What exactly is the basis of the arguments on dispensationalism?
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.
What is dispensationalism? by John MacArthur.
A Study of Dispensationalism by Arthur W. Pink.
Short answer: seven (or more) dispensations or times of "testing" wrt God’s salvation program; radical distinction between Israel (God’s earthly people) and the Church (God’s heavenly people); radical discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament; future personal antichrist and "great tribulation" where many if not most of the earth’s inhabitants are killed, including most Jews living in Israel; secret pre-tribulational rapture (i.e., rapture is distinct from the orthodox second coming); Jewish millennium ("thousand years" of Revelation 20) after Christ’s second coming with Christ physically reigning over the earth from a throne in earthly Jerusalem; future rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and reinstitution of the Levitical/sacrificial system.
It has been denounced by most historic protestant denominations, especially Lutheran and Reformed. Closely akin to such heretical views as Christian Zionism (ala John Hagee) and dual covenantalism. Also seems to have an odd relationship to messianic Judaism.
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.
Israel =/= the church. That is the root assumption, defended at all costs. All else flows from that.
Historically it dates from the 1830s, from an English Plymouth Brethren theologian named J. N. Darby.
As far as the eschatology, with the charts and all, Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth of one of the Left Behind novels are available at fine garage sales everywhere. Ah, yes. Amazon lists Late Grate as " 126 Used & new from $0.01". Left Lying Around "623 Used & new from $0.01".
**If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated.***
I would be willing to try.
Jesus is crucified, buried and resurected. He is the true king of Israel.
The Apostles preach this so that Israel can experience “the times of refreshing” and then Christ is to return during the destruction of Jerusalem and fulfill the prophecies in the OT, while setting up his world kingdom.
Israel rejects Jesus as the Mesiah. The promise of the kingdom and Israel is set aside and the word of God goes to the Gentiles. The age of Grace begins.
In the future, “the age of grace” will end and the believers will be “raptured” up to be with the Lord before, during, or after the tribulation (take your choice).
Israel then makes a seven year peace treaty with the “anti-Christ” which he then breaks. Wars begin against Israel.
God will then begin again to fulfill all the promises made to Israel in the past and Jesus will return at the destruction of Jerusalem and destroy those invaders.
Then begins the kingdom with Christ as King ruling out of Jerusalem. After one thousand years Satan is released from the botomless pit for one last battle then the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven and everyone lives happily after after except the followers of Satan who are cast into the lake of fire.
Whew. Confusing, isn’t it.
My thoughts is we should live as if Christ was going to return tomorrow and not worry or speculate about what is to happen after that.
For what it is worth FRiend, most of the Calvinists and other Traditional Reformed (Lutherans, Church of England derivatives, etc) get head aches as well.
In a nut shell...appropriate term for the subject of this discussion...Although John N.A.B. Darby is given credit for the first theological outlook that is recognisable as Dispensationalism, the school actually goes back to the movement of Edward Irving, and in particular, two female 'prophets' in his congregation in the 1830's. Those two Scottish females were named Mary Campbell, and Margaret MacDonald. (As a Scot, let me tell you that when you can get a MacDonald and a Campbell to agree on anything, beware of whatever 'it' happens to be.)
Some parts of it were derived from the theology of hymn writer Isaac Watts, though Watts' public theology did not remotely resemble anything recognisable as Modern Dispensationalism.
Along with Dispensationalism, Irving's congregation resembled much of the excesses that one sees in the Modern Charismatic movement. Irving also had difficulties with his Christological doctrines, and was taken to task by the Church of Scotland over those views.
It appears that bad ideas keep trying to gain a foothold in the church in every generation.
Or in the words of the 'Preacher' ...There is nothing new under the Sun...
StAthanasiustheGreat, Actually as a Catholic I think such threads are very helpful. The popularity of such tripe as the Left Behind series shows how few people understand that the theology behind it (not to mention the literature) is total caca. This heresy needs to be countered by Protestant voices speaking to a Protestant audience. If for one applaud these voices and pray the blessing of Christ be upon them all.
Perhaps this page would be helpful: Dispensationalism
A few excerpts:
"...
- Dispensationalism
- A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations.
Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
...- A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
- A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.
- The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is a misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism. "
In my own words, Dispensationalism is the logical result of believing that: