Why I am No Longer a Dispensationalist

Credo House ^ | May 21, 2015 | C. Michael Patton

[OK Sun]

My Dispensational Upbringing

I have been taught Dispensationalism from my mother’s womb. I was born in a dispensational environment. It was assumed at my church to be a part of the Gospel. There was never another option presented. It made sense. It helped me put together the Scriptures in a way that cleared up so much confusion. And, to be honest, the emphasis on the coming tribulation, current events that prove the Bible’s prophecy, the fear that the Antichrist may be alive today (who is he?) was all quite exciting. But what might be the biggest attraction for me is the charts! Oh how I love charts. I think in charts. And dispensationalism is a theology of charts!

Making Fun of Dispensationalism

The first time I came across someone who was not a Dispensationalist was in 1999. I am not kidding. It was the first time! I don’t think I even knew if there was another view. It was when I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (the bastion of Dispensationalism) and I was swimming with some guys who were at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Once they discovered I was a dispensationalist, they giggled and snickered. They made fun of the rapture, the sacrificial system during the millennium, and the mark of the beast (which, at that time, was some type of barcode). It was as if they patted me on the head and said “It’s okay . . . nice little dispensationalist.” I was so angry. I was humiliated. I was a second-rate theologian. They were “Covenantalists” (whatever that was). But they were the cool guys who believed in the historic Christian faith and I was the cultural Christian, believing in novel ideas.

[CynicalBear]

>>Paul's response to the Thessalonians when they had been told that a rapture had come and gone was that it was not possible because the man of sin must come first.<<

How interesting that you post that passage to twist what Paul is teaching. The man of sin does NOT come first. You highlighted words in verse three but neglected the part the comes first. Here it is.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

The verse clearly states what comes first but you change it.

Now let's look at that word "apostasy". From Strong's Greek

646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing." So we see that a departure comes first before that man of lawlessness is revealed. A leaving comes first. So the verse clearly states what comes first yet you change it. And that's not the only thing you try to change.

You said here that "He who lets is Satan, in the throne room of God." Yet the passage you post clearly indicates that can't possibly be. Continuing on from verse three.

2 Thessalonians 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

Something or someone is restraining "the son of perdition". So your claiming that Satan restrains the "son of perdition"? It's the anti Christ indwelt by Satan. Satan doesn't restrain his own. Then we continue with verse 7.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

So again we see that it's someone who is restraining that "man of sin and son of perdition". Then in verse 9 we clearly see who that "son of perdition is.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,

So we see clearly that what you say is first is NOT first. It's the departure, the leaving, that happens first. That's what is referred to as the "catching up" or "rapture" that happens first. Then that "son of perdition" will be revealed.

Twisting scripture in an attempt to make it mean something other than what it does is NOT of God.

[CynicalBear]

>>Dispensationalism is nowhere to be found in the word of God.<<

Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation (oikonomia) of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

God clearly managed the affairs with man in different ways during different periods. The stewardship (oikonomia) or how He managed the affairs of man changed over time. The word "dispensation" is simply a "period of time" during which God managed one way then another in a different period of time. This "age of grace" is clearly different than the "age of the law".

>>Interpreting scripture rather than taking it as it is plainly written is not a path to sound doctrine.<<

As I clearly showed you did in my last post to you.

[CynicalBear]

>>2 Tim. 2:15 addresses the teaching of false doctrine, and nothing else.<<

Like stating one thing comes first when scripture clearly states something else comes first like you did here?

[MHGinTN]

Yes! ... IIRC, Galatians, then the two letters to Thessalonika were his first letters to the churches of his mission service. When you look at how long Paul had with those folks, with that ekklesia, you realize that he didn't diddle his time away on social gospel, he taught them the deepest things of the Church Age and move on to the next town where God had prepared hearts to receive Grace.

