Posted on 08/11/2011 4:48:01 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
One of the most common objections to Dispensationalism offered by Preterists and Covenant theologians is that, according to them, it was an invention based on a 'vision' ascribed to a young Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald.
As they tell it, in 1830, she had a vision about the end of the world and when she came out from under her trance, she wrote it down. This account attracted the attention of Edward Irving and his church later claimed Margaret as one of their own prophetesses.
Irving also had an interest in prophecy and held prophetic conferences. The historian of Irving's church claimed that Margaret was the first person to teach a two stage second coming of Christ.
John Darby traveled to Scotland to visit the MacDonald home. Darby was a lawyer until a year after his conversion when he was ordained a deacon in the Church of England. Soon after entering the ministry he became disillusioned with the institutional church and started the Brethren movement in Plymouth, England.
Darby became known as the 'father' of Dispensationalism, the first eschatology to incorporate the 'prophecy' of Margaret MacDonald. Darby continued to develop this new view by becoming the first to make a radical distinction between Israel and the Church.
Darby taught that God has two special groups of people (or two Brides) and a separate plan for each of them. This meant Christ would have to return twice.
Covenant theologians sneer that, "this secret rapture was so secret that no one had ever heard of it for 1800 years!" Can that be true?
First, let's clearly define what Dispensationalism means; "the act of dispensing or something dispensed; a specific arrangement or system by which something is dispensed."
Moses dispensed the Law. The word 'dispensation' does not mean a period of time. It means the dispensing of a particular message or ministry. For example, the Church Age began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture.
". . .Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)
The Margaret MacDonald story has been told and retold so many times that most Covenant theologians can recite it in their sleep. There is something about Dispensationalism that makes them see red.
Most Dispensationalists couldn't care less whether or not a segment of the Church believes it will go through the Tribulation. I am among that group.
If somebody trusts Christ for his salvation, but disagrees with the timing, (or even the doctrine) of a secret Rapture, they are still saved.
But I've yet to discuss Dispensationalism with Covenant (or replacement) theologians without being called names like 'false teacher' and 'liar'. The Margaret MacDonald story is included in every missive, so that 'ignorant' can be added to the list.
Is it true? Was the doctrine of Dispensationalism born out of the vision of a Scottish schoolgirl and nurtured by a church who proclaimed her a 'prophetess'? Is Dispensationalism, as replacement theology teaches, such a secret that nobody had heard of it for 1800 years?
In 177 AD, which is, ummm, like 1833 years ago, Irenaeus wrote in 'Against Heresies (1.10)
"What the church believes: One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who PROCLAIMED THROUGH THE PROPHETS THE DISPENSATONS OF GOD, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His future manifestation from heaven."
In addressing the teachings of an heretical sect called 'Montanists" (today we'd call them 'replacement theologians') Irenaeus wrote;
"Montanists set at naught the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect of the EVANGELICAL DISPENSATION presented by John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete (John 16); but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit."
In 'Against Heresies’ 3:15 Irenaeus wrote, “Jesus and the Father are the only true God. Jesus gave Moses the dispensation of the Law."
And, "Some of the orthodox are ignorant of God's dispensations." (Against Heresies 5.32)
Clement of Alexandria (192 AD -- 1,817 years ago) in his 'Stromata (5.3) identified seven distinct Dispensations of God, including the present Age of Grace.
Origin taught Dispensationalism in 230 AD (1,779 years ago). Justin Martyr taught in the 1st century that there were four phases, or dispensations' of human history; Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the eternal state.
So, if the early Church fathers taught Dispensationalism, then why so much focus on Margaret MacDonald? How come nobody was teaching Dispensationalism in 1492?
An honest reading of history provides the answer.
When the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the state Church of Rome, he set into motion a codification process in which ultimately resulted in the Bible being restricted to members of the clergy.
This period is known to history as the 'Dark Ages'. It wasn't until the Bible was made available to the common man that the Protestant Reformation began to take place in the 15th century.
And the Protestant Church was born out of the Roman Catholic Church. While it rejected Catholicism's teaching of salvation by works, it carried with it much of its doctrine, including that of replacement theology.
For almost three hundred years, the Protestant Church continued to accept the Catholic doctrine of replacement theology without challenge. Until Dr. C. I. Schofield reviewed and advanced the teachings of the early Church, publishing his findings in the Schofield Reference Bible.
The Scofield Reference Bible attempted to set in order the right divisions of God's purpose as Scofield understood it. And it is important to note that there is very little similarity between the writings of Scofield and the writings of Darby, despite being assigned joint credit for 'inventing' the doctrine by its critics.
As Christians, we are obligated to search the Scriptures and see if the Bible teaches different dispensations, and if it does, we are obligated to embrace its teaching. If it does not, we are bound to reject it.
There are three things to keep in mind about dispensational teaching. First, it maintains a distinction between Israel and the Church, recognizing God has an eternal, unchanging, Plan for Israel and a different Plan for the Church during the Church Age.
The second is that Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, instead of spiritualizing a text or making everything a 'type'.
Thirdly, Dispensationalists believe God's purpose is much bigger than the salvation of mankind. God's purpose centers in His glory.
It was at the Cross we get in on God's blessings and Purpose. However, the Cross is not the center or the end of God's Plan.
The Bible teaches that there have been and will be saved Jews and Gentiles who are not part of the present body of Christ. Moses and Abraham come to mind. So does the Gentile King, Melchizidek. And the Bible teaches that Enoch was not only saved, he was raptured early.
After the Church Age, the Bible teaches that all Israel will be saved at the end of the Tribulation.
Dispensationalists also believe in a literal thousand-year rule of Christ on earth. During that time, Scripture says Israel will be the head of nations and Jerusalem will be the center of government.
