Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Both of you guys are making the same error of trying to redefine a commonly accepted notion of the meaning of "literal interpretation." As I said, you can either agree with me or be wrong. That's not because of who I am, but simply because what I said is the truth of the matter. You don't have to like it and you don't have to accept dispensationalism. But realize that people far smarter and more educated than you or I have already answered your questions and put your notion to rest. I haven't argued vehemently for a wrong meaning for a word. I have argued for the right meaning of a phrase and verified that by people you can read to learn from. If you choose not to learn from them, than that is your problem.

It is not a matter of understanding Webster. That doesn't even make sense. It is similar to those who pull out Webster to define a biblical word, when the word should be defined in Greek.

At this point, the name you attach to it is irrelevant. It is the concept that is important. Hirsch made this position very clear in Validity and if you have the stomach to wade through that, it will be worth your while to improve your understanding.

 

Apparently Larry is arguing that dispensationalists find it necessary to deliberately misuse words and makeup their own definitions in order to make dispensationalism appear to be a Biblical doctrine when the plain and obvious meanings of words as found in the best dictionaries clearly show that some dispensationalists have its own vocabulary just like Christian Science does (see example below). However, my study of dispensationalism shows me that the large majority of dispensationalists are decidedly more ethical than that, but I suppose that Larry will continue to post examples of dispensationalists making up their own definitions and standards of ethics.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: atone•ment
Pronunciation: &-'tOn-m&nt
Function: noun
1 obsolete : RECONCILIATION
2 : the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ
3 : reparation for an offense or injury : SATISFACTION
4 Christian Science : the exemplifying of man's oneness with God
(My emphasis in bold type)

 

Speak for yourself :D . This comment does not apply either to me or to my colleagues.

 

Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Pastor Larry wrote,

My most sincere apologies!!! :rolleyes:

I had no idea that you were His Holiness Larry I :D . I thought that all the Roman Catholics were banned—I guess they made an exception for the Pope :rolleyes: .

 

Answer two simple questions:

1. Did Jesus Christ come to establish an earthly Messianic Kingdom? :D

2. Did Jesus Christ come to establish the Church in its New testament form? :D

 

Actually the prophecy that the Jews would reject Jesus Christ is much more direct in Isaiah 6:8-10 [KJV]

8. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Jesus Christ refers to the fulfillment of this prophecy in Matthew 13:10-17. The Apostle Paul refers to the fulfillment of this prophecy in Acts28:25-27.

As to why this prophecy was fulfilled, which it had to be, the Jews expected a Messiah who would throw off the yoke of Rome and establish a carnal Jewish kingdom. When Jesus Christ offered a Spiritual Kingdom they rejected both it and Him.

To ignore the fact that Jesus Christ came to establish and die for the Church denies both Matthew 16:15-18 and Acts 20:28 [KJV] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

Larry wrote,

Personally, I believe that Christ is the head of the Church. And if the Church is a parenthesis, Christ is therefore also a parenthesis, giving us the God the Father, ( ) the ( ), and God the Holy Spirit. Anyone who believes that Jeus is not real, but just a parenthetical expression, has a very bad case of the Hairy Tick Disease. But of course, when Larry says that the Church is a parenthesis, maybe he is using a figure of speech that he wants us to take literally. Or maybe . . . no, that thought is too horrible to contemplate!

 

OldRegular,

Yes to both questions.

Jesus came to establish an earthly Messianic Kingdom by first restoring National Israel spiritually through His sacrificial death, and all that it entails. Thus the first step in the physical or actual establishment of the Messianic Kingdom was the spiritual reconciliation of His people to God. Although the way was made, this purpose was not fulfilled due to their rejection of their Messiah. Hence Jesus’ own proclamation that the Kingdom was to be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. But this is not the final word on the matter, for the Holy Ghost speaking through the Prophet Zechariah, declares a time in which Israel shall look on Him whom they pierced, and God shall pour upon them the spirit of grace and supplications, and thus save the nation of Israel. This will affect their spiritual restoration to God and usher in their physical restoration as the head of the nations.

Jesus also came to establish His Assembly or the Chuch in its N.T. form, and this is part and parcel to the establishment of His Messianic Kingdom, as it is to include redeemed gentiles.

Both questions point to differing realities or aspects of God’s Kingdom, and are not exclusive of each other. They come together in Christ

 

Then you are saying that Jesus Christ failed contrary to His statement in John 17:4.

 

How can the Jews be the head of all nations when Jesus Christ told His Church:

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Is this another instance where Jesus Christ was mistaken?

 

Then it amazes me how all of my professors in seminary who used the same books Craig suggested and you claim to have read that you suggest they are all wrong. Amazing how my professors using the smae books could get a much different view than you.

Are you suggesting that the English dictionary is wrong in its meaning of the word literal?

Craig the following website talks about how dispensationalists define literal

http://www.the-highway.com/literal1_Poythress.html

I guess they have their own mystical way of defining words that I was not aware of. Hope this helps.

But I'll stick with the plain sense of the words how the dictionary defines them. If I didn't I would get too mixed up between daily Englsih usage and some kind of theological jargon.

