Dispensationalism: the basis of Fundamentalism?

[dfkuz]

If the Church is not the Bride of Christ, why does Paul speak as though it is? “I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2). “For the husband is the head of the Church, the body of which he is the Savior” (Eph 5:23). This isn’t a question of either/or, but rather both/and. The Church is both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ.

Paul never uses the word, ‘bride’ to describe the Body of Christ. However, this word appears 14 times in the Old Testament describing Israel and her relationship with God. The Body of Christ isn’t mentioned once because it was hid in God and not revealed to men. Paul does use many metaphors to describe our relationship with Christ now that we are His Body, and chaste virgin and husband and wife are among them. However, that does not make us the Lamb’s Bride.

The ‘bride’ identified as the ‘new Jerusalem’ in Rev. 21 is seen descending ‘out of heaven,’ and onto the earth. We know now that ‘our citizenship’ is in heaven (Php. 3:20); while Israel’s is the earthly Kingdom. Two different entities; two different destinations.

 

[dfkuz]

pnewton:

Then why accept their canonization of the New Testament? Why believe that the works of Paul are infallable Scripture except from the the decision made by the early Church? In other words, where is the divinely inspired Table of Contents?

You don’t believe God has the power to preserve His Word? He can use saved and unregenerate men alike to accomplish His Purpose, as He did through His dealings with mankind in the Scriptures.

His Word has been preserved in the Received Text and translated by the King James translators into the King James Version of the Holy Bible. As long as we have that, we have His inspired Word. ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My Words shall not pass away.’ (Luke 21:33) And that statement is ‘trans-dispensational’ - true for all dispensations!

 

[dfkuz]

pnewton:

Where in Church history was this truth lost? Which of the Church Fathers believed this truth Darby recovered?

Actually, I remember reading that there was a church father who did espouse a ‘rapture theory.’ I’ll have to do some research when I get time (which it looks like I won’t have much of if you keep throwing questions at me!).

Why do you people make so much of the ‘church fathers’? They were just the earliest interpreters of the New Testament Scriptures, but that doesn’t prove anything! Look what the Judaizers were doing to the Galatians while Paul was still around! I believe that Satan saw the success of that ploy and has used it ever since, starting with the church fathers. If he can mix the legalism of the Kingdom gospel into the pure Grace of the Mystery gospel, he can pervert it just enough so it can’t save. And saved people who get stumbled by the mixed message won’t be effective in getting others saved!

Read Paul’s warning in Acts 20:29, 30! I know he was talking to a specific group of believers, but I think it is a warning to us all! Stick with the Scriptures themselves; aren’t they enough? No, you want to keep your misguided, fleshly doctrine of the ‘real presence.’ I’m glad He’s already in me; not in something I have to swallow.

 

[pnewton]

dfkuz:

His Word has been preserved in the Received Text and translated by the King James translators into the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

To use your own words, “They weren’t inspired and could be mistaken - or worse!” Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based is a very shaky document and I do not accept it. Heck, Erasmus put in part of Mark off the equivalent of a bar bet. Even as a Baptist I understood the obvious error of God waiting 1600 years after Jesus to make the perfect Bible. Even so, it does not answer the original question of the Table of Contents. They are not written somewhere on golden tablets.

 

[Nan_S]

dfkuz:

God wouldn’t leave the new believers that will go through the Tribulation and inherit the Kingdom on earth without some specific instructions, would He? Well, he hasn’t! The books of Hebrews through Revelation are right where they should be…following our Pauline epistles, where they await the coming Tribulation believers as their guide through the Day of the Lord. These books are for us to read, but they don’t contain our doctrines. We are saved by grace through faith without works; these books instruct believers who are expected by God to prove their faith BY their works. (James 2:24). That’s how we know they’re not for us today.

Excuse me, I think I blinked and missed something here.

Are you actually saying that the place-order of New Testament biblical books determines which apply to a certain “dispensation”? That, for instance, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts no longer apply, but only the Pauline Letters do? And that Hebrews, the Letters of James, Peter, John and Jude, and Revelation will apply to a future time but not now?

Were you not aware that ALL the letters except John’s were written DURING the time of Acts? Did you miss seeing that Paul’s preaching as a cohesive whole only makes sense when the letters are read in union with Acts? And that the same applies to the letters written by the other Apostles?

Were you also not aware that the place-order grouping of the NT books was determined by the Catholic Councils of Nicea (325AD) and Constantinople (381AD), when the idea that a “chronological” New Testament integrating the letters within Acts was not even seriously considered?

Oh yes, when did Paul write a Gospel? His letters talk about preaching the gospel, but if Paul actually wrote a gospel himself, it seems to be missing from my bible…

Who is spewing heresy here? Not the Catholics.

 

[thessalonian]

dfkuz:

Actually, I remember reading that there was a church father who did espouse a ‘rapture theory.’ I’ll have to do some research when I get time (which it looks like I won’t have much of if you keep throwing questions at me!).

.

There is no rapture heresy. While “rapture” is not a Catholic coined term the idea of rapture is not contrary to Catholic teaching. Pre-mill however is.

You misread Paul by the way. Read Romans 2:4-8 before you say he did not believe that works are neccessary to gain entrance to heaven. What he realized however is that God gives us the grace to do them (Eph 3:20-21).

Thess

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Deus Solus:

I was brought up in a Plymouth Brethren church (from whence came the foundations of dispensationalism), but never really examined the theological ramifications of it until recently. For a summay of dispensational thought, see this site.

As I’ve studied dispensational theology, I’ve realized how prevalent it is in today’s Fundamentalists of all denominations, as well as how aspects of it influence unsuspecting Catholics’ views of the end times. I believe it is also the basis for some of the most vitrolic attacks on the Catholic Church that we see today.

It is certainly very negative toward the notion of the Church - any Church - but that is because of its eschatology & its view of prophecy: not because it is specifically anti-Catholic. OTOH, its very pessimistic view of the Church does presumably fuel a a good deal of anti-Catholicism.​

Do you notice any great difference between older and more recent Dispensationalism ?

IMHO, Dispensationalist Protestantism has in lot in commom with the sort of Catholicism that focusses on the last things ##

The basic divisions between Jew, Gentile, and Church, with specific revelations for each group seems to negate viewing Scripture as a coherent whole.

Or between Jew & Gentile in the Church, after the Judgement. Dispensationalism absolutises these divisions, and thinks of them as permanent, AFAICS. So we can’t use the Our Father in the Church - because it is designed for the Jew before the Atonement, upon a legal basis; not upon a basis of grace.​

Paul is viewed as the “steward” of the Church dispensation, which serves to conveniently (whether consciously or subconsciously) elevate him and his writings above Jesus Himself. God’s special revelation to Paul is binding upon the church today, while Jesus and the Apostles were directed toward the Jews. Some even argue that water baptism is a specifically Jewish institution and not required for the church since Paul did not specifically teach it.

I didn’t know that - thanks ​

To me, it seems this system of theology has historically served as a method to dispense with Catholic teaching that is contrary to the “solas”. I would like to hear what you all think (Protestant and Catholic alike) about the this system of theology, in defense of it or against it, in understanding its flaws or strong points.

I think you’re right about its attitude to the 5 Solas: Calvinism is not premill - unlike Dispensationalism: Calvinists have been staunch critics of it.​

 

[pnewton]

dfkuz:

If he can mix the legalism of the Kingdom gospel into the pure Grace of the Mystery gospel, he can pervert it just enough .

Amen to that. You say something here that all Christians can agree to. Christianity is not a legalistic system. Those that think they can earn their way in have missed the point. Even our desire to serve God is a grace from Him. Our Faith is a Grace from Him. As St Therese said, " Everything is grace."

 

[dfkuz]

pnewton:

I understand why dispensationalism is so popular. It answers a lot of questions as to why God is viewed differently throughout the long history of the Bible. Of course the concept of progressive revelation does the same thing but is less flashy. The disparent ways in which the Bible is viewed point to the absurdity of having the Bible apart from the Church it serves, as an authoritative interpreter. The above poster disagrees with LaHaye. If one reads the Barclay commnetaries he would disagree with both.

Hey, thanks for breaking up your questions into different posts! I haven’t got the hang of dividing up people’s posts and answering each question separately yet!

God is not viewed 'differently, throughout history by Dispensationalists. Rather, He deals differently with men at different times. If you read the Scriptures, you’ll find this self-evident.

