PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Are there two dispensational views ?



Indueseason
Nov 19th 2008, 07:46 PM
Is there two different views of this doctrine? I went to a church for years that taught things that I dont see posted here. I have been on other boards where they also teach the stuff my church did. It seems like on here, the dispenational view is mostly just an end times thing but thats not what I was taught. I was taught that it went from Genesis on and I was taught stuff I now find offensive to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I could try and explain, but I found a place that says most of it. Is this a minority view I was taught or do most dispensationals believe this? :confused



Dispensationalist Beliefs - Israel and the Kingdom of God by William E. Cox

According to dispensationalists, God has two distinct bodies of people with whom he is working: Israel and the church. There is a separate plan for each of these two peoples. Israel is said to be an earthly people, while the church represents a heavenly body. National Israel's expectation is an earthly kingdom; the church's hope is eternal bliss in heaven. While the church realized her goal through belief in the finished work of Christ on the cross, Israel's goal will finally be realized through legal obedience.

Whereas historic Christianity has held that the purpose of our Lord's first advent was to die on the cross for the sins of the whole world, the dispensationalist teaches that his real purpose was to establish an earthly kingdom. This, they say, was to have been an earthly, political kingdom over which Christ would have ruled from the literal throne of David, and in which all Old Testament prophecies were to be literally fulfilled. That is to say that children would have played with ferocious animals, lions would have eaten hay while oxen ate lion's food, and Jesus would have ruled over all with a rod of iron. This kingdom would have been a perfected continuation of the Davidic kingdom of the Old Testament with David's greater Son, Jesus, ruling in his place for one thousand years.

Before continuing in a further description of dispensational teaching with reference to this alleged earthly kingdom, we should like to state that this teaching (that Christ aspires to sit on the literal throne of David) is one of the many evidences of the weak Christology in the dispensational system. Even if God should resurrect the throne on which David sat, which throne has long since decayed and turned to dust, it would indeed be a demotion of the lowest order for our Lord, who occupies the throne of heaven, to be a successor to a throne once occupied by an earthly king! And yet this is one of the very highpoints in dispensational eschatology. Jesus, they say, failed once to sit on the throne of David, but at the second advent he is to have that high honor! Our Lord has for nearly two thousand years occupied the throne of which David's throne was a mere type. Peter depicts this in Acts 2:29-36.

To return now to the dispensational teaching about the kingdom for Israel, they teach that Jesus came to earth the first time fully intending to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with his chosen people, Israel.

Clarence Larkin (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 51), in describing the ministry of John the Baptist as a forerunner to Christ, said: 'Prepare the way of the Lord for what? Not for the Cross but for the Kingdom.'

M.R. DeHaan, well-known radio preacher, made the following statement with reference to the first advent of our Lord (The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): ... the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven's King on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross..

W.E. Blackstone (Jesus is Coming, p. 46), who is said to share the honor with C.I. Scofield as one of those who did most to perpetuate dispensationalism in this country, said concerning the first advent: 'He would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him.'

On page 998 of the Scofield Bible we read that, when Christ appeared the first time on earth to the Jewish people, the next order of revelation as it then stood should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom.

Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology) said:

The kingdom was announced by John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles. The Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35) and the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) consisted of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel. However, the Jewish nation rejected their King and with him the Kingdom (Quoted from George Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, p. 50).
Why did the Christ fail in his attempt to establish a kingdom during his first advent? Dispensationalists say it was because his success depended on the consent of the Jewish nation. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 131) says: 'Everything must be done through man's consent.' Commenting further on this he said (sec. 4):

God proposes, man disposes. God proposed a king, and a worldwide kingdom with great prosperity and peace. Man disposed of that plan, for the bit of time and space controlled by his will.
The question immediately arises in our minds: If the Jews were able to frustrate God's plan at the first advent of our Lord, then what assurance have we that his second advent will not also somehow be thwarted? We say this rather facetiously, but the fact still remains that our hope of the second coming is built on the success of his first advent. 'Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.'

When the Jews rejected Christ's legitimate offer of the kingdom, say the dispensationalists, that kingdom was then postponed until the second coming of Christ. Then the same earthly Davidic kingdom which they are supposed to have refused will be established in the form of the millennium. During the millennium all the plans which were supposedly thwarted by the Jews at the first advent will be carried out in a literal manner.

The importance played in dispensational theology by the alleged kingdom which was offered, rejected, and postponed until the millennium, can be seen in the following lengthy doctrinal statement:

The Magnum Opus of dispensational eschatology will be found in Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology, where the entire range of theology is interpreted in the light of dispensational eschatology. From this work we extract the following interpretation of the kingdom of God.

Two specific realms must be considered: The kingdom of God, which includes all intelligences in heaven or on earth who are willingly subject to God, and the kingdom of heaven, which is the manifestation of the kingdom of God at any time in its earthly form. Thus the kingdom of God appears on earth in various forms or embodiments during the centuries.


There was first of all the kingdom in the Old Testament theocracy in which God ruled over Israel in and through the judges.
The kingdom was covenanted by God as he entered into unconditional covenant with David and gave to Israel its national hope of a permanent earthly kingdom (2 Sam 7).
The kingdom was predicted by the prophets as a glorious kingdom for Israel on earth when the Messianic Son of David would sit on David's throne and rule over the nations from Jerusalem.
The kingdom was announced by John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles. The Gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35) and the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) consisted of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel. However, the Jewish nation rejected their king and with Him, the kingdom.
Because of Israel's rejection, the kingdom was postponed until the second advent of Christ. The millennial kingdom was offered, and postponed; but it will be instituted on earth after Christ's return. Since the kingdom was postponed it is a great error to attempt, as is so commonly done, to build a kingdom on the first advent of Christ as its basis, for, according to the Scriptures, the kingdom which was offered to Israel was rejected and is therefore delayed, to be realized only with the second advent of Christ.
The kingdom, because it was rejected and postponed, entered a mystery form (Matt 13) for the present age This mystery form of the kingdom has to do with the Church age when the kingdom of heaven is embodied in Christendom. God is now ruling on the earth insofar as the parables of the mystery of the kingdom of heaven require. In this mystery phase of the kingdom, good and evil mingle together and are to grow together until Christ returns.
The kingdom is to be reannounced by a Jewish remnant of 144,000 in final anticipation of Messiah's return. At the beginning of the great tribulation, which occurs immediately before the return of Christ, the Church will be raptured, taken out of the world, to be with Christ. An election of Israel is then sealed by God to proclaim throughout all the world the Gospel of the kingdom (Matt 24:14), i.e., that the Davidic kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, is about to be set up.
The millennial kingdom will then be realized as Christ returns in power and glory at the conclusion of the tribulation. Then Israel, which has been gathered from its dispersion through the earth to Messiah, will accept Him as such, and will enter the millennial kingdom as the covenanted people (George E. Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, pp. 50,51).
Noting again that dispensationalists teach the kingdom to have been offered, rejected, and postponed until a later age, we pose the question: What if the Jews had accepted Jesus' offer to establish an earthly Davidic kingdom at his first advent? According to dispensationalist teaching, people would then have been saved by legal obedience. In the light of this fact, dispensationalism would also teach - when carried to its logical conclusion - that the cross would not have been necessary as a means of salvation.

more here http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=9|21|178

I was taught that the words of Jesus are not for the church but were part of the old law and many more things that I just cannot believe now. Are these commonly held beliefs in dispensational circles or did I just fall in with the wrong crowd? :blush:

:hug: blessings

IBWatching
Nov 19th 2008, 09:29 PM
<deleted>

I checked out the website. No comment.

Emanate
Nov 19th 2008, 10:55 PM
<deleted>

I checked out the website. No comment.


thank you for telling us that you are not going to say anything.

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 11:22 PM
Maybe a mod could move this to the end times forum...I think you would get more replies on there. I have never studied this...though I hear people say they believe in the dispensational view but this whole description is nothing at all like I have ever heard!



Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology) said:

The kingdom was announced by John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles. The Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35) and the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) consisted of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel. However, the Jewish nation rejected their King and with him the Kingdom (Quoted from George Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, p. 50).

He seems to overlook the part of Christ saying...My kingdom is not of this world. Jesus never came to have a literal kingdom...though that is exactly what the Jews were looking for and wanting! I am sure if a literal kingdom had been offered..they would have gladly took it.


Why did the Christ fail in his attempt to establish a kingdom during his first advent? Dispensationalists say it was because his success depended on the consent of the Jewish nation. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 131) says: 'Everything must be done through man's consent.' Commenting further on this he said (sec. 4):

God proposes, man disposes. God proposed a king, and a worldwide kingdom with great prosperity and peace. Man disposed of that plan, for the bit of time and space controlled by his will.

That Jesus intended to literally rule on earth but needed the Jews to approve it!? that is so outrageous...where is the scripture on that? Good grief...

So His plans were changed...wowie...

I have to say I couldn't even read through this and understand it fully...I was getting utterly lost..is very confusing.

I wanted to show you what many pre-trib rapture believers go by...though this isn't a complete list by any means:

Pre-Tribulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Pre-Tribulation)

The Pre-Tribulation rapture is the view that the rapture will occur before the beginning of the Tribulation period. According to this view, the Christian Church that existed prior to that seven-year period has no vital role during the seven years of Tribulation, and will therefore be removed. Many people who accept Christ after the rapture will be martyred for their faith during the Tribulation (Rev 20:4). Saint John the Divine, which some believe is the apostle John, is seen in Revelation 4:1 as representing the Church caught up to Heaven. John hears the Trumpet and a voice that says, "Come up hither", and he is translated in the Spirit to Heaven and then sees what will happen for those left on earth. The Pre-Tribulation rapture is the most widely held position among American Evangelical Christians. It has become popular in recent years around the world and through the work of dispensational preachers such as Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, Tim LaHaye, Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Chuck Smith, Dr. Chuck Missler, Dr. Jack Van Impe, Dr. Grant Jeffrey, and Dr. David Jeremiah. [13]

Some who believe in a Pre-Tribulation rapture warn that the rapture is imminent, saying that all of the prophecies concerning the latter days have been fulfilled to the extent that the rapture could take place at any moment. Others suggest that certain requirements must first be met before a rapture can occur, such as these:

1. The nations of the world must unify their currency onto a universal standard.
2. There will be peace in Israel (Ezekiel 38).
3. There will be a one-world government, to correspond to the 7th beast of Revelation, prior to the Antichrist's 8th beast government.
4. The Jewish temple in Jerusalem must be rebuilt in its original place.
5. Observance of Old Testament commandments concerning animal sacrifices must be reinstated.
6. There will be a great falling away and the Antichrist will be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 2

Dispensationalist Premillenialists (such as many Evangelicals, especially in the USA) hold the return of Christ to be in two stages. 1Thessalonians 4:15-17 is seen to be a preliminary event to the return described in Matthew 24:29-31. Although both describe a return of Jesus in the clouds with angelic activity, trumpets, heavenly signs, and a gathering of the saints, these are seen to be two separate events, the first unseen, and the second public. Dispensationalists are divided, however, on whether the first event comes before a period of Tribulation, or midway through it.'

