J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Sophomore
For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
Could you expand? Was it a dispensational commentary on Revelation?Revelation begins by saying we are blessed who read it. Dispie-ism is too confusing to be a blessing. Case closed.
For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
The truth of there being but one people of God, and not Church and Isreal as 2 entities throughout all time and history.For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
Could you expand? Was it a dispensational commentary on Revelation?
Me too! I read 1 and 2 Thessalonians and realized, nah.The straw that was Left Behind.
This is more or less the same as what happened with me.Dispensationalism is confusing and convoluted. It doesn't take into account different literary genres in the Bible. It is a novel doctrine. Some versions of it posit salvation by works.
But I began to abandon Dispensationalism, really, only after coming to Calvinism. One by one the dominoes began to fall, and the Dispensationalism which I held only by default fell with them.
For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
What? You mean charts like this one? What's crazy about that?Those crazy Clarence Larkin charts still haunt me.
I happened to pick up a copy of an abridged version of Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I went back and re-read Revelation in light of that and it became patently obvious to me that the apocalypse was a spiritual metaphor for the conflict between the early church and the Roman Empire.For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
But the straw that broke the camel's back was thinking through the notion that somehow God deals with Israel differently than He does the church. I couldn't accept that God will once again accept animal sacrifices in a rebuilt earthly temple. It seems scandalous to me and denigrating to Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice of Himself that animal blood would once again be required.
I once preached that it was "a doctrine that damages the church," and by God's grace our church's collective eyes were opened. Never looked back.
Trying to understanding just why there had to be sacrifices restarted up in the restored Temple in the last days. I was once a devout Dispensational premil, pre trib rapture and all, but now a Covenant theology premil.For those of you who were raised and/or held to Dispensationalism, what was the last straw to break your resolve in it?
As a Dispie I found Revelation useless...
But I began to abandon Dispensationalism, really, only after coming to Calvinism.
I always find the Calvinistic Dispensationists (such as those at the Masters Seminary) a strange group because surely, Calvinistic theology is more akin to Covenant Theology than Dispensationalism.tasted a bit of covenant theology
That might be true of the first Scofield Bible but the second Scofield Bible of 1967 expressively denied the idea of salvation by works. I understand they clarified this because of the concerns raised about the first Scofield Bible.Some versions of it posit salvation by works.
Thank you for the clarification. I read Robert Thomas' commentary of Revelation when I was a dispensationalist. It is an extensive, exegetically serious commentary. But I came to realise he was not consistent with his own literal arguments. For example with the Binding of Satan in Rev 20, he acknowledged this was not a literal binding because Satan was a spiritual being. What happened to his 'consistent' literalism?As a Dispie I found Revelation useless, utterly contrary to the statement at the beginning of the book that one is blessed if he reads the book. So much speculation, weird ideas, and nothing really spiritual or edifying in any of it. So I decided, "If my view of Revelation makes it practically useless, then I cannot be right."
Same. A robust covenant theology helped too.That, and seeing how utterly new dispensationalism was in time. And as I grew in Reformed theology and seeing the bridge between the OT and NT, Dispie'ism fell off rather easily.
This argument also helped me reject dispensationalism. Think about it this way. If Christ has come in all His fullness as the book of Hebrews clearly states, and His sacrifice is final, perfect and complete, then it follows that dispensationalism has a weak Christology. There is a further problem for Calvinistic dispensationalists. The logic of Calvinism is that redemption is progressing forward to the grand consummation in the new heavens and the new earth. But Calvinistic dispensationalists want us to take a historic redemptive BACKWARDS step to animal sacrifices in a future millennium. Also, ask dispensationalists what is the purpose of animal sacrifices in a millennium. They generally say they will be a 'memorial to Christ's sacrifice' because Christs once for all sacrifice is clearly taught in scripture. Ask them where they LITERALLY find this in the book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel says nothing about a memorial sacrifice. They use the book of Hebrews to 'modify' the interpretation of Ezekiel. But Reformed people do this to 'modify' the interpretation of Ezekiel. This is a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. It is the Reformed approach that is consistentDispensationalists believe God will once again accept animal blood sacrifices?!?!
Why not amill? I cannot see a theological reason for a millennium for a non dispensational premill view. At least a dispensational premill has a reason for a millennium even if it is misguided.Covenant theology premil.
I always find the Calvinistic Dispensationists (such as those at the Masters Seminary) a strange group because surely, Calvinistic theology is more akin to Covenant Theology than Dispensationalism.
That might be true of the first Scofield Bible but the second Scofield Bible of 1967 expressively denied the idea of salvation by works. I understand they clarified this because of the concerns raised about the first Scofield Bible.
Thank you for the clarification. I read Robert Thomas' commentary of Revelation when I was a dispensationalist. It is an extensive, exegetically serious commentary. But I came to realise he was not consistent with his own literal arguments. For example with the Binding of Satan in Rev 20, he acknowledged this was not a literal binding because Satan was a spiritual being. What happened to his 'consistent' literalism?
Same. A robust covenant theology helped too.
This argument also helped me reject dispensationalism. Think about it this way. If Christ has come in all His fullness as the book of Hebrews clearly states, and His sacrifice is final, perfect and complete, then it follows that dispensationalism has a weak Christology. There is a further problem for Calvinistic dispensationalists. The logic of Calvinism is that redemption is progressing forward to the grand consummation in the new heavens and the new earth. But Calvinistic dispensationalists want us to take a historic redemptive BACKWARDS step to animal sacrifices in a future millennium. Also, ask dispensationalists what is the purpose of animal sacrifices in a millennium. They generally say they will be a 'memorial to Christ's sacrifice' because Christs once for all sacrifice is clearly taught in scripture. Ask them where they LITERALLY find this in the book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel says nothing about a memorial sacrifice. They use the book of Hebrews to 'modify' the interpretation of Ezekiel. But Reformed people do this to 'modify' the interpretation of Ezekiel. This is a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. It is the Reformed approach that is consistent
Why not amill? I cannot see a theological reason for a millennium for a non dispensational premill view. At least a dispensational premill has a reason for a millennium even if it is misguided.[/QUOTE
I really liked what GE Ladd wrote in his NT Theology, and in The Blessed Hope, and how Spurgeon viewed this issue. Also, the Systematic Theolgy written by James Noice showed me that one can hold with Covenant Through and still be Premil, as akdo many Reformed Baptists like Thomas Schrivner teach a robustbpremil position.Belivebthay while many Reformed seem to tie together all premils must also be like Dr MacArthur holding to Didpy views, one can be a Covenant Theology Premil.
I also see the first resurrection as being when glorified into risen physical body state St Second Coming event, do for see Revelation 20 as describing literal Millinium time here ipn the Earth, as when Jesus comes to Earth in vfillnedd, and His kingdom comes and His will is done on Earth as now in Heaven.
You did not answer my question. I said the dispensational premill has a reason for their premill theology - ie, 1000 year milennium for National Israel. But what is the purpose of a millennium for a non dispensational premill?One can still hold with Covenant Theology and hold to historical premil, as many have and still do, as those such as I listed have had no problem in reconciling the 2 positions.ThecSystenatib Theology Dr J Oliver Buswell also helped to clarify this for me.