and judge the world at one time (post trib). I don't think the Bible teaches two seperate returns.

Also, be careful when coming against what is called fundamentalism as this basically means these days anyone that really believes something. The box for this term has gotten very big and soon everyone who believes in anything will be termed this. It is a word game designed to destroy the belief in right and wrong and replace it with moral relativism. Moral relativism says that everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and that there is no objective basis for morality. So if one person thinks it's ok to kill their neighbor for sport, it's ok. And we can't judge this as who are we to judge this persons reality. But this is not true as there is an objective basis for morality and that is God himself.

"What has happened here? Popular prophecy teachers have erroneously identified the Restrainer of 2Thes. 2 as the Holy Spirit. They have the Comforter taking leave of His divine omnipresence, (if that were possible). They have the Holy Spirit deserting the planet and deserting God's Chosen People for seven years. They have Him abandoning the saints during the 3.5 Harlot years and the 3.5 Tribulation years. Does this scenario fit the scriptures? Does it jive with what we know about the character of our omnipresent God and His omnipresent Holy Spirit?"

I used to be pretrib

and I thought the Holy Spirit left with us

BUT I believed He then infilled the 144,000 and the 2 witnesses

the Holy Spirit wasn't omnipresent, at least not accessibly so, until the day of Pentecost

He "came upon" various old testament characters, and descended upon Jesus like a dove at his baptismal

we are very fortunate to live in this age, or dispensation, or whatever you want to call it, where we do have access to God's comfort and grace and teaching etc. through His Holy Spirit. also, of course, empowerment -- mostly to preach the Gospel, in my view

my view on Daniel's 70th week is modifying substantially, for which I'm grateful. I'm not only grateful that I feel I'm coming closer to the knowledge of the truth, but I am profoundly grateful that I have, at this time, the CAPABILITY TO UNFREEZE FROM MY FORMER STATIC STATE.

look, a lot, if not most Christians are frozen in dogma. and I think most likely they haven't read the scriptures for themselves -- this has changed for me.

I have to be wary of going way off on some weird tangent and zap! turning into Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or something, but at the same time I do believe the Holy Spirit can reveal truth through scripture, and I do also believe the closer we get to the end of the age more truth will be revealed.

but of course the adversary has to get his finger in the pie. the Bible is written to confuse him, not us. The Spirit gives revelatory knowledge -- not necessarily the most popular viewpoint.

I have a Scofield reference Bible -- I don't agree with a lot of the marginal exposition. some is helpful. it is useful to see how thick the glass was that they saw through darkly back then -- I think we're getting clarity as time goes by.

I guess my point is, I think it's very important that each of us read the Bible for ourselves, and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the layers of meaning -- and then don't be afraid to expound on that, while remaining open to correction where appropriate.

that's where I'm at, for the first time in my life -- and I'm very grateful!

thanks Michelle -- and I continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem

What is Dispensationalism?

Many evangelicals and liberals believe that dispensationalism is either downright heresy or close to it. In fact, few years ago, while pastor of a church, a lady in my congregation ask me, "Why is dispensationalism bad?" I asked what provoked her question. She had recently talked to a woman who knew that our church was dispensational. The women spoke harshly against dispensationalism to my congregate and warned her that it was unscriptural and no biblically responsible Christian should be involved in such heresy. For many, dispensationalism is a Christian cuss word! The lady in my church ask: "What is dispensationalism?" That is a good question. I hope to answer it in this article.

A Cluster of Items

Actually dispensationalism is a cluster of items joined together to form a system of thought. Just as terms like Calvinism, Arminianism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, or Lutheranism are historical labels that represent, not a single idea, but a group of items joined together to form a multifaceted scheme, so is dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a term that arose in church history to label certain Christians who believe a group of certain things that are taught in the Bible.

Dispensationalists are those who believe the following things:

á The Bible is God'��s inspired, inerrant (i.e., without any errors) revelation to man. Scripture provides the framework through which to interpret history (past and future). God'��s written Word tells us of His plan for His creation and this will surely come to past.

á Since the Bible is God'��s literal Word of His plan for history, it should be interpreted literally and historically (past and future).

á Since the Bible reveals God'��s plan for history, then it follows that there is an ebb and flow to His plan. Therefore, God'��s plan includes different dispensations, ages, or epochs of history through which His creatures (man and angels) are tested. Therefore, God is instructing His creatures through the progress of history, as His creation progresses from a garden to a city.

á Since all humanity fell into sin, each person must individually receive God'��s provision of salvation through the death of Christ by believing the gospel. Thus, Jesus Christ is the only way to a relationship with God.

á Because of mankind'��s fall into sin, Scripture teaches that all humanity is naturally rebellious to God and the things of God. This is why only genuine believers in Christ are open to the teachings of the Bible. Thus, salvation through Christ is a prerequisite to properly understanding God'��s Word.

á God'��s plan for history includes a purpose for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-��that is Israel. This plan for Israel includes promises that they will have the land of Israel, will have a seed, and will be a worldwide blessing to the nations. Many of the promises to national Israel are yet future, therefore, God is not finished with Israel.

á God'��s plan from all eternity also includes a purpose for the church, however, this is a temporary phase that will end with rapture. After the rapture, God will complete His plan for Israel and the Gentiles.