 

About an hour ago I was watching a 2-hour documentary documentary about FUMCOG (First United Methodist Church of Germantown, Penn.) and the former associate pastor of that church, the lesbian Irene Elizabeth “Beth” Stroud. On Dec. 2, 2004, this lesbian was found guilty of violating United Methodist church law by being a “self-avowed practicing homosexual” and her ministerial credentials were withdrawn. The verdict, however, was a 7 to 6 decision. The documentary was very sympathetic to this lesbian and filmed this extremely liberal church’s support of her with very many praises of her, including a standing ovation when during a sermon she declared that she was a lesbian and had been living in a lesbian relationship with another lesbian named “Chris” for more than two years.

This documentary was an excellent example of the danger in our churches today of denying very important words their true and established meaning and inventing new meanings for them that allow those who have been deceived by the powers of darkness to teach as biblical doctrines those doctrines that are either from men or from Satan and his demons. And we have seen a member of this message board in this very thread supporting and endorsing men who have proven themselves to be guilty of denying the word “literal” of its true and established meaning when applied to the Holy Scriptures and inventing new and VERY different meanings for this word, and thereby twisting and distorting the Holy Scriptures to teach a doctrine invented in 1830 by J. N. Darby immediately after he attended extremist Pentecostal Church services that were characterized by messages in tongues and personal prophesy.

Personally, I am a Baptist with old fashioned Baptist beliefs and values that go way back before 1830 when Baptists knew the difference between the literal interpretation of the Bible and figurative interpretations of the Bible, but Pastor Larry would have us to believe that none of our early Baptist forefathers understood either the gospels or the epistles, and that the millions of Baptists today still don’t understand them. My view is that it is Larry and is cohorts who are deceived.

 

I can honestly state that this thread is a TESTIMONY to the bible bungling balogna (baloney?)put out by brutish Baptists, who haven't "GROWN" in the grace and knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (See 1 Peter 5) It also reflects the apostasy and reprobation of the truth of the Holy Scriptures, along with WRESTING the words of God. (See 2 Peter 3)

These "dumb" muttonheads think that Holy Spirit WENT TO SLEEP, and cannot reveal TRUTH "unknown" to believers FROM THE SCRIPTURES, AS HE DID to Apollos. (Acts 18) Apollos no more had it "all" than ALL of the OLD BAPTISTS, who had nothing more than a little bit.

The old Baptists OR new DON'T HAVE "all" the truth. Spurgeon certainly didn't, along with ANY OTHER who teaches a post tribulation gathering of the body of Christ. It DEMONSTRATES "ignorance" of Pauline doctrine, ALONG WITH "willful" infidelity to the REVEALED TRUTH since Darby.

It ALSO demonstates ignorance of GOD HIMSELF and how he works AS SHOWN from the Holy Scriptures. (Revelation-practice-apostasy-reillumination-recognization-return to practice) See the OT. The cycle REPEATS ITSELF all through the Bible within Israel. THEY ARE OUR EXAMPLES, not old Baptists who can't LEARN MORE, when truth "arises" among their ranks! (1 Cor.10, Rom.15)

Some Baptists make "lying" statements which they couldn't prove KNOWINGLY. (Darby INVENTED nothing. He REDISCOVERED Pauline dispensationalism, which is REJECTED by "arrogant" Baptists, who demonstrate their "affinity" to and for REPROBATION.)

Good grief. This thread is a "concise" DESCRIPTION of the apostasy within the last days, along with the identification of those who "get choked" and choke others with their "disputation" of FOOLISH WORDS. (Theirs, NOT THOSE IN THE BOOK.) See Paul's words throughout Timothy and Titus. Thank God I don't think I'm so smart that I can't read, and feel dismay at the ignominious, brutish BUFFOONERY that goes on in the name of Christianity among Baptists on the Baptist Board.

Well, that's my commentary for the day. Have a nice one. Yes, by the way, I am a Baptist. (Independent)

 

OldRegular,

You wrote:
Then you are saying that Jesus Christ failed contrary to His statement in John 17:4


TakeChrist4Life:
Nope, I didn’t say that at all. Your statement assumes too much, and it doesn’t address or rebut the statements that I and others have made in regard to the finished work of Christ. I’ll say it again in hopes that you will address what was said, and not keep repeating this mantra, that we Dispensationalists are saying Christ failed. I gave you scripture to show you that what Jesus accomplished was His decease. This is what He spoke with Moses and Elijah about on the Mount of Transfiguration. The death that He accomplished opened the way of reconciliation for all peoples to God. For this discussion to continue to be productive, please state what you feel it is that He finished, and we can contrast that with what I and others have said that He finished. Please be specific and not talk in general terms. Also, tell me are you PostMil, A-Mill, Preterist,….?

 

Your words were rather harsh but I assume what you meant is that you do not agree with dispensationalism.

What has surpirsed me is how many pastors have not continued to keep on their language studies and were not taught dispensationalism and have bought into the theological system that has changed at least twice just in my lifetime.

A changing theological system is all relative. Certainly it cannot be absolute if it is changing. While my Bible has not changed the dispensationalists have changed.

