tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post113872445313311003..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: What Dispensationalism Isn'tDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-67666383059578488302008-07-14T14:29:00.000-05:002008-07-14T14:29:00.000-05:00See paragraph seven and following.See paragraph seven and following.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-44841213729889838222008-07-14T14:23:00.000-05:002008-07-14T14:23:00.000-05:00What would you define Dispensationalism as?What would you define Dispensationalism as?Justin bridebodychurch.synthasite.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772114026529429908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-17960527594339692942008-02-08T16:48:00.000-06:002008-02-08T16:48:00.000-06:00Thank you I no longer have to feel like a freak if...Thank you I no longer have to feel like a freak if Ihold to the Dispensational view I am still working it out as to where I stand on Eschatology and Dispensationalim or Amillennialism thanks again this gives me hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1159815918539424462006-10-02T14:05:00.000-05:002006-10-02T14:05:00.000-05:00Very true, Tim. This whole notion of interpreting ...Very true, Tim. This whole notion of interpreting Old by New has the effect of turning God into a dishonest trickster, the worst kind of bait-and-switcher. If there was no honest way that NT realities could have been gleaned FROM the OT texts THEMSELVES, then Christ could never have spoken of Moses accusing his hearers.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1159815183776206232006-10-02T13:53:00.000-05:002006-10-02T13:53:00.000-05:00I've called myself a Reformed Dispensationalist fo...I've called myself a Reformed Dispensationalist for years. I went to Moody Bible Institute (don't hold it against me; my floor was mostly Amill guys) and heard a number of people say that John MacArthur is a Reformed Dispensationalist. This is a wonderful blog and I plan to enjoy more of it. Thanks for the discussion. <BR/><BR/>I must say that one of the hermeneutical things I can't stand is this idea of interpreting the OT by the NT - and totally ignoring the OT's meaning. Though typical, I can't ever fall for that.<BR/><BR/>I must say, too - Ephesians 2:15 - there is ONE NEW MAN (each word is very important - and so clear)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249766968557076715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1157912071703897782006-09-10T13:14:00.000-05:002006-09-10T13:14:00.000-05:00You and Frank with your iPods. ;) I'd guess it is ...You and Frank with your iPods. ;) I'd guess it is on there somewhere.<BR/><BR/>I'm confident the series was done at Believer's Chapel. Timing would be a guess, but it seems to have been a Wednesday night series (Q&A at the end). I'm guessing early '80s. Thirty-seven messages total, but 7-16 cover Dispensationalism (1-6 are Covenant Theology and the remainder is Dr. Johnson's "middle ground" for lack of a better term). To look at the titles you can go <A HREF="http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/tapes/slj-13_divine-purpose/index.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1157896540949997892006-09-10T08:55:00.000-05:002006-09-10T08:55:00.000-05:00Thanks.As to Johnson: not that I know. Where is th...Thanks.<BR/><BR/>As to Johnson: not that I know. Where is that available, and when did he give it? I have on my Ipod like 1400 of his sermons and lessons. I've heard about 60 or so... got a few to go!<BR/><BR/>(c:DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1157852536759569772006-09-09T20:42:00.000-05:002006-09-09T20:42:00.000-05:00Dan,(Not sure if you get notified of comments - I ...Dan,<BR/><BR/>(Not sure if you get notified of comments - I suspect you'd get inundated, but if you happen to see this ...) <BR/><BR/>Good post. I agree with you that there is nothing inherent in Dispensationalism that makes it contrary to Reformed theology (unless one equates Reformed theology with Covenant theology - I don't, but I have met some who do).<BR/><BR/>I do find your three points to allow the widest possible latitude for what a dispensationalist is. I've seen you reference S. Lewis Johnson before. Have you listened to his series on the Divine Purpose? Particularly his discussion of dispensational theology? I'd be curious about your take on his position.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1142524689496435342006-03-16T09:58:00.000-06:002006-03-16T09:58:00.000-06:00I am arriving in this conversation a little late, ...I am arriving in this conversation a little late, but let me add my thanks for this post. It is refreshing to see the "fundamentals" of dispensationalism described in such clear terms.Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18042761082770423304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1141035926790485142006-02-27T04:25:00.000-06:002006-02-27T04:25:00.000-06:00I'll explain my question, because it ties in with ...I'll explain my question, because it ties in with the whole Communion thing.<BR/><BR/>A hermeneutic which see God's covenants as one and which sees Christ as the mediator, focus, content and <I>telos</I> of each will naturally see Christ as the whole point of history, both redemptive and "secular". (I'm sure you can see how this is no way detracts from glory of God as the goal of history.)<BR/><BR/>Dispensationalism, as I've always understood it, doesn't seem to have that necessity about it. The dispensations come from God to man — does Jesus have any place in the dispensations prior to the Cross? Put another way, is the glory of God intimately and inextricably bound up in the person of Christ in all ages?<BR/><BR/>Now, you accept *some* role for Jesus in the Old Covenants, and for that I am glad. However, in asserting that there remains so much as a single promise outside Messiah, you deny that Jesus is "yea" and "amen" to the whole Old Testament — and that's a hole, to my eyes, in any theory of history. It means that you cannot proclaim as Christ as the All-in-all, precisely because there remains a promise without him.<BR/><BR/>On proof-text poker, I'll see your Jeremiah 31:35-37 and raise you a Matthew 3:9.<BR/><BR/>Now, to these books we're writing: I dunno if here's the best place to carry on the discussion; if you'd rather move it over to e-mail, my address is pjw120 AT york DOT ac DOT uk, with the usual substitutions. Writing on wider pages probably makes messages seem shorter!Phil Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07682724722979908589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140894932196739422006-02-25T13:15:00.000-06:002006-02-25T13:15:00.000-06:00Phil Walker -- I very much enjoyed your post. Tho...<B>Phil Walker</B> -- I very much enjoyed your post. Thoughtful, plus gave me the first laughs of the day... and they had to last me a long time! (Rough day.)<BR/><BR/>You: "At this point, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask whether we agree that Israel's time (theologically) is over? That is, that the covenant made at Sinai is finished and that physical Israel can only be saved in Christ and his Church? ...Now, do you say the same for OT believers — salvation by Christ alone?"<BR/><BR/>Maybe we're not understanding each other. I see two questions there. To the first, like all mainstream dispensationalists, old or new, I affirm that there has always since the Fall only been one way of salvation: by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of the person and work of Christ alone.<BR/><BR/>But when you ask, "whether we agree that Israel's time (theologically) is over," well no, of course not. Like many covenant dudes, I believe Romans 9-11 points to a future for Israel; but beyond that, I'm forced to agree with God in Jeremiah 31:35-37. Some covenant guys may be smarter than He; I'm just not! (c;<BR/><BR/>You: "Could you clarify your question about communion? I think I know what you mean, but I'd rather answer the right question than the wrong one!"<BR/><BR/>Again, maybe we were clashing assumptions. So I'll wade right into it.<BR/><BR/>Usually the single truest sticking point beyond the two schools (-- I cast aside the bogus ones) is Ezekiel 40-48. Amills shrug and say, "Whatever. Christ. Details? Whatever." So we have eight chapters of very detailed Whatever, on the spiritualizing view.<BR/><BR/>Dispies, taking the <I>whole</I> Word seriously, don't feel we have the license to shrug it off so cavalierly. So we try to see it as actually meaning something. But that raises the specter of animal sacrifice in the future. A legitimate tension with Hebrews is seen.<BR/><BR/>So how even could sacrifices ever be observed again?<BR/><BR/>My (too) brief answer would be to quote a Jewish Christian scholar: Why can the Christian Church have a ceremony commemorating the sacrifice of Christ, but Israel can't?<BR/><BR/>The blood of bulls and goats NEVER really removed sin. They didn't, they won't. It was only because of Christ's death anticipated that they had sacramental value. IF they ever return within the economy of God, the same would hold.<BR/><BR/>And then I just loved what you said about Calvin, on so many levels. Isn't it great to be Reformed and Christian, and not a Roman Catholic? Romanists just don't understand the freedom of a Christian man or woman. They'll quote some whacky thing Luther or Calvin said, as if that will devastate us. And we shrug and say, "Yeah, I guess he was wrong." They just can't get not being death-chained to some particular human tradition.