á The main purpose in God'��s master plan for history is to glorify Himself through Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the goal and hero of history.

In a nutshell, Christians who believe like this are known throughout Christendom as dispensationalists. I am a dispensationalist. We believe that it is the same as saying that I believe what the Bible literally teaches. Millions of Christians throughout the world are dispensationalists. In fact, the word "dispensation" occurs four times in the King James Version of the Bible (1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; Col. 1:25).

A Definition of Dispensationalism

Most likely, the leading spokesman for dispensationalism is retired Dallas Theological Seminary professor, Dr. Charles Ryrie. Many know Ryrie through his books and articles, but he is best known for his popular Ryrie Study Bible. Ryrie'��s book, Dispensationalism,[1] and some additional items are the reference point to look for an understanding of dispensationalism. Since Dr. Ryrie is the expert on this subject, we will let him speak as we summarize his material.

He notes that The Oxford English Dictionary defines a theological dispensation as "a stage in a progressive revelation, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time . . . also, the age or period during which a system has prevailed."[2] The English word "dispensation" translates the Greek noun oikonom’a, often rendered "administration" in modern translations. The verb oikonomŽ™ refers to a manager of a household.[3] "In the New Testament," notes Ryrie, "dispensation means to manage or administer the affairs of a household, as, for example, in the Lord'��s story of the unfaithful steward in Luke 16:1-13."[4]

Scriptural Use of Dispensation

The Greek word oikonom’a is a compound of o’kos meaning "house" and n—mos meaning "law." Taken together "the central idea in the word dispensation is that of managing or administering the affairs of a household."[5]

The various forms of the word dispensation appears in the New Testament twenty times. The verb oikonomŽ™ is used once in Luke 16:2, where it is translated "to be a steward." The noun oikon—mos appears ten times (Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10), and is usually translated "steward" or "manager" (but "treasurer" in Rom. 16:23). The noun oikonom’a is used nine times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4). In these instances it is translated variously ("stewardship," "dispensation," "administration," "job," "commission").[6]

Features of Dispensationalism

Examination of oikon—mos in the Gospels finds Christ using the word in two parables in Luke (Lk. 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8). Ryrie notes that in Luke 16 we find "some important characteristics of a stewardship, or dispensational arrangement."[7] The characteristics are:

(1) Basically there are two parties: the one whose authority it is to delegate duties, and the one whose responsibility it is to carry out these charges. The rich man (or manager) play these roles in the parable of Luke 16 (v. 1).

(2) These are specific responsibilities. In the parable the steward failed in his known duties when he wasted the goods of his lord (v. 1).

(3) Accountability, as well as responsibility, is part of the arrangement. A steward may be called to account for the discharge of his stewardship at any time, for it is the owner'��s or master'��s prerogative to expect faithful obedience to the duties entrusted to the steward (v. 2).

(4) A change may be made at any time unfaithfulness is found in the existing administration ("can no longer be steward.").[8]

Further features can be gleaned in the other occurrences of the "dispensation" word group. All other uses, except 1 Peter 4:10, are found in the writings of Paul. Ryrie cites the following features:

(1) God is the one to whom men are responsible in the discharge of their stewardship obligations. In three instances this relationship to God is mentioned by Paul (I Cor. 4:1-2; Titus 1:7).

(2) Faithfulness is required of those to whom a dispensational responsibility is committed (I Cor. 4:2). This is illustrated by Erastus, who held the important position of treasurer (steward) of the city (Rom. 16:23).

(3) A stewardship may end at an appointed time (Gal. 4:2). In this reference the end of the stewardship came because of a different purpose being introduced. This reference also shows that a dispensation is connected with time.

(4) Dispensations are connected with the mysteries of God, that is, with specific revelation from God (I Cor. 4:1; Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25).

(5) Dispensation and age are connected ideas, but the words are not exactly interchangeable. For instance, Paul declares that the revelation of the present dispensation was hidden "for ages" meaning simply a long period of time (Eph. 3:9). The same thing is said in Colossians 1:26. However, since a dispensation operates within a time period, the concepts are related.

(6) At least three dispensations (as commonly understood in dispensational teaching) are mentioned by Paul. In Ephesians 1:10 he writes of "an administration [dispensation, KJV] suitable to the fullness of the times," which is a future period. In Ephesians 3:2 he designates the "stewardship [dispensation, KJV] of God'��s grace," which was the emphasis of the content of his preaching at that time. In Colossians 1:25-26 it is implied that another dispensation preceded the present one, in which the mystery of Christ in the believer is revealed.[9]

It should be noted that dispensationalists have developed the theological term "dispensation" in a way similar to the biblical use of the term. Therefore, we believe that the system of theology we know today as dispensationalism is consistent with biblical teaching.

