Posted on 05/17/2004 1:19:49 PM PDT by fishtank
Read later.
"There is some truth in the two statements "Any person is a dispensationalist who trusts the blood of Christ rather than bringing an animal sacrifice" and "Any person is a dispensationalist who observes the first day of the week rather than the seventh.[25] That is true simply because every person who does not bring an animal sacrifice or who does not observe Saturday as his day of worship recognizes the need for distinctions in the interpretation of the Bible. The dispensationalist feels that his system supplies the answer to that need."
1 vote for heresy.
But there is further reason, and a pressing one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism. This is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation. It is likely that some of our own readers, when perusing the articles upon the interpretation of the Scriptures, felt more than once that we were taking an undue liberty with Holy Writ, that we made use of certain passages in a way altogether unjustifiable, that we appropriated to the saints of this Christian era what does not belong to them but is rather addressed unto those who lived in an entirely different dispensation of the past, or one which is yet future.A Study of Dispensationalism by A.W. Pink
Referring to Dispensationalism the reviewer said: though the author had done his home-work, he is shooting at a moving target. It is no longer possible to speak of Dispensationalism as a unit. In the earlier days the system had a degree of various offshoots, but if Darby, Scofield, or even Chafer were to return today, they would be bewildered by the widely divergent stances of those still called dispensationalists. The reviewer was certainly correct when he referred to Dispensationalism as a "moving target." It has been and is a moving target. The question is what the next move will be.Lordship, Non-Lordship and Dispensationalism by Ernest Reisinger
Roman Catholicism becomes more acceptable when it adopts protestant ideas, practices, forms of worship, etc. Dispensationalism has appeal for much the same reason. The older, wilder dispensationalism of Scofield et. al. has morphed into the "new Dallas" views. Even the dispensationalism of Ryrie is not the same as the dispensationalism of Chafer. Where dispensationalism has been successful it is because it has moved closer to classic (covenant) theology.
Of course once you get close enough to covenant theology the final, illogical pieces of dispensationalism become apparent and then it is time to cast them off altogether.
Old school (classic) dispensationalism today exists mostly in the fantasy books of the Left Behind series. Old schoolers have pretty much given up trying to do serious biblical exegesis.
Could both of you list some of the heresies of dispensationalism?
Thanks.
The dispensationalist believes that the sum total of the trajectory of humanity is towards evil. Therefore, he sees little point in being a vessel of prevening grace, of attempting to establish justice, and of providing basic charity to the unconverted; the reign of evil is inevitable and its victory complete. The apocalypse, therefore, is the only means of ending suffering, and he therefore awaits the crisis with joy: He confidently expects that he will not suffer.
The preferred alternative:
Humanity is enterring a deepening crisis between good and evil which is at present a luke-warm numbness. However, the foundation for the glory of Christ is being laid by the grace-inspired works of God's holy people who are building the Church as a fortress against the gathering evil. They avidly pursue justice and charity to bring souls to where they can receive Christ. They pray to hold off the coming trial, until their works of gathering souls to be saved is complete. They expect that the end times will likely bring great suffering to themselves, but they accept that suffering out of their profound love and compassion for sinners; they know that their suffering purifies them, and makes them great among the children of God.
However, I had my tongue slightly in cheek when I declared dispensationalism a heresy. Many of these distinctions, you will notice, are "fuzzy," and comprised more of differences in approach than concrete, irreconcilable, logical differences.
Two of the main heresies are the pretribulation rapture and the radical distinction between the Israel and the church. Related to both, there is also the heresy that God has a plan for physical Jews (aka national Israel) of the future to suffer some unspeakable holocaust for no reason other than they are Jews.
Most of the other quirky dispensational teachings (e.g., teachings on law vs. grace) are related to these major errors.
"...and the radical distinction between the Israel and the church. Related to both, there is also the heresy that God has a plan for physical Jews (aka national Israel) of the future to suffer some unspeakable holocaust for no reason other than they are Jews."
Thanks to both of you. I am from a dispy church background but am now in a MacArthur-type church. Thanks for helping to understand the Reformed objections to dispy-ism (which I proudly adhere to).
I do think the Israel issue you reference has more to do with the promise of the future glory of physical Israel.
No one likes to think about future deaths caused by the AC - be they Jew or Gentile.
If this is a serious, spiritual quest, there are several "responses" to Left Behind that might be good reading. It's odd to read the assertion that Catholics are dispensationalist, because they absolutely are not! As a Catholic, we believe that our works (inspired by grace) allow us to participate with Christ in the act of propitiation: Quite the opposite of dispensationalism!
I'm not sure what a MacArthur-type church is. Are they waiting for him to return to the Phillipines? I better check... lessee... the letter to the Phillipines is right after "Galatians," right? Here's to driving Satan back to the 51st parallel! If MacArthur-type churches aren't dispenationalist do they believe in General Absolution? (Corporal acts of mercy? Private intentions? Major Creeds? Kernals of hope?)
>>No one likes to think about future deaths caused by the AC - be they Jew or Gentile.<<
Death by AC? Is that why Hell is so hot? No AC?
Again, only if you believe in the radical distinction between the church and Israel; God's so-called heavenly people and His so-called earthly people.
No one likes to think about future deaths caused by the AC - be they Jew or Gentile.
I don't think about it since it's not in the Bible.
Main Entry: her·e·syGiven the nature of most dispensational distinctives, I think it fits the definition, esp. 1c. I wouild place them in the same category as RC doctrines like the sacrifice of the Mass and papal supremacy.
Pronunciation: 'her-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
To me, a "heresy" is something, to quote the Athanasian Creed, contrary to "the holy catholic faith, which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, he shall perish everlastingly."
Unless you're willing to say that "if you believe in dispensationalism, your errors will lead you into hell," you cannot call it a heresy.
FASCINATING ARTICLE.
Thanks.
I believe he wrote a great historical and theological summary including a diversity of significant perspectives.
I think he makes some excellent points.
I hope you have your HAZMAT suit on, however. Brace yourself.
Blessings,
And you are entitled to your definition, but it does not square exactly with the one I presented.
That's John MacArthur, author of many books including "The Gospel According to Jesus".
He's otherwise a fine teacher and author, although in the last two years I've stopped agreeing with him on the Lordship salvation issue.
I'm not sure you're familiar with him, so maybe this is Greek for now. (No fault of yours, btw.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.