Sorry I couldn't find a better site that explains it better. They believe the New Heaven and New Earth will be created and they will physically and literally rule with Jesus for a thousand years...then there will be an uprising...the whole Gog and Magog thing and these wicked will try to over take Christ and He and His saints will destroy them. I forget exactly where the Great White Throne Judgment comes in there...oh and before this big battle, satan is releases from the pit...Revelation 20 I think...

Anyway this is what I was raised with...what I was taught..the pre-trib view...this stuff you posted..I never heard of it and I don't know anyone that has. Every pre-trib rapture believer...including at the last church I attended...them, on here...they all believe pretty much like I laid out here with a few minor changes here and there I am sure...

You know while I don't agree with this view, at least they have scriptures to point too...I would love to see the scriptures used, if any, for this first view you have posted...:hmm:

This scripture comes strongly into my mind though:

Galatians 1

Only One Gospel

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


The Lord KNEW, He Knew Israel would reject Jesus! His plans weren't messed up at all! Jesus never ever came to establish a physical kingdom just for the Jews to start with..

John 18:35-37

35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate retorted. “Your own people and their leading priests brought you to me for trial. Why? What have you done?”

36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

37 Pilate said, “So you are a king?”

Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

God bless

MrAnteater
Nov 19th 2008, 11:29 PM
Yes, you had dispensation of law under the Mosaic system and then the dispensation of grace after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Indueseason
Nov 19th 2008, 11:44 PM
Thankyou moonglow and MrAnteater for your replies. I realise that there are various different dispensations in the dispensational view.

What I meant was do all dispensationalists believe or teach that Jesus came to set up His earthly Kingdom but was rejected by the Jews and was crucified instead?

Do they all believe that the red letters in our bibles were for the old covenant and not for us in the new?

That each dispensation had a different way in which men were saved?

This is what I was taught and what my church taught. I have read books on this subject that say this and see that the Skofield reverence bible seems to promote these understandings too. I'm just trying to understand if this is a common dispensational view or not.

At least you did not get taught this moonglow.:)

:hug: blessings

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 12:16 AM
Those who hold a position are the ones who should be listened to regarding what it it is.

I find non dispensationalists love to characterize it in the most ugly ungainly and dishonest of terms... In fact it seems to be a prerequisite of Christianity sometimes....

"Excuse me, Are you a Christian?"
Answer 'YES'
"Can you define this rock for me please?"
Answer "YES, it a sinful piece of lava from the bowels of hell spit
up by the demons for the purpose of undermining the foundations
of the earth"
"But its only a rock!"
Answer: "Yes to you, but I am a Christian and straightforward
definitions don't come easily to me. Why dont you ask me about
Barack Obama?"
"Ermmmm...No thanks"


Dispensationalist dont necessarily seperate Israel and the church in some unique or non scriptural way or replace one with the other per se. Some do, MANY dont, I dont.

The word dispensation comes from the greek word for house manager (OIKONIMIA) from which we also get the word economy.

By example, each president has an economic policy. Just becasue one president wants to lower taxes does that mean all do? That is ridiculous. Just because one believer claims there is a dipensation that seperates the church and israel doesnt mean they all do.

Simply put dispensationalism means that through history God has modified the manner in which he manages the affairs of man, or the way man is to manage his affairs with one another, or man with animals etc... there are many dispensations.

Dietary ones: in the garden Adam was probably VEGAN, then after falling into sin he ate anything. Later we see Moses giving Gods instruction about clean and unclean animals, and about personal hygiene issues. Later yet we see Paul updating this issue further and saying anything goes.

Temple ones: There are dispensations for the temple that no longer apply,

Women:there are dispensations for women that are changed and for slaves, and for many things.

These rule changes are inumerable. When I hear people saying there are 2,5,7,9 or more dispensations I cringe at the effort to simplify what isnt complex to begin with. God has always been developing us and always will.
Would you classify your life a 7 major periods of time? How utterly ridiculous.

When you were raised did not your life DEVELOP?
are you still in diapers?
Are you still not allowed to touch the stove?
Play with fire?
Fry food?
Carry money?
use electricity?
At one time none of these things were true, now all of these things are different because you grew up. The Bible reveals subtle and large changes in almost every chapter.

When someone tries to define dispensationalism as something other than the way God has changes a rule, principle or issue...Do not be offended, just smile and ignore them.

Indueseason
Nov 20th 2008, 12:26 AM
Thanks Dragonfighter1, I guess you dont hold to a typical dispensational view. So you dont believe Jesus came to set up His earthly Kindgom and failed then? Or any of the other things I was taught( see above)? This is not teaching from a non dispensational view (although I did use a link from a non disp view) this is what I was taught in my church bible study and Sunday school and they fully believed it. :(

:hug: blessings

scourge39
Nov 20th 2008, 12:41 AM
Wikepedia gives a very good summary of this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism (Classical Dispensationalism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_dispensationalism (Progressive Dispensationalism)

Don't rely on the average adherent to explain Dispensationalism. There are many finer points that dispensational pastors and laypeople disagree on. You're better suited to read published defenses. They'll give you a better overview of the whole system.

