DISPENSATIONALISM, DO WE AGREE TO THIS OR REJECT IT ?

[Ezra]

9 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

If today's version of dispensationalism it's not a new teaching, then we should be able to find it in the teachings and beliefs of the first Christians, shouldn't we?

Justin Martyr, for example, presented a fourfold dispensational system (fivefold if the millennium is counted separately), which was based almost exclusively upon the failures of God’s people. With the failure in each economy, there was a corresponding institution of new rites to aid in the nurture of faith and in the quest for righteousness and justification before God. With slight variations, at least the bare outline of Justin’s scheme was repeated by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus of Petau, and Methodius.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/803995/posts

[SavedOnebyGrace]

22 hours ago, bopeep1909 said:

I am a dispensationalist and it is a Biblical belief.

Question: "What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"

Answer: A dispensation is a way of ordering things—an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time; each dispensation is a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the church in God’s program. Classical dispensationalism identifies seven dispensations in God’s plan for humanity.

Dispensationalists hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the best hermeneutic. The literal interpretation gives each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Allowances are made for symbols, figures of speech, and types, of course. It is understood that even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them. So, for example, when the Bible speaks of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20, dispensationalists interpret it as a literal period of 1,000 years (the dispensation of the Kingdom), since there is no compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.

There are at least two reasons why literalism is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself requires that we interpret words literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate. Words are vessels of meaning. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. There is no non-literal fulfillment of messianic prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If a literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me” instead of “the Bible says.” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called Bible study today.

Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by faith—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. Dispensationalism teaches that the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament (for land, many descendants, and blessings) will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation 20. Dispensationalists believe that, just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (seeRomans 9–11 and Daniel 9:24).

Dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1—3:7), Conscience (Genesis 3:8—8:22), Human Government (Genesis 9:1—11:32), Promise (Genesis 12:1—Exodus 19:25), Law (Exodus 20:1—Acts 2:4), Grace (Acts 2:4—Revelation 20:3), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4–6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Each dispensation includes a recognizable pattern of how God worked with people living in the dispensation. That pattern is 1) a responsibility, 2) a failure, 3) a judgment, and 4) grace to move on.

Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a distinction between Israel and the church, and organizes the Bible into different dispensations or administrations.

http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

This is what I believe also.

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

Well you must not be reading his epistles.  Please take another look.

It means he wrote about it.   That doesn't mean he introduced it.

 

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

Justin Martyr, for example, presented a fourfold dispensational system (fivefold if the millennium is counted separately), which was based almost exclusively upon the failures of God’s people. With the failure in each economy, there was a corresponding institution of new rites to aid in the nurture of faith and in the quest for righteousness and justification before God. With slight variations, at least the bare outline of Justin’s scheme was repeated by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus of Petau, and Methodius.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/803995/posts

Yes, it was called Chiliasm.    But it isn't what is taught today by those who hold to dispensationalism, and he said there were many devout believers who didn't not hold to his view either.

Believers were looking for a very imminent return of Christ, and this was one eschatological view.   By the 3rd century it was pretty much dead, especially after it came to be associated with heretical views such as a millenium filled with all sorts of sensual delights for the believer.  

What Darby came up with in the 1800's is something quite different and new, never seen before from what I can see.

[enoob57]

What Ezra is saying depending on what you do with authorship of Hebrews Paul wrote most of the Theology of the NT
understanding of God and the purpose of all created essence ... and that entails dispensational 'rightly dividing the Word
of truth'

[thereselittleflower]

3 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

What Ezra is saying depending on what you do with authorship of Hebrews Paul wrote most of the Theology of the NT
understanding of God and the purpose of all created essence ... and that entails dispensational 'rightly dividing the Word
of truth'

I agree there are dispensations; it is obvious there are dispensations, and I agree without understanding dispensations one cannot 'rightly divide the Word of truth.'   My question has to do with the way dispensations are being handled today in 'Dispenationalism' - which is a very particular way of looking at dispensations and thus interpreting God's word that appeared new on the scene in the 1800's from everything I can see.

 

[enoob57]

3 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

I agree there are dispensations; it is obvious there are dispensations, and I agree without understanding dispensations one cannot 'rightly divide the Word of truth.'   My question has to do with the way dispensations are being handled today in 'Dispenationalism' - which is a very particular way of looking at dispensations and thus interpreting God's word that appeared new on the scene in the 1800's from everything I can see.

 

The thing that is wearisome to me is the constant redefinition in terminology by those who call themselves one thing
yet teach something total different of the same thing.... it definitely requires patience and fortitude!

[thereselittleflower]

Just now, enoob57 said:

The thing that is wearisome to me is the constant redefinition in terminology by those who call themselves one thing
yet teach something total different of the same thing.... it definitely requires patience and fortitude!

what constant "redefinition" are you referring to?

[enoob57]

2 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

what constant "redefinition" are you referring to?

when one is a dispensational theologian ... then it should travel the path of Scripture!

[thereselittleflower]

Just now, enoob57 said:

when one is a dispensational theologian ... then it should run down the path as Scripture!

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the connection of this to what you previously just said.