Definitions

Building upon the above biblical observations, we are now able to define dispensationalism. According to Ryrie, "a dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God'��s purpose." In addition to a definition of a dispensation, Ryrie notes that if "one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment."[10] Finally, he notes concerning a dispensation that,

The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God. Eric Sauer states it this way:

a new period always begins only when from the side of God a change is introduced in the composition of the principles valid up to that time; that is, when from the side of God three things concur:

1. A continuance of certain ordinances valid until then;

2. An annulment of other regulations until then valid;

3. A fresh introduction of new principles not before valid.[11]

In his classic work, Dispensationalism, Ryrie formulates the following extensive definition of dispensationalism:

Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In this household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God'��s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.[12]

Another dispensational scholar, Paul Nevin, summarized dispensationalism as follows:

God'��s distinctive method of governing mankind or a group of men during a period of human history, marked by a crucial event, test, failure, and judgment. From the divine standpoint, it is an economy, or administration. From the human standpoint, it is a stewardship, a rule of life, or a responsibility for managing God'��s affairs in His house. From the historical standpoint, it is a stage in the progress of revelation.[13]

Dispensationalist, Renald Showers, emphasizing a dispensational view of history, gives the following definition:

Dispensational Theology can be defined very simply as a system of theology which attempts to develop the Bible'��s philosophy of history on the basis of the sovereign rule of God. It represents the whole of Scripture and history as being covered by several dispensations of God'��s rule.

. . . the term dispensation as it relates to Dispensational Theology could be defined as a particular way of God'��s administering His rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose for world history.[14]

Essentials Of Dispensationalism

Who is a dispensationalist? Essentials are needed by which to gauge a theology. What are the essentials that characterize a dispensationalist? Ryrie has stated what he calls the three essentials or sine qua non (Latin, "that without which") of dispensationalism.

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist'��s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.[15]

The three essentials are not a definition or description of dispensationalism, instead they are basic theological tests which can be applied to an individual to see whether or not he is a dispensationalist.

First Essential: Literal Interpretation

Ryrie'��s first essential of dispensationalism is not just literal interpretation, but more fully, a consistent literal hermeneutic. "The word literal is perhaps not so good as either the word normal or plain," explains Ryrie, "but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation does."[16] Literal interpretation is foundational to the dispensational approach to Scripture. Literal interpretation is foundational to the dispensational approach to Scripture. Earl Radmacher went so far as to say that literal interpretation "is the '��bottom-line'�� of dispensationalism."[17]

The dictionary defines literal as "belonging to letters." It also says literal interpretation involves an approach "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning, . . . not going beyond the facts."[1] "Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language."[2] How is this done? It can only be accomplished through the grammatical (according to the rules of grammar), historical (consistent with the historical setting of the passage), contextual (in accord with its context) method of interpretation. Literalism looks to the text, the actual words and phrases of a passage. Nonliteral interpretation imports an idea not found specifically in the text of a passage. To some degree, all Bible interpreters interpret literally. However, dispensationalists consistently handle the text literally from Genesis to Revelation.

Literal interpretation recognizes that a word or phrase can be used plainly (denotative) or figuratively (connotative). In modern speech, as in the Bible, we talk plainly-��"Grandmother died" (denotative), or more colorfully, "Grandmother kicked the bucket" (connotative). An important point to make is that even though we may use a figure of speech to refer to death, we are using that figure in reference to an event that literally happened. Ryrie says:

Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.[3]

Some are mistaken to think that just because a figure of speech is used to describe an event (i.e., Jonah'��s experience in the belly of the great fish in Jonah 2), that the event was not literal. Such is not the case. A "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has been developed to help discern whether or not a figure of speech is intended.

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.[4]

E.E. Johnson (Dallas Seminary) notes that much of the confusion over literalism is removed when understanding the two ways it is used: "(1) the clear, plain sense of a word or phrase as over against a figurative use, and (2) a system that views the text as providing the basis of the true interpretation."[5] Thus, dispensationalists, by and large, use "literal" to refer to their system of interpretation (the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system), and once inside that system, literal refers to whether a specific word or phrase is used in its context figuratively or literally.

Johnson'��s second use of literal (i.e., systematic literalism) is simply the grammatical-historical system consistently used. The grammatical-historical system was revived by the Reformers and was set against the spiritual (spiritualized) or deeper meaning of the text common in the middle ages. The literal meaning was used simply as a springboard to a deeper ("spiritual") meaning, which was viewed as more desirable. A classic spiritualized interpretation would see the four rivers of Genesis 2-��the Pishon, Havilah, Tigris and Euphrates-��as representing the body, soul, spirit and mind. Coming from such a system, the Reformers saw the need to get back to the literal or textual meaning of the Bible.

The system of literal interpretation is the grammatical-historical or textual approach to hermeneutics. Use of literalism in this sense could be called "macroliteralism." Within macroliteralism, the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system yields the interpretative conclusion, for example, that Israel always and only refers to national Israel. The church will not be substituted for Israel if the grammatical-historical system is consistently used, because there are no textual indicators that such is the case. One must import an idea from outside the text by saying that the passage really means something that it does not actually say. This replacement approach is a mild form of spiritual or allegorical interpretation. So when speaking of those who do replace Israel with the church as not taking the Bible literally and spiritualizing the text, it is true, since such a belief is contrary to a macroliteral interpretation.

Consistently literal interpreters, within the framework of the grammatical-historical system, do discuss whether or not a word, phrase or the literary genre of a biblical book is a figure of speech (connotative) or is to be taken literally/plainly (denotative). This is Johnson'��s first use of literal which could be called "microliteralism."

Within microliteralism, there may be discussion by literalists as to whether or not a given word or phrase is being used in a literal or figurative way within a given passage. Some passages are quite naturally clearer than others and a consensus among interpreters develops, while other passages may find literal interpreters divided as to whether or not it should be taken as a figure of speech. This is more a problem of application than of method.

Reconstructionist, Ken Gentry, in his attack on literalism, argues that "consistent literalism is unreasonable."[6] He attempts to prove his point by arguing that, since dispensationalists take some words and phrases as figures of speech, they are not consistently literal.[7] He says, "the dispensational claim to '��consistent literalism'�� is frustrating due to its inconsistent employment."[8] Gentry seeks to discredit the dispensational hermeneutic by citing examples of dispensationalists who interpret certain passages as containing figures of speech, citing this as inconsistent with the system of literal interpretation. According to Gentry, the dispensationalist has to abandon literal interpretation when he realizes that Jesus refers figuratively to Himself as a door in John 10:9.[9] Gentry is not defining literal interpretation the way dispensationalists do. Therefore, his conclusions about literal interpretation are misguided because he commonly mixes the two senses noted by Johnson. When speaking of the macroliteral, he uses an example from microliteralism, and vice versa, therefore appearing to have shown an inconsistency in literal interpretation. In reality, his examples fall within the framework of how dispensationalists have defined what they mean by literal interpretation.

This is the first essential of dispensationalism. A way of approaching Scripture that allows the Scripture, through the progress of revelation to interpret itself. It does not approach the Bible through some fantastic interpretational scheme, composed of complex symbolism which reduces Scripture to a mystical code book that requires a special decoding manual in order to figure it out. The second essential, flows from the first. It is a distinction between Israel and the Church.

Second Essential: Distinction Between Israel and the Church

"A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct," declares Ryrie. He also notes that anyone "who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does, will."[18] What does it mean to keep Israel and the church distinct? Dispensationalists believe the Bible teaches that God'��s single program for history includes a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church. God'��s plan for history has two people: Israel and the church. John Walvoord says that "dispensations are rules of life. They are not ways of salvation. There is only one way of salvation and that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ."[19] Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder and first president of Dallas Seminary has described the distinction as follows:

The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity. . . . Over against this, the partial dispensationalist, though dimly observing a few obvious distinctions, bases his interpretation on the supposition that God is doing but one thing, namely, the general separation of the good from the bad, and, in spite of all the confusion this limited theory creates, contends that the earthly people merge into the heavenly people; that the earthly program must be given a spiritual interpretation or disregarded altogether.[20]

If the unfulfilled promises given to Israel in the Old Testament literally refer to the Jews, which they do, then it is clear that many are yet unfulfilled. Therefore, it is clear that God'��s plan for Israel, who is currently in dispersion (Deut. 4:27-28; 28:63-68; 30:2-4), is on hold until He completes His current purpose with the church, which is to take out from the Gentiles a people for His name (Acts 15:14), and Raptures His Bride to heaven. After the Rapture, God will then complete His unfinished business with Israel (Acts 15:16-18) during the seven-year Tribulation period. Thus, if one does not distinguish between passages in which God speaks to Israel from those intended for the church, then the results will be an improper merging of the two programs.

In the Old Testament God made certain promises to Abraham when He pledged to make him the father of a special people. Dispensationalists understand these promises, and other unconditional covenant promises (i.e., treaty grants) made by God to Israel as still in tact for Israel, even though the church currently shares in some of Israel'��s spiritual blessings (Rom. 15:27). Ultimately God will not only restore Israel to a place of blessing (Rom. 11), but will also literally fulfill the land and kingdom promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3), Land of Israel (Deut. 30:1-10), and Davidic (2 Sam. 7:12-16) Covenants. In the present time, God has another plan for the church that is distinct from His plan for Israel (Eph. 2-3). Dispensationalists do not believe that the church is the New Israel or has replaced Israel as the heir to the Old Testament promises. Contrary to some who say that the church has superseded Israel, the New Testament nowhere calls the church Israel. Dispensationalist Arnold Fruchtenbaum says:

The conclusion is that the church is never called a "spiritual Israel" or a "new Israel." The term Israel is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the church in general or of Gentile believers in particular. In fact, even after the Cross there remains a threefold distinction. First, there is a distinction between Israel and the Gentiles as in 1 Corinthians 10:32 and Ephesians 2:11-12. Second, there is a distinction between Israel and the church in 1 Corinthians 10:32. Third, there is a distinction between Jewish believers (the Israel of God) and Gentile believers in Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16).[21]

Fruchtenbaum gives six reasons why the New Testament keeps Israel and the church distinct. They are:

(1) the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries. . . .

(2) certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-��the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place. . . .

(3) the mystery character of the church. . . .

(4) the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15 . . .

(5) the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16 [i.e., "the Israel of God"] . . .

(6) In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.[22]

Third Essential: Glory of God is the Purpose of History

The third essential of dispensationalism also revolves around another important distinction. Showers says, this "indispensable factor is the recognition that the ultimate purpose of history is the glory of God through the demonstration that He alone is the sovereign God."[23] Ryrie explains:

we avow that the unifying principle of the Bible is the glory of God and that this is worked out in several ways-��the program of redemption, the program for Israel, the punishment of the wicked, the plan for the angels, and the glory of God revealed through nature. We see all these programs as means of glorifying God, and we reject the charge that by distinguishing them (particularly God'��s program for Israel from His purpose for the church) we have bifurcated God'��s purpose.[24]

This essential is the most misunderstood and often thought to be the least essential. When properly understood, I believe that this is a valid essential. Dispensationalists are not saying that nondispensationalists do not believe in God's glory. We are making the point that the dispensationalist understanding of the plan of God means that He is glorified in history by more areas or facets, than those who see mankind's salvation (probably the most important aspect of God'��s plan) as the single area displaying God'��s glory.