Recommended reading:

Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional & Progressive Views by Darrell L. Bock, Elliott Johnson, J. Lanier Burns, and Stanley D. Toussaint

Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock

Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church by Craig A. Blaising and Darrel L. Bock

Most even-handed critique of Dispensationalism:

Understanding Dispensationalists by Vern S. Poythress

Indueseason
Nov 20th 2008, 12:47 AM
Thanks scourge39, I'm not looking for a deeper understanding of it all, just trying to see if anybody on here believes or was taught what I was taught.

:hug: blessings

scourge39
Nov 20th 2008, 01:04 AM
Thanks scourge39, I'm not looking for a deeper understanding of it all, just trying to see if anybody on here believes or was taught what I was taught.

:hug: blessings

Just out of curiosity, do you come from a Pentecostal background? They make some major modifications to the system and tend to present it differently.

Indueseason
Nov 20th 2008, 01:08 AM
I was taught this in a non denominational church, but I think the Pastor may have had a Pentecostal background.So this is not a regular teaching?

:hug: blessings

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 01:56 AM
EVERYONE is a dispensationalist.
They MUST be....
Unless they believe that ADAM did not sin.
You see from that sin God changed the way he dealt with man. So, its not fair to even use the word dispensational when talking about the church/Israel issue, or the failure of Christ's mission (?is that really a position you were taught? WOW!) or any other theological understanding.
Dispensational means what I said earlier, it therefore cant be used as a term to describe theological positions as ALL theological positions are dispensational (recognize the changing relationship between God and man in one way or another).

Whateve theology you were taught, or shown, just because someone wanted to sic a 25 cent word on it to sound officious, important, or more qualified to teach, doesnt mean a hoot!

I believe your question would take you much further if you could figure out how to rephrase it more specifically: as in .... DO you believe Christ failed his mission? etc....
All the best,
df

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 03:14 AM
Is there two different views of this doctrine? I went to a church for years that taught things that I dont see posted here. I have been on other boards where they also teach the stuff my church did. It seems like on here, the dispenational view is mostly just an end times thing but thats not what I was taught. I was taught that it went from Genesis on and I was taught stuff I now find offensive to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I could try and explain, but I found a place that says most of it. Is this a minority view I was taught or do most dispensationals believe this? :confused


I was taught that the words of Jesus are not for the church but were part of the old law and many more things that I just cannot believe now. Are these commonly held beliefs in dispensational circles or did I just fall in with the wrong crowd? :blush:

:hug: blessings

Hi Indueseason (what an appropriate name).:)

I'm quite familiar with what you've presented. That was the traditional view of dispensational theology at it's beginning.

This quote pretty much says it all.
"Systematic Theology, where the entire range of theology is interpreted in the light of dispensational eschatology"
The use of "systemic theology" to come to "dispensational eschatology" (eschatology means an end times view).

I've never heard " the words of Jesus are not for the church but were part of the old law " being part of that traditional dispensational view.

There is even a bible, the KJV Companion bible with EW Bullingers critical notes and appendixes. EW Bullinger (1837-1913) was a traditional dispensationalist. I've studied that bible, and still use it for critical notes from time to time. But I do not agree with dispensational theology. As even you have come to see it is flawed. I am even surprised that EW Bullinger didn't see the flaws with his critical notes. And he was an Anglican (Anglican's don't traditionally hold this view). But that was his theological perspective, not an Anglican one.

To answer your questions. Yes it has come to be a minority view, though there are a majority of Christians who still use parts of it to build on their theological eschatology. Parts of it are commonly held beliefs among the different churches, so there is more than one or two dispensational views.

moonglow
Nov 20th 2008, 03:35 AM
Thanks Dragonfighter1, I guess you dont hold to a typical dispensational view. So you dont believe Jesus came to set up His earthly Kindgom and failed then? Or any of the other things I was taught( see above)? This is not teaching from a non dispensational view (although I did use a link from a non disp view) this is what I was taught in my church bible study and Sunday school and they fully believed it. :(

:hug: blessings

There were some things in that article that sounded familiar...that I have seen held in certain end time views...but the article itself was very confusing for me because this author was trying to refute it...not explain it... So as far as God dealing separately with the Jews and the rest of us..if that is called dispensational...or some type of it..then that is more common...some argue God deals with all of us the same way now..no special treatment at all for the Jews...so I have seen that discussed on the end time forum.


But this idea Jesus had the intention of setting up an earthly kingdom but failed...I have never ever heard of that...not on here, not by any Christians I have even known. What scriptures do they use for that? I would be curious to know.

Was it just this church that taught this view?

God bless

scourge39
Nov 20th 2008, 03:55 AM
I was taught this in a non denominational church, but I think the Pastor may have had a Pentecostal background.So this is not a regular teaching?