<BR/><BR/>So of course I love it when you say "...I thought 'Reformed' theology was allowed to change beyond Calvin?" This is music, of course, to this dispensationalist's ear, for all the times I've seen self-proclaimed Reformed folks assert that Covenant Theology is okay, because its formulation is a century or so older than dispensationalism -- but the latter isn't, because it's too new!<BR/><BR/>Now having written my own book in answer to yours, I come to your big question: "What's the relationship between Jesus and history?" Could you please re-word that? I'm sorry, but I'm sure I don't see confidently what you're aiming at.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140886741011036562006-02-25T10:59:00.000-06:002006-02-25T10:59:00.000-06:00bugblaster -- "I thought I was just weird and alon...<B>bugblaster</B> -- "I thought I was just weird and alone in my dispy-calvy views, but apparently not." <BR/><BR/>No, you are. It's just that we're weird and alone together! (c;<BR/><BR/>But hey, it's Biblical! "...ye are ...a peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140884004256358782006-02-25T10:13:00.000-06:002006-02-25T10:13:00.000-06:00I'm late commenting but thanks for this Dan. I th...I'm late commenting but thanks for this Dan. I thought I was just weird and alone in my dispy-calvy views, but apparently not.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16625691560372353977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140784762956110332006-02-24T06:39:00.000-06:002006-02-24T06:39:00.000-06:00DJP: No doubt, and that you can worship in a Pres...<B>DJP</B>: No doubt, and that you can worship in a Presby church is proof that any such disagreements are far outweighed by our unity in the gospel of reconciliation. (I worship at a Baptist church, but am a semi-paedo-baptist. Score two for gospel unity!)<BR/><BR/>At this point, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask whether we agree that Israel's time (theologically) is over? That is, that the covenant made at Sinai is finished and that physical Israel can only be saved in Christ and his Church? Given you assert <I>solus Christus</I>, I should hope we can agree that salvation now comes by Christ for the Jew and the Gentile. Now, do you say the same for OT believers — salvation by Christ alone?<BR/><BR/>Could you clarify your question about communion? I think I know what you mean, but I'd rather answer the right question than the wrong one!<BR/><BR/>As for Calvin being insufficiently Reformed, that's a neat rhetorical trick, but I'll rise to it: he might well have been! He affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary, for starters. And have you ever read his ecclesiology? "The Church, our mother in the faith" and all that jazz. Modern Reformed churches shy away from that language — as it happens, I'm comfortable with it, but that's not the point. The point is that no-one follows Calvin rigorously and therefore everyone thinks him "insufficiently Reformed"; it's just that to say that sounds really rather silly. It's like saying Luther wasn't very Lutheran, but that's true, too!<BR/><BR/>I've now acquainted myself with Calvin on some of the later Isaianic prophecies, and I have to say I'm not convinced by his approach. Insufficiently Reformed? Probably. Insufficiently Biblical? Definitely. The NT witness is to Christ as the end of the law (for, as he completes the law by fulfilling it, he does away with the law) and also as the fulfillment of all prophecy. Nevertheless, Calvin talks about "the Church" when he clearly means Israel, so you, too, must have your points of disagreement.<BR/><BR/>And in any case, I thought "Reformed" theology was allowed to change beyond Calvin? : D (I agree with that, by the way, but neglected to say so in my last comment.)<BR/><BR/>To conclude what's rapidly turning into a whole book, could you clear up my biggest question about dispensationalism, at least as you see it? <B>What's the relationship between Jesus and history?</B>Phil Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07682724722979908589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140745408020150112006-02-23T19:43:00.000-06:002006-02-23T19:43:00.000-06:00phil walker -- thanks. I've no doubt we agree on v...