We have one or two on these threads who insist we sink into the Laodicean mode of a social gospel, neither hot nor cold for the Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ, the Holy Spirit seal upon the spirit. Of such will the immediate embrace of Chrislam be fashioned. We are at the end of the Church Age, some say we should just try to all get along. That is contrary to what Paul was doing at the beginning of the Church Age, so we contend for the faith and try to alert souls that now is the day and this is the hour, for not many more are scheduled before the departing. This may be the final hour. Who can say? Tending flowerbeds in the yard while the house burns down isn't my idea of the Gospel for a perishing world.

[MHGinTN]

It has occurred to me in the past that God allowed certain mistranslations to remain obscured until the time was right to divulge them and sweep the feet from under false teaching. Great job with the Greek meaning, Sir. The great and sudden departing is coming soon ...

[don-o]

And 2 Peter 3:15, 16 bear witness to this very thing. He states specifically that some things that Paul wrote were “hard to be understood”. Verse 15 is especially wonderful in this regard. “Paul..according TO THE WISDOM GIVEN UNTO HIM...” Peter wasn’t just discussing Paul’s difficulty in making himself clesr: he was discussing Paul’s epistles and WHY some people could not understand and wrested with the scriptures.

This Peter versus Paul controversy is a man made invention from the 19th century. Look and learn what the one holy catholic and apostolic church has taught about these two.

There is no "either / or". It is "both / and". Obviously the either / or arguments have been made before. So the Church draws a picture (icon) for us.

[smvoice]

You must be right. Peter must be talking about Paul's difficulty with his writing skills...perhaps he only knew a few words and just couldn't make them make sense in areas where more words were needed...It couldn't be that some of the things Paul wrote about were HARD TO UNDERSTAND. THAT WOULD BE TOO LITERAL>

Please. If you are not willing to READ what is CLEARLY written, you are adding nothing but confusion to the issue. It's not that complicated, don-o. Just read what it says. NOT what you THINK it says or what you've been TOLD it says.

[don-o]

I had thought that when you had quoted from Peter's epistle you might have noted the part about wresting the scriptures. The whole sola undertaking is based on wresting the scriptures to form a theology; make that multiple and competing and contradicting theologies.

That what you have left once one have smashed what Peter and Paul are together holding in the icon.

[MHGinTN]

The icon is seen by too many Catholics as the institution to be relied upon. The Church, the ekklesia, is not an institution, it is The Body of Christ. Neither Paul nor Peter is Christ’s head, for God Is The Head.

[af_vet_1981]

Not worth my time. Take it up with God.

Acts 28. ACTS 28. Sorry for the mis-numbered Scripture. I’m sure it has you all perplexed...

Do you admit your teaching is in error ?

[don-o]

If you are interested in considering something maybe out of your comfort zone - as in....

To help us understand, we can look at an Old testament type prefiguring the Apostles in their role as “pillars”. In the Temple of Solomon there were two prominent bronze pillars. These pillars are given names in Scripture. The first pillar is Jachin, which means “the Lord will establish” . This notion of establishing can be linked to our Lord telling Peter: “You are Peter and on this stone I will build my church.” The second pillar is called Boaz, and here we have an even more surprising relationship, because although the word Boaz has an obscure etymology, it refers to the ancestor of David known mostly for marrying Ruth, a gentile woman who converted. Boaz therefore strongly prefigures Paul as the “apostle to the gentiles”. Most importantly, just as with Peter and Paul, we can see in the two pillars of the first Temple this primordial movement towards and away from the center, analogous to the movement of the nous.

http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/st-peter-on-the-right-st-paul-on-the-left/

[smvoice]

Oh please. Yes, af. Yes my stating "Acts 29" instead of Acts 28 was in error.

happy now??

[af_vet_1981]

Oh please. Yes, af. Yes my stating "Acts 29" instead of Acts 28 was in error. happy now??

I did not mean the incorrect scripture reference, which however humorous, could happen to any of us, but rather the erroneous post 166 in which it was referenced with " What happens when Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 29?"

And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me. But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of. For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
Acts, Catholic chapter twenty eight, Protestant verses sixteen to thirty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

To answer your question, Paul makes a final courtesy visit to the Jews in Rome before going into residence where he receives anyone who comes to him for wisdom.