A Biblical Philosophy of History

Showers notes that a dispensational view of the Bible provides a believer with a biblical philosophy of history.[25] This is important for a Christian, because when we understand God'��s purpose for each era of history we are able to develop a worldview for living in accordance with God'��s will for each dispensation. A believer who has a Divine perspective on the past, present and future is able to know what God expects of him in every area of life in our present day.

In the current church age, the New Testament instructs us in both private and public spheres of life. The dispensationalist, for example, does not live in this age of grace as if he was still under the rule of the Mosaic Law. Instead we understand that we are now under the hundreds of commands that the New Testament calls the Law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). Current dispensational obligations are combined with responsibilities from previous ages, which continue in our own day, to provide a New Testament believer with a complete biblical framework for understanding how to please God in every area of our current lives.

Conclusion

We believe that dispensationalism is a system of theology that has been properly developed from the Bible itself. Dispensationalism is essential to correctly understanding the Bible, especially Bible prophecy. No one will be able to rightly divide God'��s Word without understanding these great truths. Instead of being a hindrance to correct understanding of God'��s Word, as is regularly claimed by the opponents, dispensationalism is a human label for the correct approach and understanding of Scripture. We plead guilty to the critic'��s charge that say we are dispensationalists. We only wish that they would properly come to understand what it is that we believe and quite misrepresenting dispensationalism as often occurs.

In this paper we have provided definitions, descriptions and essentials in an effort to answer the question: "What is dispensationalism?" Dr. Ryrie concludes:

If one does interpret the Bible this way, will it mean that he cuts out some of its parts? Not at all. Actually, the Bible comes alive as never before. There is no need to dodge the plain meaning of a passage or to reinterpret or spiritualize it in order to resolve conflicts with other passages. God'��s commands and standards for me today become even more distinct, and His program with its unfolding splendor falls into a harmonious pattern. The history of dispensationalism is replete with men and women who love the Word of God and promote its study, and who have a burden for spreading the gospel to all the world.[26]


[1] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, [1966], 1995).

[2] Charles C. Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? (Pamphlet published by Dallas Theological Seminary, [1980], 1986), p. 1.

[3] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, a translation and adaptation by William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 562.

[4] Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? p. 1.

[5] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.25.

[6] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.25.

[7] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.26.

[8] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.26.

[9] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 26-27.

[10] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 28.

[11] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 29.

[12] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 29.

[13] Paul David Nevin, "Some Major Problems in Dispensational Interpretation" (Th. D. dissertation, Dallas Seminary, 1965), p. 97.

[14] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), pp. 27, 30.

[15] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 41.

[16] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 40.

[17] Earl D. Radmacher, "The Current Status of Dispensationalism and Its Eschatology," ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry, Perspectives on Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 171.

[18] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 39.

[19] John F. Walvoord, "Biblical Kingdoms Compared and Contrasted" in Issues In Dispensationalism, edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 88.

[20] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas: Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107, as cited in Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 39.

[21] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church" in Issues In Dispensationalism, p. 126.

[22] Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church", pp. 116-18.

[23] Showers, There Really Is A Difference!, p. 53.

[24] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 213.

[25] Showers, There Really Is A Difference!, pp. 49-52.

[26] Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? p. 7.

[1] Webster'��s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition, p. 1055

[2] Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, (Winona Lake, Ind.: Assurance Publishers, 1974), p. 29.

[3] Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 86-87.

[4] David L. Cooper, The World'��s Greatest Library: Graphically Illustrated (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970), p. 11.

[5] Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 9.

[6] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), p. 148.

[7] For examples of his approach see Ibid., pp. 153-58.

[8] Ibid., p. 153.

[9] Ibid., p. 148.

--

[link to www.pre-trib.org]

OP's article is the very reason I shy away from the church. Just listening to Pre-trib crap makes me sick.

The author of the article does a good job showing up these people for what they are. Cowards. Looking for their ticket out of here when the going gets tough.

The cowardwarly gimps are the same jerkoffs that vote for politicians that force their views of biblical gobbidy gook on the rest of us. Wars and rumors of wars. Attack Iraq and Afghansistan and god will love us. WW111 would be great lets start nuking the hell out of everyone so we can get the hell out of here.

Not one concern that what they promoted will lead to misery and death. Why? Because it was god's will. They will celebrate our horrible deaths because it means they will be in heaven with god enjoying the show.

I'm not the smartest man on this planet but even the dumbest among us knows evil and those people are evil.

I can understand why you'd be so disgusted with those supposed Christian leaders we have nowadays, the Pat Robertsons, the Benny Hinns, the Kenneth Copelands. I would be turned off by Christianity too if that's what I saw from the outside looking in. But those men are nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. They're charlatans. And I know Pat Robertson is a high-ranking Mason. There's a good Bible verse, in my opinion, that explains what they're trying to do. It's Micah 3:10-11: "They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us." What I'm trying to say is true Christianity is far different than what these charlatans promote. Don't let their bad example turn you off to the most amazing and fulfilling thing, a personal relationship with the God of the universe. Nothing can bring you more peace and fulfillment in your life. Nothing.

I think the pre-tribulational article here nicely demolishes the OP's strange explanation of the origins of pre-tribulationist thoughts. She thinks it was the Masons. I didn't know Jesus and Paul were Masons ?.........Kidding aside, we need to know WHAT ELSE this OP and would-be Biblical Exegete believes. She has posted alsewhere alluding to "occult time travellers" . She directed people on another thread response to a link which claims that Barack Obama is .....get this.....and no side-splitting guffawing......try to be reserved...... is ubder the direction of the ILLUMINATI to stand on ley lines to enhance his power. oh yeah. Link on her handle "Michelle" on the online list of members currently on to check this work of overwhelmingly brilliant historiography.


The source she cites so enthusiastically to support these paranoid and rather "outre" notions is a Mr. Deloozle. Something like that. The man did looz his mind somewhere...somewhere in the twilight zone between the World of Dungeons and Dragons ( the lunatic fringe of neo-pagan society) and the sci-fi channel. But its not funny because he also claims that Christianity is false and that " JESUS IS JUST A SYMBOLIC SUN PUPPET".Check it out. I kid you not.



So OP, you are HARDLY in a position to preach to others about the ostensible source of ideas when you yourself will go to any poison well to water the exotic flowers of your beliefs...including your unbiblical distortion of the Bible and mania about promoting post-tribulational theory.


In this corner of post-tribulationist theology, we have a fear based theology and a skewed eschatology that breeds this kind of.......let's be kind........."unique" approach to consensus reality.The last time i encountered this kind of anti-consensus thinking was a nest of "Course in Miracles" proponents whose grasp of reality was a little loosened,as it were. It's one thing to disbelieve myself, or Dr. Ryrie or Dr. Feinberg or any of the pre-tribulationist believers and writers. But if you think that we too are "infiltrators" who are under the direction of the illuminati or maybe even reptilians....you need help because this approaches being,not an exegetical issue but a clinical one, if you catch my drift. You may be in need of deliverance ministry because this rather "out there" approach is typical of people who have been exposed to logoi, discarnate spirits who oppress with the 'doctrines of devils" the bible warns about in these last days.


I have elsewhere suggested that the OP find a church that has some accountability so that ideas like this can breathe some fresh air. the clear light of day is needed to illuminate this dark little corner of exegesis. This is a new hybrid creature in cult thinking .post-tribulationist,anti-dispensationalist interpretation which itself,of a neccessity,distorts scripture cross bred with conspiracy thinking of a very strange sort. the OP thinks it was the Masons who came up with pre-tribulation thought or maybe Scofield. No- JESUS HIMSELF gave many simple ,straightforward promises that the church will NOT go through the Tribulation -the horrors delineated in Revelation. I will save my exegesis for a further response in this thread.


You've been breeding alien flowers in this hothouse of arcane and outre interpretation,OP. This is no Easter Lily of revelation and insight you've got here in thiis post. It's not even Morticia's African Strangler. It's Fungi from Yuggoth. Something more akin to an alien spore from a distant planet. Perhaps that analogy will be to your taste. Yes,mixing science fiction with the Bible is a dangerous practice. +++

3468891 - I salute your very timely and appropriate post. I have read some of your sources, especially the venerable Dr. Ryrie. The pre-tribulational scholars like that good man DEMOLISH the post-tribulational position. The first source Iever read was Dr. Feinberg's "MillennialismThat and E. Schuyler English's little book.Since then I have perused every text I could on all sides of the issue.While I do not agre with every point made by the alumni of Dallas Theological Seminary, i will forever be indebted to their lucid teaching and main body of pre-tribulational hermeneutics. Lahaye has done a service with his "Handbook" and Dr. Ice's site is a great clearinghouse source for all who want to know about Bible prophecy. Dr. Walvoord. There are so many good men who have done great service to us all and to the Lord Jesus in their scholarship. Anyway........thanks for the great reply to this thread.

Excellent article Michelle. And the mind numbing rebuttal shows how that those who defend this type of falsehood, hide under the guise of philosophy, and man made rules and regulations. But here is the damage that Dispensationalism has caused for the Body of Christ.

1. It relegates only a small portion of scripture as relevant to Christians since most of the Bible was written to the "jews"

2. It makes Christians lazy concerning the Kingdom, for they see no need to "persevere to the end".

3. It causes Christians to wish for the Earth to self destruct to bring in the "rapture" sooner.

4. It causes Christians to just sit back and give the Devil control over the Earth since they are about to be taken out.

5. It supports a "superior" kind of attitude, especially toward Western Christians who have never had to suffer any persecution.

6. It makes Christians weak, and unprepared to suffer any type of persecution. If they do, it will violate their faith.

7. It causes Christians to rejoice when terrible things occur in the World, for they see it as another sign that they are about to be "taken out" of this world.

8. It causes Christians to "believe a lie" thus giving ground for Satan to do all kinds of evil work on them.

9. It paves the way for the great deception that if it were possible, would deceive the very elect.

10. It cuts out the Jews and all the promises of God to Israel as "second class citizens of the Kingdom; condemning the Jews to the Earth, while the "raptured" Christians enjoy full entrance into the Heavenlies.