<B>phil walker</B> -- thanks. I've no doubt we agree on vastly more, and more substantial areas than those on which we disagree. I attend and am member of a Presbyterian church, and I love it a lot -- though I have some very hearty areas of doctrinal difference. I've lost count how many times I've preached there, and never once found it necessary to hit a point of division. True, I've had to choose my words carefully sometimes... but I'd not provide a point of division there for all the crumpets in England. (c;<BR/><BR/>You say, "I can't read Ephesians 2:11-16 and buy a radical division between the Church and Israel...." Maybe we're suffering from the barrier of a common language. The dispensationalist reads verse 15 in that passage, "in order that He might create the two in Him into one new man, making peace" (my translation), and says, "Yes: 'new man.'" The church is not Israel in any sense; it is a <I>new</I> man.<BR/><BR/>And indeed Jew and Gentile are on equal footing in one spiritual body, in Christ. This was never revealed in the Old Testament. It was a "mystery" (Ephesians 3:5-6; Colossians 1:25-27).<BR/><BR/>The dispensationalist believes those passages just as they read, <I>and</I> he believes Jeremiah 31:35-37 just as <I>it</I> reads. This is what sets him off from the covenant dude.<BR/><BR/>Then: "I can't read Hebrews and see how the Old Covenant was anything other than a shadow of the New, with the Son as the mediator of both." And what is communion? But we still do it, right? One looks back, the other looked forward -- explain the difference. Or what are we arguing (friendly) about?<BR/><BR/>You again: "G-H is a tool, and not, I believe, an end in itself. The NT writers didn't always use G-H in interpreting the OT — one suspects never, in fact." Well there, my brother, I can love you genuinely, but not agree. I <A HREF="http://www.bibchr.com/sobr.html" REL="nofollow">wrote on it at some length</A>; will probably blog on it here. But g-h is what they did, and it's where I learned to do it.<BR/><BR/>You again: "What they did do, and how we should copy them, is in seeking Christ in all of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture and we must read the Old in the light of the New. *Those* are the Biblical (yea, even Reformed) hermeneutics, not a misplaced trust in one single method, no matter how good."<BR/><BR/>But that isn't what Calvin did. In fact, what set him apart from others such as Luther, is that he <I>refused</I> to read Christ into the Old Testament, even when he stood nearly alone in so doing. His approach was <I>very much</I> grammatico-historical. (I just wrote a doctoral paper on that very point.)<BR/><BR/>Or would you perhaps say (I write with a smile) that Calvin wasn't really Reformed enough?<BR/><BR/>(c;DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140744537417349402006-02-23T19:28:00.000-06:002006-02-23T19:28:00.000-06:00screaming pirate, I noted over at your blog that I...<B>screaming pirate</B>, I noted over at your blog that I think similarly to what you posted. Nor is it such a trivial thing to guarantee that the Jewish race would survive. Where are the Assyrians, the Hittites, the Amorites, as a people? Who has been more precisely targeted for genecide than the Jews, and lived to tell?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140722439799690142006-02-23T13:20:00.000-06:002006-02-23T13:20:00.000-06:00castusfumus -- wish I could go. )c:HH -- I believ...<B>castusfumus</B> -- wish I could go. )c:<BR/><BR/><B>HH</B> -- I believe I actually found it first when searching to confirm a story I'd heard about A. B. Bruce decades ago, but for which I'd never seen documentation. Sadly, you provided it.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140722230215107632006-02-23T13:17:00.000-06:002006-02-23T13:17:00.000-06:00Always glad to know that someone actually reads it...Always glad to know that someone actually reads it.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140712486498889752006-02-23T10:34:00.000-06:002006-02-23T10:34:00.000-06:00I'd love to meet you at the conference!!!I'd love to meet you at the conference!!!Castusfumushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09496477155977016899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140708585778359992006-02-23T09:29:00.000-06:002006-02-23T09:29:00.000-06:00I wish I could get the letter. I have it in a fil...I wish I could get the letter. I have it in a file... but where's the file? In our garage, I think. Which is like saying "Hopelessly lost." Along with my letters from F. F. Bruce -- who, though doctrinally much further away from me than Hendriksen, was vastly more gracious. Go figure.<BR/><BR/>So anyway, my memory is that he quoted from Bavinck at length, told me that was all the answer I'd ever get, and suggested that the real reason evil was a problem to me was because I was a dispensationalist. (That's probably why I lost my hair, too, I'm thinking.)<BR/><BR/>To be clear, I chuckled at the letter, mostly. Struck me as crusty and curmudgeonly, more than mean and hostile.