Progressive revelation can’t explain why works are required along with faith for salvation in the Gospels and early Acts; then not at all in Paul’s epistles; and then again in the Hebrew epistles following Paul, esp. James and Revelation.

Only recognizing the fact of different dispensations explains this. Clearly, a dispensation was committed to Paul alone. (Eph. 3:2).

The Church must preserve and serve God’s Word, not the other way around. I’m afraid a lot of you don’t want to bother actually studying the Bible - you want someone else to do it and tell you what It says. People in the Middle Ages had an excuse; what’s yours?

Catholicism permits occultism in that it gives credance to visionaries and mystics; then, it tries to reconcile their demon-induced messages with Holy Scripture. These ‘sign gifts’ have ceased just as Paul said they would (1 Cor. 13:8); but Satan isn’t above counterfeiting them to pervert the Gospel of Christ.

At His service and yours, D

 

[Nan_S]

dfkuz:

Paul never uses the word, ‘bride’ to describe the Body of Christ. However, this word appears 14 times in the Old Testament describing Israel and her relationship with God.

A woman who is espoused/betrothed/promised is a BRIDE.

2 Cor 11:2

(King James Authorized Version) For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

(Revised Standard Version) I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

(New International Version) I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

(American Standard Version) For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

(New American Bible) For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God, since I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

[dfkuz]

thessalonian:

There is no rapture heresy. While “rapture” is not a Catholic coined term the idea of rapture is not contrary to Catholic teaching. Pre-mill however is.

You misread Paul by the way. Read Romans 2:4-8 before you say he did not believe that works are neccessary to gain entrance to heaven. What he realized however is that God gives us the grace to do them (Eph 3:20-21).

Thess

The Rapture will not only be ‘pre-mill,’ it’ll be ‘pre-trib,’ because we are NOT appointed to the wrath of Daniel’s seventieth week which is coming as surely as the sun comes up in the morning.

Romans 1 & 2 are much misunderstood chapters in the Scriptures! Chapter 1 and much of Chapter 2 is dealing with the state of the unsaved before God. The last part of Chapter 2 deals with Jews who think merely obeying the Law is enough. So, in 2:4-8, Paul is saying that apart from Christ, men will be judged according to their deeds, and those who have had ‘patient continuance in well doing’ seek for (and would receive) glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. But we know from Paul’s writings elsewhere that there is none righteous, no not one. So scratch this possibility. The only person who ever fulfilled it was Christ! Those who have not done good all their lives can expect nothing but wrath. Paul’s not talking about believers who have been justified by God through Christ here. This is the hope of the natural man.

And, sure, once we have Christ and are sealed and indwelt by the Spirit, we are able to do good works unto which we have been created as the new creature we are! But don’t put the cart before the horse: works have nothing to do with our initial salvation.

D.

 

[pnewton]

dfkuz:

Catholicism permits occultism in that it gives credance to visionaries and mystics

No, occult practices are not permitted. Section 2216 of the catechism leaves no question to this, as if the First of the Ten Commandments isn’t clear enough. No demons allowed.

As far as signs ceasing, I have always understood that Paul did not give a timetable in 1 Cor. 13. In fact, the emphasis is only on the pre-eminence of Love, which remains forever (along with Faith and Hope). I have always wondered the role of Hope in heaven. I digress. It seems since Paul is talking in terms of the eternity of Love, that we will not have, tongues, prophecy, teaching, evangelists, etc. in heaven.

 

[dfkuz]

Nan S. wrote:

A woman who is espoused/betrothed/promised is a BRIDE.

2 Cor 11:2

(King James Authorized Version) For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

---

Here it is certainly significant that the word Paul chooses for ‘espouse’ is not the usual word for being promised in marriage. That word is ‘mnesteuo’ and is used of Mary’s espousal to Joseph (Matt 1:18, etc.), and it literally means ‘to ask in marriage.’ The word Paul chooses in 2 Cor 11:2 (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is the word, ‘harmozomai’ which means to be ‘fitted or joined together.’ One can even see the word, ‘harmony,’ in this Greek word. The same root word is used in Eph 4:16, ‘From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.’ The word translated, ‘husband’ in 2 Cor 11:2 (Gk. ‘aner’) is simply the word for ‘man’ (and is so translated some 600 times in the NT). Who is the ‘one man’ to whom we have been ‘fitly joined together’? It is none other than Jesus Christ to whose body we have been joined! Why would Paul use the words, ‘chaste virgin’ to describe the Body of Christ? It is simply to illustrate his desire for purity in our lives. [Taken from Joel Finck’s ‘Advanced Questions About the Grace Message’ avail. from www.parsonspublishingcompany.com]