I could go on, but the fact that there has not been any major move of God on this Earth for the last 100 years, shows how soon people will loose their faith when the Lord "delays His coming". The salt has lost it's savor, and is now being trodden under the foot of man. This is an insidious doctrine birthed out of the depths of Hell, to "castrate" all power away from Christianity. It appears that they have done a good job too.

The Dallas Theological Seminary opened the door for all kind of Satanic infiltration both in their student body and faculty when they started to adopt the teachings of CI Scofield. A stark blemish on the face of that great revivalist D.L.Moody. C.I. Scofield was bankrolled by an Illuminati group called the "circle of six" this is feared by all occultist as the most powerful Satanic group in the Illuminati. This same group bankrolled the civil war, in an attempt to control the United States. Lots of Satanic activity surrounding this false doctrine.

You can see that where the pre-tribulationist posted a very detailed labor of love in rightly dividing the Word; wingedlion posted NOT ONE SCRIPTURE or Biblical interpretation. He didn't answer even one of the myriad points he made.


What wingedlion did was come down from the mountain hideout of lunatic post-tribulationalist/conspiracy exegesis and post his version of the 10 commandments. They are really 10 unfounded and, if i may so, rather empty OPINIONS.

When we all stand before Jesus, he won't be asking us our opinions...he'll be asking us what we did to rightly divide his Word. When we weigh the elaborate,carefully thought out work of the pre-tribulationist with the OP's post and her supporter's follow up; it's quite obvious that the College of Crackbrained Conspiracy Theories simply cannot compete with actual scholarship and learning in places like the Dallas seminary.

Of course they dimly realize this...but that's o.k.,they feel all they must do is just make a harebrained pronouncement about how satan and the illuminati "infiltrated' ( more cult talk instead of Biblical exegesis)the pre-tribulationist colleges. Bankrolled by the illuminati. Got any proof or scripture for that ? Didn't think so.

I was going to engage in some serious exegesis or debate here. I think i will take the day off and go to the beach. Thread replies have just begun and already the post-tribulationists from another planet have begun to self destruct. It's sad, really, and as a Christian i pray they will escape whatever cult or conditioned thinking have given them this exceedingly novel approach to what the bible says. They are doing a terrible disservice in blaspheming the Word though and impeding the understanding of people who are honestly seeking to know what the Word of god says about the rapture and the endtimes rather than simply as an adjunct to ideas springing out of the College of Science Fiction in the City of Paranoiaville,located on Planet Neptune. ( The graduates cannot be reached by logic or the clear meaning of the Bible-i thought maybe if I used an analogy more to their "outre" tastes,they would understand.


I am going to end with a sincere prayer. Lord Jesus,do not allow your Word to be distorted by any man or any cult. Bind the spirits who author anti-Biblical heresy and deliver any who have come under the influence of such. We pray everyone in this "discussion" will be led to seek the wisdom of the Holy Spirit rather than the bizarre conceits of those like Mr. Deloozle who blasphemes Your Holy Name; in order to rightly divide the meaning of Bible prophecy and the precious promise of your rapture of the church before the coming judgement which is so close. Amen.

You'll have to excuse Van Helsing's ranting and raving. He's quite P.O.'d that I exposed him and his occultic beliefs on another thread discussing the chronology of the end times. As a professing "Christian," he claims that he's a reincarnated Anglical clergyman, and he uses astrological charts to predict the future, even advising the President that he shouldn't travel to the Olympics this year based on his astrological chart readings. Got any scripture to back up that reincarnation theory you espouse, VH? No, didn't think so.

Wingedlion, great job listing the divisions and problems that the dispensationalism theory causes. And we can expect much opposition to exposing this Masonic and occult infiltration in the churches today, because the enemy knows what kind of power through Jesus that Christians have, and he wants to keep them blinded to the truth. But the truth will ultimately prevail, and the light will expose the darkness in the end.

Michelle grossly misrepresents my elaborate and detailed position on interpretation of the LUKE 21: 25 concerning what Jesus said about endtime "SIGNS IN THE SUN AND IN THE MOON AND STARS" that JESUS HIMSELF aLLUDED TO IN THE SCRIPTURES. It was indeed the Magi who found Jesus( rendered astrologers in the NEB) who demonstrated that in a careful context avoiding the pagan abuses of traffic with spirits, the signs in the heavens are a gift god has given as part of his Providence. Psalm 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God and "sheweth knowledge". Christians throughout the ages includiing Kepler have believed that the traditions of astrology did give meaning. Throughout Christian history, there has been an acknowledgement and belief in the significance of the stars in a Christian context as opposed to the pagan practicers against which the prohibitions and curses of the Bible are directed. The great theologian Aquinas acknowledged the true dimension of meaning in the stars.As have many christians in all centuries. Nostradamus was one of these. I suggest a very good book on the subject by the Lutheran preacher Dr. Seiss " The Gospel and the Stars" to get a grasp of this fascinating Biblical subject. Or any one of the many books written about the Star of Bethlehem by the many Christian astronomers that have vindicated the subject of the stars in their proper context. I could go on and on, but I will simply refer anyone interested in this fascinating Biblical subject to my thread "Astrology and the Bible" for a lively discussion on the subject( go to "topics" on GLP- punch in "Astrology".