The Bible is all about God's kingdom and His Son ruling over it. This is the part where the replacement theologians start turning red. Dispensationalists believe that there is a place for the Jew, the Gentile and the Church of God in this eternal purpose.
Those saved in this age are part of the "Church", which the Bible says is the Body of Christ.
Replacement theology cuts the Jew out of God's Plan, blurs the line between Christian and Gentile, and assumes unto the Church the Promises of God to Israel.
Therefore, according to the modern interpretation of replacement theology, modern-day Israel isn't really the Israel of the Bible. It has no special spiritual connection to the Land.
This theological worldview is behind most mainstream Protestant churches sharing the Vatican's unwavering support for the Palestinian cause.
Replacement theology is also the root cause of modern anti-Semitism. This is why those who hold to it get so nasty when attacking Dispensationalism.
If Dispensationalist truth IS truth, then they are standing against God's Chosen People.
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)
There are far safer places to stand.
There's far, far, far too much scripture that you guys have to ignore make these events something of the past...
In other words, you are just going by the authority of your own opinion. When shown Scripture that plainly contradicts your view - you ignore it and move on.
So you list a bunch of passages from Scripture that you truly don't understand and then announce that all of these events "didn't happen". I don't want to sound disrespectful, but it is embarassingly obvious that you have never even tried to see what true Christians have to say on that matter. I have several feet of bookshelf space containing thousands of pages of commentary on these passages. Have you ever in your life looked at a Commentary on the OT from theologians of the past two thousand years other than products of the Dispensational camp?
The point being, is that, like evolutionists, you appear to approach these passages with a terribly flawed template. The evolutionist looks at everything through Uniformitarian eyeglasses - and so they look at the Grand Canyon and think "millions of years". People who love God and trust the Scriptures say "Flood". We can believe the Bible and we place ourselves under its Authority. Furthermore, we also know that water doesn't run uphill, which it would have to do in order to wear down a canyon through erosion. So we can be confident because of faith and reason.
In your template, everything is physical and earthly despite our LORD and the apostles constantly reminding us that the Kingdom is not physical and earthly. The Jews reject the Messiah and the New Testament and thus they don't understand the mystery revealed. Unfortunately, the American Religion has also rejected the Messiah and is looking for an temporal reign in an earthly city by a physical king that can be touched. So naturally, when you allow rabbis to tell you how to read the OT, you will also accept their Christ-hating teachings.
Most of the prophecies of the OT prophets were for the people of their day. Isaac Newton, and many other historians and commentators have given us names, dates and locations of the fulfillment.
This category of prophecies hold at least two practical applications: build the faith of the Jewish people in times of distress by reminding them of God's Sovereignty, and to be the "near" predictions fulfilled to establish their authority to speak for God.
Sadly, you make these prophets "untested" by converting everything to events still yet to come. By asserting that this is all future, you are really saying that God didn't care to assure His People in times of distress, but really all of this is for your own personal mental masturbation - having absolutely no practical value for you since your tribe has made thousands of false and failed predictions based on Nostradamus-like interpretations of the passages. If even these things were to be fulfilled, your eschatology states that you won't be here to even certify it, leaving that to the reprobates Left Behind. IOW, no one will ever know that the prophets spoke for God because there will never be confirmation of their prophecies by the People of God.
Have you ever wondered where the slanderous "replacementarian" label came from? It comes from thousands of years of Christian teaching that the "Israel" that God fights for in these "future" passages is the the children of like faith as Abraham. This is not just Jews who share Abraham's DNA. Unlike the false charges of the John Hagee crowd its not "just Gentiles". Rather, the Israel spoken of by the Prophets is the Church composed of people of all tribes and nations. When you read of the LORD coming to avenge Israel, you might as well read it as the LORD coming to avenge the Church - or the "children of like faith of Abraham".
These aren't necessarily just Future events, the LORD has fought the battles through all ages. Just as the prophets of old spoke to reassure the people that God would smite the oppressive Assyrians, Egyptians and Chaldeans, the prophets through the type of "Israel" as the Church reassure believers of all ages that God hasn't gone away and left them to fend for themselves until some specified date in the distant future.
As a thought experiment, interpret the "armies of this world" with Ephesians 6:12. Interpret "Israel" and "Jerusalem" from Revelation 21:2 as "the bride of Christ" or the Church from Abel to the last person redeemed. Read the "Temple" in light of 1 Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:19-21. When viewed in that language, there is encouragement and hope in that the LORD fights our battles today, that the Church will grow and all that our LORD's Purpose will be fulfilled at His return.
When you continue to let blaspheming rabbis tell you that the temple is a physical structure standing in a ancient war-torn city defiled by millions of idolators and haters of God and that somehow God is going to bless those who reject His Son by initiating sword and chariot battles sometime tomorrow, you will never understand God's Plan and likely will never understand the Gospel.
Not at all...I (we) recognize that the scriptures teach two Kingdoms...One Spiritual, on physical...
So you list a bunch of passages from Scripture that you truly don't understand and then announce that all of these events "didn't happen".
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Sorry bud...Didn't happen (yet)...But it will...
You spent a number of paragraphs telling me how smart you and your group are but where's the scripture to back you up??? If you don't have the scripture, you don't have anything...
When Jesus says he will return and every eye will see him, it couldn't have happened in history...But it can happen now...And it will...
What do you guys do with all those thousands of scriptures that you refuse to accept literally but can't be explained any other way???
If the wedding between the Bride and Bridegroom took place 2000 years ago, how do you explain that you are part of the Bride, the Body of Jesus Christ???
If we are in that 2, 3, or 10 thousand year Mellennium, we are not part of the church...The church is the Bride and the wedding is long gone...
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.