 

[pnewton]

dfkuz:

The Rapture will not only be ‘pre-mill,’ it’ll be ‘pre-trib,’

Is this a position yours specifically or your church’s? When I was fundamentalist, they pre, mid and post trib camps were pretty evenly divided, to say nothing of the big chunk of amillenialists. I have been away for several years is why I ask.

 

[thessalonian]

dfkuz:

The Rapture will not only be ‘pre-mill,’ it’ll be ‘pre-trib,’ because we are NOT appointed to the wrath of Daniel’s seventieth week which is coming as surely as the sun comes up in the morning.

Romans 1 & 2 are much misunderstood chapters in the Scriptures! Chapter 1 and much of Chapter 2 is dealing with the state of the unsaved before God. The last part of Chapter 2 deals with Jews who think merely obeying the Law is enough. So, in 2:4-8, Paul is saying that apart from Christ, men will be judged according to their deeds, and those who have had ‘patient continuance in well doing’ seek for (and would receive) glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. But we know from Paul’s writings elsewhere that there is none righteous, no not one. So scratch this possibility. The only person who ever fulfilled it was Christ! Those who have not done good all their lives can expect nothing but wrath. Paul’s not talking about believers who have been justified by God through Christ here. This is the hope of the natural man.

And, sure, once we have Christ and are sealed and indwelt by the Spirit, we are able to do good works unto which we have been created as the new creature we are! But don’t put the cart before the horse: works have nothing to do with our initial salvation.

D.

Wbere did I say that works have anything to do with initial salvation. It’s not Catholic teaching either. We are initially saved by grace through faith just as Paul says. But then we must produce fruit. That is what Romans 2:4-8 clearly states. If you do not produce fruit you will be the seed falling amongst the weeds the sprouts up but eventually get’s choked out.

And that’s what jesus meant in the sheep and the goats of Matt 25? He was putting a hypothetical situation about the judgement in the end? Pauls words are directly analogous to that. In fact it can be viewed as a summary of the sheep and the goats. I find your writing off of the verse (rom 2:4-8) as not a possibility as absurd. The mistake you make is that you did not read Eph 3:20-21 as I instructed you. You do not understand that the works are not ours but God working in us, producing in some 30, some 60, and some 100 fold. You say this work has no power to save. Hogwash I say.

Blessings

 

[dfkuz]

Nan S:

Excuse me, I think I blinked and missed something here.

Are you actually saying that the place-order of New Testament biblical books determines which apply to a certain “dispensation”? That, for instance, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts no longer apply, but only the Pauline Letters do? And that Hebrews, the Letters of James, Peter, John and Jude, and Revelation will apply to a future time but not now?

Were you not aware that ALL the letters except John’s were written DURING the time of Acts? Did you miss seeing that Paul’s preaching as a cohesive whole only makes sense when the letters are read in union with Acts? And that the same applies to the letters written by the other Apostles?

Were you also not aware that the place-order grouping of the NT books was determined by the Catholic Councils of Nicea (325AD) and Constantinople (381AD), when the idea that a “chronological” New Testament integrating the letters within Acts was not even seriously considered?

Oh yes, when did Paul write a Gospel? His letters talk about preaching the gospel, but if Paul actually wrote a gospel himself, it seems to be missing from my bible…

Who is spewing heresy here? Not the Catholics.

I am saying that the Gospels and Acts 1-8 are actually part of the Old Testament in that they deal with God’s dealings with Israel. Acts 9-28 are dealing with a time of transition between the conversion of Paul with a new gospel and the setting aside of Israel completely. Paul’s epistles contain Body truth for the church of today. The Hebrew epistles, Hebrews thru Revelation, were written and do deal with to some extent what was happening in the Jerusalem Church at the time they were written, but their primary application is yet future when God again deals with His Chosen Nation, testing and wooing them during the Tribulation. The Holy Spirit is quite capable of inspiring these men to write what is needed at any given time on God’s calendar. He doesn’t need our permission!