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140707785893288082006-02-23T09:16:00.000-06:002006-02-23T09:16:00.000-06:00So you never got an answer on theodicy?So you never got an answer on theodicy?Castusfumushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09496477155977016899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140693944749149062006-02-23T05:25:00.000-06:002006-02-23T05:25:00.000-06:00DJP: Pleased to be here, and happy that we can ha...<B>DJP</B>: Pleased to be here, and happy that we can have this discussion constructively.<BR/><BR/>I don't think I made my intention clear, and the clarification became far too wordy. I didn't mean to make the British Reformed out to be the arbiters of "who is Reformed", but I did mean to point out that words mean different things in different contexts and communities, and that disagreement is intractable.<BR/><BR/>On to specifics, because we *can* agree that the Bible *is* more important than the Westminster divines.<BR/><BR/>Israel/Church: I can't read Ephesians 2:11-16 and buy a radical division between the Church and Israel; I can't read Hebrews and see how the Old Covenant was anything other than a shadow of the New, with the Son as the mediator of both.<BR/><BR/>Hermeneutics: G-H is a tool, and not, I believe, an end in itself. The NT writers didn't always use G-H in interpreting the OT — one suspects never, in fact. What they did do, and how we should copy them, is in seeking Christ in all of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture and we must read the Old in the light of the New. *Those* are the Biblical (yea, even Reformed) hermeneutics, not a misplaced trust in one single method, no matter how good.<BR/><BR/>I was amused by one of the links at the bottom of the page. Referring to your blog's title and the post's title, he wrote "Biblical Christianity: What Dispensationalism Isn't". I can't access the page, but I don't think the author of that blogpost meant it quite the way it sounded. It's still accurate, though.Phil Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07682724722979908589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140672765982588802006-02-22T23:32:00.000-06:002006-02-22T23:32:00.000-06:00Well Dan you stole my thunder I even had a whole b...Well Dan you stole my thunder I even had a whole blog post on my interpretaion of those passages(still do). Well I had fun looking up the verses and looking at what some fellow reformed dispensationalist interpretion of the issue. So <A HREF="http://therrscreamingpirate.blogspot.com/2006/02/in-responce-to.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> is my work its not exhaustive. And I am open for correction on it. Oh and you really stole my thunder on the rev 20. That is huge I really would love to hear their interpretaion of that passage you mentioned.Screaming Piratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04166108711656605278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140663574615475202006-02-22T20:59:00.000-06:002006-02-22T20:59:00.000-06:00Thanks. I like that approach = "How do you define...Thanks. I like that approach = "How do you define it?" Let them set the context... I can work with that!Jason Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286144758784567864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1140656882340530712006-02-22T19:08:00.000-06:002006-02-22T19:08:00.000-06:00Phil, I'm delighted to have you visit!Do you feel ...<B>Phil</B>, I'm delighted to have you visit!<BR/><BR/>Do you feel that your side of the pond is best qualified to define what is and isn't Reformed? I am an Anglophile, but I've heard nothing that makes me think that British spirituality -- any more than American spirituality -- is quite the definitive presence it should be today.<BR/><BR/>But as you might gather from the blog's title, my greatest concerned isn't to be Reformed, per se, but to be Biblical. That's why I'm Reformed, you see.<BR/><BR/>So when I consult what position I should take, I don't consult The Reformed Position to get my answer, I consult the Bible. And it usually takes me to the Reformed position.<BR/><BR/>What defines being Reformed? If I confirm the five sola's, embrace the five points, but am convinced that prophecy should be interpreted grammatico-historically no less than the Epistles, why would that void my membership card? Do I have to be a pedo-baptist too? How many other extra's are there?<BR/><BR/>When was truth calcified? When had the Bible given out everything there was to be learned? Was it the sixteenth century? Too bad for Owen. The seventeenth? Too bad for Edwards. The eighteenth? Too bad for... well, perhaps you catch my drift.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.com