:hug: blessings

No, Dispensationalism strongly rejects present-day extraordinary Spiritual gifts beyond the apostolic period. Obviously, Pentecostals take issue with that assumption. I'm an ex-Dispensationalist, BTW. Theologically, Pentecostalism has much more in common with historic premillennialism than it does with dispensational premillennialism. Why they haven't switched camps is beyond me. Dispensationalists have generally been very critical of Pentecostalism.

matthew94
Nov 20th 2008, 05:31 AM
There are many variations of dispensationalism (just like there are many variations of most doctrines and theologies). Fortunately, in this case, they are all wrong, so there's nothing much to worry about! :)

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 12:44 PM
There are many variations of dispensationalism (just like there are many variations of most doctrines and theologies). Fortunately, in this case, they are all wrong, so there's nothing much to worry about! :)
But even covenant theology is a form of dispensationalism.

matthew94
Nov 20th 2008, 02:25 PM
But even covenant theology is a form of dispensationalism.

Only if you take the loosest/broadest definition of dispensationalism. And to do such seems silly. I don't define dispensationalism by the presence of differing eras (that would be a meaningless definition), I define it the way it is most often used. It's an eschatological variation of futurism that stresses the importance of national Israel and tends to separate the 'rapture' fromthe 'second coming.' My opinion is that it is wrong on both of these distinguishing marks.

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 02:46 PM
Only if you take the loosest/broadest definition of dispensationalism. And to do such seems silly. I don't define dispensationalism by the presence of differing eras (that would be a meaningless definition), I define it the way it is most often used. It's an eschatological variation of futurism that stresses the importance of national Israel and tends to separate the 'rapture' fromthe 'second coming.' My opinion is that it is wrong on both of these distinguishing marks.
I'm sorry we cant agree on the definition, but to use a word other than its intended meaning is improper. Oikonomia means "oikonomia" not "futuristic theory". Not "nation Israel theory" it can only mean its original inteded definition whether you think it meaningless or not.
By the way, a dispensation is NOT an era. That is a crucial error in defining it too. If you say "a dispensation is a period of time in which ..." I would then have to say that "gragon fighter was a period of time in which.." because EVERYTHING falls into time, but nothing is time itself. (todate no one has ever succesfully defined time-Einstein gave up as the issue is too easily argued over depending on perspective).
But I digress, a dispensation is not a period of time, it is an administration, a policy, between God and man, that has changed many times through the course of history (here comes the time confusion again) and will change many more times into the future. But the policy, the administration, the OIKONOMIAs can never be just about Israel, or the church, its about EVERYTHING, from Food to church to womens rights. OIKONOMIA does not mean different things to different people thats insane, it means one thing and one thing only. It must or we should stop using it and find another word.

In England when our doctor gives us a presciption we go to a drug store to get it filled, the pharmacist behind the counter is called a "Dispensing Chemist" that is his title in the UK, we dont call them pharmacists. So I go to a dispensary, to have drugs dispensed to me. Is the drug a dispensation YES and NO, yes because the drug is to treat a problem so in that sense they are an "administrative solution" but also the answer is NO, because it does not apply to all illnesses. A pharmacist doesnt just dispense drugs for heart conditions he also dispenses drug for all kinds of ailments, ergo dispensationalists are not just those who have a peculiar view of Israel or the church or whatever, a dispensationist is one who recognises that God has a developing plan with Man, nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps instead of using the word dispensationalist you could use the word Judai-ology, There I coined a word...now I'll define it: Judai-ology referes to the theological opinions regarding the state of Israel.

matthew94
Nov 20th 2008, 03:15 PM
You are free to talk about the root meaning of the word itself, but you'll basically be talking to yourself! When the majority of people use the term 'dispensationalism' they are referring to the 1830 invention of a system of theology and they are focused on the end-times matters of Israel and the rapture.

I have no problem with you trying to redeem the term. I'm more prone to just use terms the way they are used and argue whether the viewpoint is right or not.

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 03:28 PM
You are free to talk about the root meaning of the word itself, but you'll basically be talking to yourself! When the majority of people use the term 'dispensationalism' they are referring to the 1830 invention of a system of theology and they are focused on the end-times matters of Israel and the rapture.

I have no problem with you trying to redeem the term. I'm more prone to just use terms the way they are used and argue whether the viewpoint is right or not.
I understand your point, and it is NOT completely unreasonable to approach it that way...however,
We all believe there are dispensations, everyone does, everyone must because history clearly and unequivically displays them through all the pages of scripture, ....
.... so here we all are,...
all believing there are dispensations ..

...but we must all say we are NOT dispensationists because some idiot 200 hundred years ago wanted to redefine the term.

Do you see how silly this is?

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 03:33 PM
I'm sorry we cant agree on the definition, but to use a word other than its intended meaning is improper. Oikonomia means "oikonomia" not "futuristic theory". Not "nation Israel theory" it can only mean its original inteded definition whether you think it meaningless or not.
By the way, a dispensation is NOT an era. That is a crucial error in defining it too. If you say "a dispensation is a period of time in which ..." I would then have to say that "gragon fighter was a period of time in which.." because EVERYTHING falls into time, but nothing is time itself. (todate no one has ever succesfully defined time-Einstein gave up as the issue is too easily argued over depending on perspective).
But I digress, a dispensation is not a period of time, it is an administration, a policy, between God and man, that has changed many times through the course of history (here comes the time confusion again) and will change many more times into the future. But the policy, the administration, the OIKONOMIAs can never be just about Israel, or the church, its about EVERYTHING, from Food to church to womens rights. OIKONOMIA does not mean different things to different people thats insane, it means one thing and one thing only. It must or we should stop using it and find another word.