And, as I’ve said so many times before, stop patting yourselves on the back for putting together the Canon! God is going to use even the AntiChrist to achieve His final goals!

Paul didn’t write a gospel! He was given a gospel by the Risen Lord. Why else did Christ make a return trip to earth that day? You don’t think he could’ve converted Paul from Heaven? No, he had a mission for him to perform, along with a unique apostleship apart from the 12, to the Gentiles, to which even the nation of Israel would belong when their special relationship with God was set aside.

It’s not the order of the Books that determines the dispensations; it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to place them in their perfect order according to not only the dispensations, but the building up of the Body in a certain sequence, precept upon precept. They could’ve been ordered chronologically, but they were ordered according to the Perfect Will of God. Awesome!

D.

 

[Nan_S]

dfkuz:

The word Paul chooses in 2 Cor 11:2 (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is the word, ‘harmozomai’ which means to be ‘fitted or joined together.’ One can even see the word, ‘harmony,’ in this Greek word. The same root word is used in Eph 4:16, ‘From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.’

“Joined together” is another euphamism for Marriage, something done by a BRIDE and her husband.

Mt 19:4-6 (Authorized Version) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Oh, I forgot, The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t apply to this dispensation…

And, by the way, www.parsonspublishingcompany.com is not a valid website address.

 

[NotWorthy]

dfkuz:

When you come to understand that the Risen Christ made a totally unexpected surprise visit back to earth, but in the air, to convert Paul and give him a new gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith alone in Christ alone,

Evidently He appeared to Paul and to Martin Luther, else the “alone” wouldn’t be in there following “faith”.

That’s funny, I thought people didn’t buy into that “faith alone” tripe anymore.

NotWorthy

 

[Nan_S]

dfkuz:

I am saying that the Gospels and Acts 1-8 are actually part of the Old Testament in that they deal with God’s dealings with Israel. Acts 9-28 are dealing with a time of transition between the conversion of Paul with a new gospel and the setting aside of Israel completely. Paul’s epistles contain Body truth for the church of today. The Hebrew epistles, Hebrews thru Revelation, were written and do deal with to some extent what was happening in the Jerusalem Church at the time they were written, but their primary application is yet future when God again deals with His Chosen Nation, testing and wooing them during the Tribulation.

1. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ for the sake of the whole world is part of the OLD TESTAMENT??? Hoooweee.
2. What you call the “Hebrew Epistles” were always called the “catholic letters” (small “c”) meaning “universal letters” - until you told us differently today. A little bit of close reading shows that the catholic letters were written not to Jews but to Christians - both Jewish and Gentile by birth.

Paul didn’t write a gospel! He was given a gospel by the Risen Lord. Why else did Christ make a return trip to earth that day? You don’t think he could’ve converted Paul from Heaven?

You don’t think Christ just wanted to talk to Paul? That the reason Christ made the personal appearance was to give him some secret, hidden scrolls which he never showed to anyone? This is getting a little far-fetched.

It’s not the order of the Books that determines the dispensations; it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to place them in their perfect order according to not only the dispensations, but the building up of the Body in a certain sequence, precept upon precept. They could’ve been ordered chronologically, but they were ordered according to the Perfect Will of God. Awesome!

And you received this revelation from whom?

And, as I’ve said so many times before, stop patting yourselves on the back for putting together the Canon! God is going to use even the AntiChrist to achieve His final goals!

Catholic Church = AntiChrist. That kind of comment gets you reported to the moderators.
Have a nice day.

 

[The_Augustinian]

God’s people are not divided! God’s people are one, as Jesus prayed for them to be. And God does not change, for then He would not be perfect, and therefore not God. But, people can change in their dealings with Him

If there is really a “Church of Peter” and a “Church of Paul” then why not accept us Catholics? We apparently believe in this so-called “Kingdom gospel” you think applied only to the Gospels and early Acts. So, we are the logical, organic result of Peter’s preaching. After all, he *was *our first pope.

That’s granting your position. But, God’s people are not divided. There is only one tree: we, the wild branches, are grafted into this tree, connected to Abraham. Granted, the old covenant was never revoked, but the new covenant is a fulfillment of the old.