And thanks for the free advertisement Michelle. Unfortunately you have,yet again, advertised your penchant for misrepresentation and distortion. Misrepresenting me is a venial sin,perhaps, but misrepresenting the Bible in this thread is a darker matter we've already discussed. God help you.

I thought you were going to the beach??? Run off now, and maybe while you're there, you can come up with that scripture that supports your reincarnation belief.

BTW- That quote about a "reincarnated" anglican clergy was a quip made in context of the very real context of my saying that in the 16th-17th centuries the non-pagan belief that the stars are indeed signs as Jesus said was common and that some anglican clergymen even published almanacs with the stars as signs. THAT was the context. I wasn't ESPOUSING reincarnation....and you know it. You really should be ashamed to stoop this low to misrepresent what a person says. Perhaps you misread what i wrote. OK, You're forgiven-but in that case we have to honestly say that if you cannot understand simple declarative sentences then you need remedial reading lessons and are surely in no position to tell people how to interpret the rather deep syntactical and symbolic structure of Bible prophecy. So you're caught between scylla and Charybdis here. You are either 1) disingenuous or 2) you have poor reading skills. Either way you're not in good shape here,Michelle. You are on my prayer list, if that makes you feel any better. You have elicited some compassion about your state...I will say that.

you know your partner in bogus Bible teaching doubted that I have a ministry of cult investigation and deliverance ministry. You have the evidence before your very eyes. The Spirit directed me to find and confront your cultic hybrid of Biblical and all kinds of goofy occult beliefs about the illuminati and reptilians etc. like a HEAT SEEKING MISSILE. I am going to contact the Christian Research Institute to trace this bizarre belief of yours. You've already embarrassed yourselves with these crazy interpretations and and failure to defend your post tribulational beliefs. But my goal is not to simply embarrass. This ideation and its PROVENANCE needs full examination in the light of day. As the Lord leads.

VH, you are a child, an immature child who doesn't know the first thing about rightly dividing the Word of Truth. You act like your educated, but your rant is much too scripted to me. Your words are as lifeless as I'm sure your churches that your false doctrine is preached. The Lord rebuke you, not for what you have said against me or Michelle, but because of promoting lies...like your father the devil. Soon the harvest of the tares will take you and all the other infiltrators like you away. The Blessed harvest of the tares.

True, very true. There is little to no point argueing or debating with pea-brained monkeys that believe in the pre-trib rapture or that the earth is 6000 years old. Just let them be and let them carry on.

I am a Christian, as in a person who believes that Jesus existed, was the Son of God/Man and was resurrected for our sins.

But when it comes to fundamentalist Bible thumping people or Jesus freaks, I tend to stay away from those people.

That was an awesome post Wingedlion. I'm going to put this page under my favorittes so I can refer to this in later discussions. I sometime have problems putting into words what I think and this was perfect.


.

I agree, Wingedlion. Your words are pure truth, and it takes someone who is finely attuned to the Spirit of God to identify and expose VH as you did. VH's script about people being crazy to think that Satan doesn't rule the world as he does reminds me of another infiltrator, pax autoimmune, who ranted on about the same things as VH. BTW, once I had her spotted as an infiltrator, I prayed to the Lord that she would be "silenced," and the very next day after I prayed that prayer, she came on to post that she was going to be "silent" from now on and not continue posting anymore, and we never heard a peep from her again. In fact, she was a member of a coven of witches. VH, the only reason I didn't pray the same prayer concerning you is b/c I felt like the Lord was telling me to continue letting you rant and rave so as to show others your fruits and expose you for the charlatan/child of the devil that you are.

Michelle, you are one smart woman, very intelligent. How did you become so?

Amen!

This Circle of Six included Samuel Untermyer. Some of his great accomplishments from Wikipedia:


# He took an active part in preparing the Federal Reserve Bank law, the Clayton bill, the Federal Trade Commission bill, and other legislation curbing trusts.

# He was a strong supporter of President Wilson's administration.

# After America entered the Great War he was adviser to the Treasury Department regarding the interpretation of the income tax and the excess profits tax laws.


Oh yes . . . Let's not forget the Illuminist Oxford University Press

And look at what these Masonic infiltrators have done to the Christian name. May the Lord Jesus Christ continue to expose and bring to justice these evil men who pervert the truth and seek to bring the body of Christ into bondage. In the mighty name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command it.
[link to www.jesus-is-savior.com]

Hmm I have hard time believing that Robertson and others are a part of the Illuminati or whatever. I just think they are over zealous Jesus/Christian freaks that get deluded in their thoughts and become very boastful, full of pride and ego. They are not humble people, they actually consider themselves holier than thou and speak the word of God because God is telling them so. lol

Research it and pray to God for the truth, and, if you have the Holy Spirit living in you, He will show you it is so. I know it's hard to believe. It shatters everything you've been taught to believe. Trust me, they know exactly what they're doing. Just do me this: Look at that link I showed you with Pat Robertson giving the Masonic sign on the cover of Time Magazine, and then Google Masonic hand signals. What he's giving there is called the "devil's claw" Masonic sign. It signifies to those initiated into the Masonic brotherhood that he's one of them. I'll provide the link here that shows the Masonic secret hand signals. Notice Anton LaVey gives the same devil's claw hand signal as Pat Robertson. Coincidence? I think not.
[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]