Flaws with Dispensational Theology

[puritan lad]

Flaws with Dispensational Theology

Dispensationalism falsely teaches that the Church Age was unforeseen by the prophets of the Old Testament, see: Acts 2:16-17; Acts 3:24-26; Acts 15:14-18; Galatians 3:8. This allows them to make up mysterious 2,000 year gaps and stick them into OT prophecies in order to make them fit their timeline. Yet amazing enough, they hold that 1948 is a fulfillment of OT prophecy (Isaiah 66 and others). I guess the church age has ended.

Dispensationalism falsely teaches that the kingdom promises refer to "Israel after the flesh" rather than to the Church as the New Israel of God, see: Galatians 3:28-29; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12-22; Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:28-29; and 1 Peter 2:5-9.

Dispensationalism falsely denies that Christ established His kingdom in the first century, see: Mark 1:15; Mark 9:1; Luke 11:20; Luke 17:20-21; John 18:33-37; Colossians 1:13.

Dispensationalism falsely denies that the Abrahamic Covenants and David Covenants have seen their fulfillment in Christ (see Acts 2:29-36 and Galatians 3:7-29).

Dispensationalism pits Scripture against Scripture, and denies that God's law is valid until Heaven and Earth pass away, see Matthew 5:17-18, Matthew 7:21-23, 1 John 3:4

Dispensationalism teaches that there will be a return to weak and beggarly elements of animal sacrifices as atonement for Israel's sins, (which Scripture says in impossible), see Hebrews 10:4-5

Dispensationalism falsely holds that only certain parts of scripture apply to certain ages, a view adamantly denied by both Christ and Paul, see Matthew 4:4, Acts 28:23, Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

That's a good start. The endtimes stuff is even more inconsistent.

[jlay]

I don't have time right now to address everything, but everything is addressed I assure you.

Dispensationalism teaches that there will be a return to weak and beggarly elements of animal sacrifices as atonement for Israel's sins, (which Scripture says in impossible), see Hebrews 10:4-5

What camp of dispensationalism are you referring to here? I hope you understand that just as there are differences within Calvanism, not all dispensationalists agree on all these points you bring up. That is one of the reasons I've avoided the zionism thread. I am not a zionist.

What you are doing is elephant hurling. You are throwing out a barrage of topics from eschatological issues, covenant issues, etc. Which do you want to discuss?
At this point I don't think you've even demonstrated anything in error with regards to what we've discussed already. Only that you agree with Calvanism, and we are either with you or against you. A question begging epithet is not proving a point. "Dispensation falsely teaches......."

Dispensationalism falsely holds that only certain parts of scripture apply to certain ages, a view adamantly denied by both Christ and Paul, see Matthew 4:4, Acts 28:23, Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Which is it now? Israel either is to abandon old covenant practices of sacrifice, dietary laws, etc. or not? Or do certain parts of the scripture apply to specific people and times?
A lot of this is just blatant goobldeygoo meant to confuse the reader.

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Rom. 15:4

How does dispensationalism teach different than this. We totally agree that whaever was written in earlier time was written for our INSTRUCTION. Funny how Paul was just giving instructions in chapter 14 on the fact that people were not following, nor required to follow old covenant dietary restrictions.

[August]

I split this out from the Calvinism thread. It can become a biggy.

[puritan lad]

As I pointed out in the zionism thread, dispensationalism is hard to pin down because it changes every 10 years or so (which is a problem in itself). I went with the popular "Scofield/Ryrie" school, which is the majority dispensational view still today.

Therefore, it may be more profitable for you to defend the view to start with as opposed to me having to refute it to start with. In doing so, I have to make assumptions that may or may not apply to you. Since you mentioned a "dispensation of grace" and "two gospels", we can start there, as well as anything else that you feel makes your case.

[jlay]

Me thinks I see why Bart elected not to discuss with you.

[zoegirl]

Actually Jlay, I would be interested in your responses, so hopefully this will bring about some good debate. At the least we can establish where everyone stands with regard to their ideas

[jlay]

Zoe, i'm all for good debate.

However statements that are clearly question begging epithets are not going to cut it.

Dispensationalism falsely teaches that the Church Age was unforeseen by the prophets of the Old Testament, see: Acts 2:16-17; Acts 3:24-26; Acts 15:14-18; Galatians 3:8. This allows them to make up mysterious 2,000 year gaps and stick them into OT prophecies in order to make them fit their timeline. Yet amazing enough, they hold that 1948 is a fulfillment of OT prophecy (Isaiah 66 and others). I guess the church age has ended.