In England when our doctor gives us a presciption we go to a drug store to get it filled, the pharmacist behind the counter is called a "Dispensing Chemist" that is his title in the UK, we dont call them pharmacists. So I go to a dispensary, to have drugs dispensed to me. Is the drug a dispensation YES and NO, yes because the drug is to treat a problem so in that sense they are an "administrative solution" but also the answer is NO, because it does not apply to all illnesses. A pharmacist doesnt just dispense drugs for heart conditions he also dispenses drug for all kinds of ailments, ergo dispensationalists are not just those who have a peculiar view of Israel or the church or whatever, a dispensationist is one who recognises that God has a developing plan with Man, nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps instead of using the word dispensationalist you could use the word Judai-ology, There I coined a word...now I'll define it: Judai-ology referes to the theological opinions regarding the state of Israel.

Dragonfighter, I don't know if your RC or not. But what you've described sounds just like the Roman churches view on grace. Because I'm an eastern Christian, I am familiar with the western church's view on this. The Greek is common study in my church. The Latin translations change much of the Greek meanings. What you've put forth may have been formulated by one who understood this Greek word "oikonomia" in Latin. :dunno:

The religion I'm affiliated with has used this word from the beginnings of the church (a two thousand year old track record). And it's meaning has always been "household management", "law of the house" "house building". It refers primarily to two related concepts in the ancient faith—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.

"Oikonomia" is one of two ways of observing the canons of the Church, the other is "akriveia" or strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application of "oikonomia" is generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the canons, the application of akriveia is regarded as being a more precise and strict one.

parts of definition quoted from OrthoWiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia)

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 03:38 PM
Dragonfighter, I don't know if your RC or not. But what you've described sounds just like the Roman churches view on grace. Because I'm an eastern Christian, I am familiar with the western church's view on this. The Greek is common study in my church. The Latin translations change much of the Greek meanings. What you've put forth may have been formulated by one who understood this Greek word "oikonomia" in Latin. :dunno:

The religion I'm affiliated with has used this word from the beginnings of the church (a two thousand year old track record). And it's meaning has always been "household management", "law of the house" "house building". It refers primarily to two related concepts in the ancient faith—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.

"Oikonomia" is one of two ways of observing the canons of the Church, the other is "akriveia" or strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application of "oikonomia" is generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the canons, the application of akriveia is regarded as being a more precise and strict one.

parts of definition quoted from OrthoWiki (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia)
Definitely NOT RC.
I am non denom. Went to A Baptist Bible college in the south for 3 years.
I understand the household manager definition, I thought I refered to that in an earlier thread. It is a reference as to how the MANAGER managed the house, representing the differing ways he treated the children as they grew up for example. That is my definition of oikonomia too. Tell me more about this other word... I never heard of it.

IBWatching
Nov 20th 2008, 04:44 PM
thank you for telling us that you are not going to say anything.

You're welcome. It was really nothing. ;)

Indueseason
Nov 20th 2008, 05:12 PM
Dragon ~ I'm sorry that I upset you with my use of words. It only word I've ever been taught on the subject. I've known many who are proud to use the word to describe their biblical understanding. Judai-ology sounds good for me but I'm not sure if others would understand. The name is not whats important, just the view that I'm trying to unravel in my head.

:hug: blessings

Thank you Teke and Matthew for your input too.I have so many things in my head that made sense as part of a collective bundle, but when picked apart they are quite shocking to me. I was taught that Jesus rode into Jerusalem as King on the last day of the 69th week of Daniel. He should have been accepted as King and been allowed to reign on Davids throne. This did not happen, but instead He was crucified and plan two came into being. The crucifiction was not a part of the whole 70 weeks proclaimed by Gabriel, but outwith in a separate gap period.

I was taught to rightly divide the word and I realise that there are varying degrees here depending on your views. My church taught that none of the Words of Jesus have to be adhered to because they were before the cross and part of the old covenant. Of course they are still powerful and annointed but not as revelant to Christians as Pauls words! Today I find this not only shocking but upsetting. Surely the Words of Jesus are by far the most important?

I did not post this looking for a debate on these subjects, just trying to figure out how many others believe these things or have at least been taught them. The new way we now see the Word has had profound effects on me and my family. We are trying desperately to understanding it all.

:hug: blessings

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 05:25 PM
[quote=Indueseason;1874950]Dragon ~ I'm sorry that I upset you with my use of words. It only word I've ever been taught on the subject.
:hug: blessings
You did not upset me at all. Not in the least bit. I pressed for clarities sake, not for offense or to be offensive. Your question was 100% appropriate. SO were all the responses.:saint:

Don't ever be sorry to ask a question.

How you ask 'may' lead to frustration but that's just part of thread boards!:lol:

Blessings to you

DF

1of7000
Nov 20th 2008, 05:40 PM
the companion bible appendix 195 gives a good definitive explaination of the administrations.

when Jesus opened His ministry he quoted from Is 61 stopping at "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord"
the next phrase "the day of vengeance of our God" was not uttered. from this it can be inferred that the establishment of the Lord's kingdom was held in abeyance.

The Grace administration in which we live is the interruption. holy spirit is given, to reside within and demonstrate power without, to jew and gentile alike.
that hasn't changed and won't change until the gathering together.

the study of biblical administrations should focus on the present age. excersising our power and personal time with Father. it has been corrupted to put the believer's focus elswhere to no real profit to either the individual or the church of the body.

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 05:48 PM
Definitely NOT RC.
I am non denom. Went to A Baptist Bible college in the south for 3 years.
I understand the household manager definition, I thought I refered to that in an earlier thread. It is a reference as to how the MANAGER managed the house, representing the differing ways he treated the children as they grew up for example. That is my definition of oikonomia too. Tell me more about this other word... I never heard of it.

Akrevia is a strict adherence to the rules. In this case, the rules or guidelines (canons) of the household (the church, or good estate of mankind). For instance, one church may accept new converts on principles which another church wouldn't. Some aspects these type of rulings apply to are baptism, in what is a valid baptism. Or grace, and whether it is charismatic grace or the grace of the mysteries such as baptism, marriage, the Eucharist (communion) etc.

Meaning, some things are unchallengeable and others are not, according to the canons (rules/guidelines). For a Trinitarian Christian, the Trinity would never be challenged in the established dogma of the church or associated churches. A historic example, for instance, would be the Oriental Orthodox who do not agree with the Trinitarian concept of Jesus having two natures in one. By which the other Orthodox, as well as any other professing Tinitarian churches, such as the Roman, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and other Trinitarian churches, would view them outside the truth the universal church has declared.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post. The pharmacist analogy brought to mind the RC view of dispensations of grace. Meaning they see grace as being dispensed for certain times in certain quantities. It is a doctrine the eastern church views as error, because the manner in which the RC applies this doctrine of grace, has placed grace as a created energy of God, rather than an uncreated energy (I believe the uncreated energy view to be correct).

Essentially it depends on the rules of any given church and how they are applied, whether strictly (akrevia) or flexibly (oikonomia).

Hope that clarifies somewhat. :saint:

In peace,
Eve

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 05:54 PM
Akrevia is a strict adherence to the rules. In this case, the rules or guidelines (canons) of the household (the church, or good estate of mankind). For instance, one church may accept new converts on principles which another church wouldn't. Some aspects these type of rulings apply to are baptism, in what is a valid baptism. Or grace, and whether it is charismatic grace or the grace of the mysteries such as baptism, marriage, the Eucharist (communion) etc.

Meaning, some things are unchallengeable and others are not, according to the canons (rules/guidelines). For a Trinitarian Christian, the Trinity would never be challenged in the established dogma of the church or associated churches. A historic example, for instance, would be the Oriental Orthodox who do not agree with the Trinitarian concept of Jesus having two natures in one. By which the other Orthodox, as well as any other professing Tinitarian churches, such as the Roman, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and other Trinitarian churches, would view them outside the truth the universal church has declared.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post. The pharmacist analogy brought to mind the RC view of dispensations of grace. Meaning they see grace as being dispensed for certain times in certain quantities. It is a doctrine the eastern church views as error, because the manner in which the RC applies this doctrine of grace, has placed grace as a created energy of God, rather than an uncreated energy (I believe the uncreated energy view to be correct).

Essentially it depends on the rules of any given church and how they are applied, whether strictly (akrevia) or flexibly (oikonomia).

Hope that clarifies somewhat. :saint:

In peace,
Eve
AHA, now I understand where the mix up came from. The pharmacist illustration!
NO, I believe as you do that Grace is an unearned, unmerited gift of God, once for all time. The pharmacy illustratiion was only meant as an explanation of the specific point I was trying to explain in that post.

Thanks for the lesson on Akrevia. I'll have to read more.:)

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 05:56 PM
Thank you Teke and Matthew for your input too.I have so many things in my head that made sense as part of a collective bundle, but when picked apart they are quite shocking to me. I was taught that Jesus rode into Jerusalem as King on the last day of the 69th week of Daniel. He should have been accepted as King and been allowed to reign on Davids throne. This did not happen, but instead He was crucified and plan two came into being. The crucifiction was not a part of the whole 70 weeks proclaimed by Gabriel, but outwith in a separate gap period.

I was taught to rightly divide the word and I realise that there are varying degrees here depending on your views. My church taught that none of the Words of Jesus have to be adhered to because they were before the cross and part of the old covenant. Of course they are still powerful and annointed but not as revelant to Christians as Pauls words! Today I find this not only shocking but upsetting. Surely the Words of Jesus are by far the most important?

I did not post this looking for a debate on these subjects, just trying to figure out how many others believe these things or have at least been taught them. The new way we now see the Word has had profound effects on me and my family. We are trying desperately to understanding it all.

:hug: blessings

Oh, it's alright Indueseason. There are many types of teachings in Christianity. I was taught dispensationalism in my early years of Christianity. It didn't make sense to me then nor does it now.
All I wanted to know where the original teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. And I knew in my heart that the church that put the bible together and established it as canon (rule/guideline/law) did so with full knowledge that it all made sense together, not in part.

This is why I'm sharing this info with you.

God bless you,
Eve

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 06:08 PM
This did not happen, but instead He was crucified and plan two came into being. The crucifiction was not a part of the whole 70 weeks proclaimed by Gabriel, but outwith in a separate gap period.