[Iscool]

There is but one resurrection that is said to be unto eternal life, the first resurrection, at the end of the trib, and just before the wrath of God is poured out on the Earth in the ten days of the bowl judgements.”The rest of the dead” are raised to judgement, not to eternal life, 1000 years later, after we have reigned with Yeshua for 1000 years on Earth.<.i>

Really??? Where did the OT saints go when the gates of hell were flung open and those saints were raised???

Do we have to discount the spiritual Ressurrection in Eph. 2:5,6???

[smvoice]

"Be it known unto therefore unto you, that the SALVATION OF GOD IS SENT UNTO THE GENTILES, AND THAT THEY WILL HEAR IT."Acts 28:28.

"What then? ISRAEL hath NOT OBTAINED that which he seeketh for; but the ELECTION HATH OBTAINED IT, and THE REST WERE BLINDED." Rom.11:7.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant OF THIS MYSTERY, lest ye should be wise in your own conceit; that BLINDNESS IN PART IS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL, UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES BE COME IN." Rom. 11:25.

[winodog]

“Fantasy land at best”

Les defends all his teachings with the Bible in eye opening ways. OT Scripture with NT. Everything fits perfectly. I was staring most of the stuff in the face for 20 years but Les made the light bulb come on and he has thousands of testimonies like mine.
He does not preach just teach and refuses to make money of his teachings. And he does it almost daily without notes just the Holy Spirit.

[af_vet_1981]

I see you have ventured out of Acts, Catholic chapter twenty eight, perhaps realizing that your assertion "Israel is blinded and set aside in Acts 29" was erroneous and not amount of capitalization would support it.

[MHGinTN]

Okay, I read it. I 'nous' what it's about. But I still agree with smvoice that Peter and the ekklesia in Jerusalem was teaching The Cross + Moses, until the great council where James and Peter decided the matter to go forward among the gentiles without the burden of the law, because they came to realize that it is by Grace that we are saved and by Grace we are kept unto that day of Redemption. Paul is very clear on what the law is meant to do and what it results in.

Peter's visit to the house of Cornelius displays Peter's faithfulness to the leadership of God's Spirit. But typical of Peter, even as he left that house he probably wondered how the law was going to be attached to such believers.

Peter was somewhat dense, prone to plodding in ruts, until God's Spirit shook his cage and set him straight. And had to do it on several occasions, too! Thanks be to God that it is upon the same profession that Peter made under influence of the Holy Spirit that we are individually Saved, born again from above.

Peter is a man after my heart since I believe I have oodles of the same failing, of a density in mind that must be shaken occasionally, to straighten me out and slap my lazy bottom to go forward. Of Peter, I can feel an affinity. With Paul I am in awe of his spiritual gifts.

Perhaps that's why I could not become a Catholic, my commonness I feel relates more to Peter the man than to an institutional leader. We shall soon find out where we are missing the details, eh? The departing approaches ...

[MHGinTN]

Israel was set aside, put on pause as it were, while the Times of The Gentiles were being fulfilled. Daniel's sixty-ninth week ended with John the Baptist and a pause in the 490 years assigned was begun. We know the pause has lasted at least from the crucifixion to the razing of Jerusalem by Rome, and now has lasted nearly 2000 years.

By Jesus's own teaching, the end is not yet, even though Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple burnt down, because the Romans did not commit the abomination of desolation Jesus said would hallmark the mid-point in the end times for that terrible 'day of the Lord'.

God is not finished with Israel. The Gentile dealing that God has been doing with His Grace lo these many centuries while ISrael watched from among the Gentiles wherever they have been dispersed, that period of the Gentiles favored by God's Grace Paul te4lls us was to make the Jews jealous. God is bringing them back out from all nations, to deal with them in a final seven year period. And it is sooner than you would even believe!

[smvoice]

I thought you knew how to study God’s word. Comparing Scripture with Scripture to have a full understanding. Evidently you are not familiar with this. No amount of Scripture I can give you will help you, that’s obvious. Good luck with your Bible study.