For example this one question throws out so many things, and of course starts out with the epithet.
Regarding one point that is lumped in. Not all dispensationalists hold that 1948 is a fulfillment of OT prophecy. Many do. In fact many who don't even understand dispensational theology hold that position. I am curious about the goings on, but I don't hold that this was a fulfillment. In fact in another thread by Gman, I criticized it being mentioned as such. So to lump this in with the rest is elephant hurling.
Example, Acts 2:16-17
‘aAnd it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;

Dispensationalism views Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, which was to the Kingdom program, and gospel. (Remember this is only Jews here) It is very apparent that what was happening on Pentecost was predicted by Joel, predicted and prepared by Jesus (John 14-15) and was now happening. Obviously PL views this as prophesying the introduction of the church. We disagree. In fact much is disagreed here. How 'last days' is being interpreted probably would be a big factor as well. Dispensationalism views this as the fact that the Kingdom program is being preached, Israel receives, follows their commission to repent, and then preach it to the ends of the earth and then, "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matt. 24:14) Christ will fulfill His promise and return to establish His Kingdom on Earth, setting up His throne for the millenial reign. Obviously, here we are 2,000 years later. What happened? Israel as a nation, rejected the Messiah. Jerusalem was destroyed, you know the story. And this is why the mystery had not yet been revealed. It was revealed to Paul. (Keep in mind Ephesians was written around 62 A.D) And this is just a small part of one of the scriptures he lumps in. I could post pages of objections to Calvanism.

[zoegirl]

But we know that's PL's stand....of course he thinks it "falsely"....

It
s not begging the question, it's just what reformed theology teaches with regard to scripture. I'm interested in what Dispensationalism teaches.

[jlay]

That is by definition a question begging epithet. Even though it is mild, it is most certainly one. (The arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic.)

He could say, "dispensationalism teaches..x,y,z, and here are the reasons we disagree." That is a logical argument. He doesn't. Just making this epithet and then posting verse citations isn't. Because it wrongly implies that these verses (apart from his calvinistic presuppostions) don't harmonize with dispensational theology. Falsely.

[puritan lad]

jlay,

I wasn't begging the question. I made assertions and then gave scriptural proof that counter dispensational belief. If you hold to the authority of Scripture, then scripture is a valid proof (I could put each point into a logical syllogism, but that would be time consuming and unnecessary.) Now whether or not you buy into a few or all of these mainstream dispensational beliefs is what I don't know. I can only address what dispensationalism has historically taught. The fact that dispensationalism has to change what it believes every 10 years makes it extremely difficult to address as a whole system, so I need to know what you adhere to as a dispensationalist.

If you object to my use of the word "falsely", you would be better served to show why it isn't false.

[B. W.]

As I pointed out in the zionism thread, dispensationalism is hard to pin down because it changes every 10 years or so (which is a problem in itself). I went with the popular "Scofield/Ryrie" school, which is the majority dispensational view still today.

Therefore, it may be more profitable for you to defend the view to start with as opposed to me having to refute it to start with. In doing so, I have to make assumptions that may or may not apply to you. Since you mentioned a "dispensation of grace" and "two gospels", we can start there, as well as anything else that you feel makes your case.

There are also Full Preterist, Partial Preterist, Idealist Preterist, Moderate Preterist, even those ¼ Preterist . Many in the Preterist camp also even accuse each other of heresy too. So, if King David, a man after God’s own heart fell into error and sin, we all can too – even Partial Preterist. So if a person wants to accuse dispensationalist of changing every 10 years to prove error – then what of Preterism?

Guess there is no-monopoly on error for sincere Christian to fall into. Oh, the mercy, patience, and grace of God is truly amazing!-
-
-
-

[jlay]

BW made a good point.
The verses don't counter dispensational belief. Calvinistic interpretations disagree with dispensational interpretations.

The fact that dispensationalism has to change what it believes every 10 years makes it extremely difficult to address as a whole system, so I need to know what you adhere to as a dispensationalist.

Well I would disagree with that statement. But certianly there are different camps, and just as reformed thinking entered Calvinism, changes do happen. Do I need to provide a link regarding the different camps within Calvinism?

If you object to my use of the word "falsely", you would be better served to show why it isn't false.

I did. In fact I took a verse you cited and gave an explanation. Did you miss that? Further, just citing verses doesn't make them affirm your position or conflict with mine. You used the word falsely, and then the burdens on me? Interesting. i'd like to see your logical syllogism on that. Me thinks I see why Bart elected out of discussion.

[puritan lad]

Disagreement within camps are not the same as flat out proven falsehoods at every turn.

In any case, I have yet to see any arguments in favor of dispensationalism. All you've put forth is that you disagree with my "Calvinistic Interpretations" despite the fact that I never gave an interpretation of most of these passages. They speak for themselves.

Therefore, In order to put forth my argument that clearly doesn't beg any questions, let's try this:

Prove A: The Old Testament prophets saw the church age.

Assume the opposite: ~A - the Old Testament prophets did not see the church age.

~A -> B - If the Old Testament Prophets did not see the church age, they could not have known that the Gentiles would be justified by faith.

~B - The Old Testament Prophets did know that the Gentiles would be justified by faith.

~~A - It is not the case the Old Testament prophets did not see the church age.

A - The Old Testament prophets saw the church age.

QED Proof by way of denying.

I think you would agree that if the OT prophets saw the church age, then Dispensationalism falls flat. If not, then I need some details about your camp of Dispensationalism, because it is new to me.

BTW: How do you account for so many nations being represented at Pentecost? They were not all Israelites (Acts 2:5-11), so why were they given the gospel of the kingdom?

[jlay]

~A -> B - If the Old Testament Prophets did not see the church age, they could not have known that the Gentiles would be justified by faith.

And in there lies the fallacy in your deduction. You would have to be saying that blessing equals justification by faith. (Which I can actually accept.) The tougher matter is did these OT prophets have clear revelation as to what that all meant regarding justification by faith in the Gospel? Clearly what we have in the OT text is brief, and only refers to blessing. Considering that at these times Israel was under the covenant of the Law it seems far fetched. And then you would also need to show how the dispensationalism "Gospel of the Kingdom," precludes blessing for the Gentiles. I'm all open to hear your proofs on this. How would the Kingdom program if fufilled(as defined in Dispensationalism) have prevented the Gentiles from being blessed, and ultimately justified? I can see no where and no way that it does.

I think you would agree that if the OT prophets saw the church age, then Dispensationalism falls flat.

At first read I would agree. But I don't even think we agree on when the 'church age' begins. My guess is that you would say Pentecost?

How do you account for so many nations being represented at Pentecost? They were not all Israelites (Acts 2:5-11), so why were they given the gospel of the kingdom?

Surely you understand the Jews of the dispersion? Josephus even wrote about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
It doesn't say Jews and devout men. Check the translations and the Greek.
KJV "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
NIV " Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."
NASB "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven."
v. 11 both Jews and converts to Judaism
Jews!!

Why would Jews, DEVOUT men from various nations be in Jerusalem? Because they were devoted. Devoted to what? To the fact that God had promised through His prophets to restore Israel. And they knew where that would happen. Jerusalem. They were making pilgrimages to Jerusalem for Holy days. Why would God reveal Himself to these people at this time?

[puritan lad]

And in there lies the fallacy in your deduction. You would have to be saying that blessing equals justification by faith. (Which I can actually accept.) The tougher matter is did these OT prophets have clear revelation as to what that all meant regarding justification by faith in the Gospel? Clearly what we have in the OT text is brief, and only refers to blessing. Considering that at these times Israel was under the covenant of the Law it seems far fetched. And then you would also need to show how the dispensationalism "Gospel of the Kingdom," precludes blessing for the Gentiles. I'm all open to hear your proofs on this. How would the Kingdom program if fufilled(as defined in Dispensationalism) have prevented the Gentiles from being blessed, and ultimately justified? I can see no where and no way that it does.

Even if I were to grant to you everything here, it doesn't help your cause. The fact remains that the gentiles were blessed/justified in the "church age", and that the OT prophets saw it.

At first read I would agree. But I don't even think we agree on when the 'church age' begins. My guess is that you would say Pentecost?

Not really. Since I reject Dispensationalism, I don't believe in a specific "church age" as you would define it.

Surely you understand the Jews of the dispersion? Josephus even wrote about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
It doesn't say Jews and devout men. Check the translations and the Greek.
KJV "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
NIV " Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."
NASB "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven."
v. 11 both Jews and converts to Judaism
Jews!!

Why would Jews, DEVOUT men from various nations be in Jerusalem? Because they were devoted. Devoted to what? To the fact that God had promised through His prophets to restore Israel. And they knew where that would happen. Jerusalem. They were making pilgrimages to Jerusalem for Holy days. Why would God reveal Himself to these people at this time?

So am I to understand that any convert to Judaism is a child of Abraham, regardless of DNA?