This is a perfect example of what is known as systematic theology. It's just that God doesn't fit any man made systems. There didn't need to be a plan two, because the original one was just fine, that being to join mankind to Himself. Which He did by the Incarnation, Transfiguration and Resurrection. His crucifixion is in relation to His death, which also relates to His full humanity. Meaning because He was human He was destined to die in the flesh as God declared mankind would.

But praise our Lord God because He does reign forever and ever. His Church Body is here, fulfilling His work as representatives of Him (managing the household until His return/Gr. oikonomia). In what is known as the Messianic era of the Church, which is the end times before the final judgment.

It is my prayer that you will be comforted by these words.

In Christ's peace,
Eve

PS, there is a seminary in Florida that teaches three comings of Christ in their dispensational theology. Which really sounds out there to me.

Indueseason
Nov 20th 2008, 06:15 PM
:hug: Thank you Eve, your words are a comfort to me and I've heard some say there are more than three comings! :)

blessings

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 06:27 PM
:hug: Thank you Eve, your words are a comfort to me and I've heard some say there are more than three comings! :)

blessings

It's mind boggling the lengths some will go to make their doctrines seem to have substance. :o

We can put our simple faith in the words of Jesus when He said, "it is finished". I believe Him over any man made doctrines. Because He is the center of our faith, and as long as we stay focused on Him, He will reveal any deception that the enemy throws at us. You should praise God for the lesson He has revealed to you. I did, and took the lesson as an apophatic (negative) lesson from God. As sometimes we need to know what is wrong before we know what is right.

It's not always easy being a Christian. There are so many with good intentions and zeal that can lead astray from the simple truth of Jesus Christ.

I will praise Him with you for bringing this subject to light.:pray:

:hug: Eve

Indueseason
Nov 20th 2008, 06:32 PM
It's mind boggling the lengths some will go to make their doctrines seem to have substance. :o

We can put our simple faith in the words of Jesus when He said, "it is finished". I believe Him over any man made doctrines. Because He is the center of our faith, and as long as we stay focused on Him, He will reveal any deception that the enemy throws at us. You should praise God for the lesson He has revealed to you. I did, and took the lesson as an apophatic (negative) lesson from God. As sometimes we need to know what is wrong before we know what is right.

It's not always easy being a Christian. There are so many with good intentions and zeal that can lead astray from the simple truth of Jesus Christ.

I will praise Him with you for bringing this subject to light.:pray:

:hug: Eve

I praise the Lord in every situation however confusing or difficult for He is worthy. Yet the pain this has caused me and my family has been too much for some of us. My husband is a newer Christian and it seems that his faith can't handle this lesson. :(

:hug: blessings

Teke
Nov 20th 2008, 07:31 PM
I praise the Lord in every situation however confusing or difficult for He is worthy. Yet the pain this has caused me and my family has been too much for some of us. My husband is a newer Christian and it seems that his faith can't handle this lesson. :(

:hug: blessings

I can surely relate to the pain and confusion it causes a family. My own children who are grown now, are still angry at the churches in general for the confusion it brought them, since when they were young they were taught dispensationalist views.

My husband all but abandon the church, until we both decided to get to the root of the subjects any church taught. I can tell you when you get to the root that is the end of the line.

Presently we are trying to keep our grandchildren from the same things we experienced. But their parents, who are our children, aren't making it easy. I am however, adamant about it with them. As long as I have a breath to breathe I will continue to direct them in their approach.

The church we are in now, an eastern religion, presents all the various views for a Christian to make an informed decision about them. As well as to be able to relate to Christians of other faiths.
We thank God everyday it all makes sense now. It did take a few years to study it all and be able to come to a conclusion thereby making a decision.

It was a lot of work to get to the simple truth. But it was all worth it. My advice would be to encourage them not to give up, have faith God is leading you to where He wants you to be.

Peace,
Eve

Indueseason
Nov 21st 2008, 02:52 PM
:hug: Thanks again Teke. Seems like no one wants to respond to my questions.I was hoping for a deluge of people that would tell me that I had not been taught the dispensational truth.:(

blessings

Indueseason
Nov 22nd 2008, 11:57 PM
Ok, I can see that there is a reluctance to answer my questions either way. I can only assume that means that most here who hold a dispensational view of scripture (Judai-ology for Dragonfighter1's sake) believe that Jesus came to earth to bring about His earthly Kingdom but failed because the Jews rejected Him. Now if this is a true assumption, could someone please help me understand how God can fail at anything? :confused:confused

:hug: blessings

Teke
Nov 23rd 2008, 03:10 AM
Ok, I can see that there is a reluctance to answer my questions either way. I can only assume that means that most here who hold a dispensational view of scripture (Judai-ology for Dragonfighter1's sake) believe that Jesus came to earth to bring about His earthly Kingdom but failed because the Jews rejected Him. Now if this is a true assumption, could someone please help me understand how God can fail at anything? :confused:confused

:hug: blessings

Hi Indueseason,:)
Jesus never said He came to set up an earthly kingdom. The earth was given to mankind to serve God. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.

Jhn 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

What you've proposed is known as "chilism". It was considered heresy by the early church. You can study about it in the church's history and patristics.

CHILISM

The belief in a millennium, a period of 1000 years in which God will rule on earth, is also known as Chilism from the Greek word, “chilioi,” meaning “one thousand.” The word millennium comes from two Latin roots, “mille,” meaning “thousand” and “annum,” meaning “year.”

Peace,
Eve