 

carlaimpinge,

Where is the love?

There is so much anger that comes through on your thread! :mad:

And what are all these "rapture" theories about in my opinion? "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world." (1 John 2:16) Books! - money from books, huge television ego's,and power!

Why are booksellers that expound these unsound doctrines so popular amongst so many that have been lead astray? Because they have taken their eyes off Christ and what their primary mission is on earth - to preach Christ's salvation message to the lost until he return.

Notice I said was what our "job" here is because it is really, really, very simple - our "JOB" is to bring souls to Christ. That was what Christ did while he was here on earth. That was what the Great Commission says explicitly and in a simple manner as to what our "JOB is to be until He returns!"

Now, think about this for one moment - we instead get so bogged down in the quagmire of just "HOW" He is coming back when it should be very clear to us that scripture does not explicitly tell us the "HOW!" Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT OUR "JOB" - IT IS HIS JOB!. Christ will not be asking any one of us to help him with the resurrection! Let me repeat this again. HE WILL NOT NEED YOUR HELP! Your one job is to save souls - not give them manufactured theories that they don't have any hand in whatsoever! He can and will do that all by Himself.It is my firm belief that scripture kept this sufficiently veiled for this very reason - we are not going to be helping him with the resurrection so we do not need to know any of the details!!!!!!There is a sufficient amount to reassure us that He will return and that we are to expect false theories about his return as the end gets near.

Lastly, I stood in the catacombs where Christians held their worship services for fear of persecution that the Romans would find them and kill them. I also stood in the top row of the Colliseum in Rome and looked down on where early Christians were fed to the lions because they would not deny their Christ. The "theories" of rapture says "Christ loves me too much to let me be persecuted - but, please tell me why you think you are so different than those who were chewed up by the lions!" Elitist? I should think so!

I challenge you also - speak out in public instead of just from the pulpit against homosexuality and see how much persecution you get!

(hhmmmm! Selling any books about your theory?)

[ December 30, 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]

 

OldRegular,

You wrote:
How can the Jews be the head of all nations when Jesus Christ told His Church:

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Is this another instance where Jesus Christ was mistaken?


TakeChrist4Life:
How does the Church judging the twelve tribes of Israel address Israel being head over the nations??? Secondly, since Jesus shall be King over Israel, and we as His Bride shall reign with Him, what exactly are you taking issue with here. Further, your use of this scripture implies that you recognize the future purposes of National Israel as a separate and distinct people outside of the Church, in that the Church is judging them. Would that not debunk your Church replaces Israel theology? You ask is this another instance where Jesus Christ was mistaken, as if there was a first instance where He was mistaken. I know that this was an attempt at sarcastic humor, and I’ll take it as such; however the playing field has not been leveled yet, in that so far you’re just critiquing Dispensationalism, but we haven’t begun to critique your eschatological views. There’s no doubt in my mind that I couldn’t employ this same statement against your views. However, I’m not interested in going tit for tat with you. I want an honest discussion. Hopefully you can see that I and others really love God, His Word, and His Ways, and would never knowingly say or imply that Jesus was mistaken on any point. I’ve addressed the finished work of Christ issue that you keep bringing up, now rebut it with an honest analysis, instead of just declaring that Dispensationalists are saying Jesus was mistaken.

 

I was one of those that many years ago nearly stopped going to church but I stayed because I knew God existed and he had used me in the lives of others. At the time I was going to a church that taught dispensationalism. The things I was taught caused me great confusion when I read the Bible in light of what I was taught. I began to teach some of what I read in the books of Larkin, Chafer, Macintosh, Ryrie, Scofield and a number of others. While I began to teach dispensationalism I also began to have more and more unanswered questions.

What I realized as I spoke with the pastor and others who went to Bible school that they would regularly admit they could not give answers to the questions I had.

The turn around began to happen when I visited a Baptist church in the same town. What he said made sense and it was something that I had not heard. He spoke about interpreting in light of the historical context of the book. When I later read some books and writings by A.T. Robertson I realized where it began. Just in my short lifetime I have seen the dispensational school embrace more of interpreting scripture in light of its historical context. Whereas many Baptists have strayed away from that and have begun to embrace dispensationalism and throw out historical context leaving a mixture of both leading them to believe they have found the answer. What I find strange is that a number of dispensational schools such as DTS are tossing out much of dispensationalism and embracing the idea of interpreting scripture in light of its historical context. But a number of Baptists such as a number of the SBC leaders have embraced dispensationalism. So they have a little dispensationalism and a little historical context in their hermeneutic.

What amazes me is that out of all the theologians that preceded Darby I cannot find one who embraced dispensationalism. Anyone know of any?

 

Good point. You don't have to go public, just start with some churches. Many pastors each years are asked to leave. One of those who was well known was Jonatahan Edwards. Some didn't like his direct preaching.

Yet, the leaders of most denominations and conventions have bought into the successs syndrome instead of Jesus. They want successful pastors who have a long tenure. Imagine what the tenure of Paul and Jesus was in some of those communities.

Didn't someone talk about shaking the dust off your feet?