Dispensationalism: the basis of Fundamentalism?

[dfkuz]

“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.

Hey, it’s not that big a deal, Nan, if you want to hang on to that idea, it doesn’t hurt anything! We are now ‘in Christ,’ so tightly joined to His Body that we couldn’t get out if we tried! And that is a beautiful picture of what marriage should be, too! That’s why Paul used it probably. But that still doesn’t designate us today as the Bride of Christ; not when there are so many references to the idea that Israel is the Bride in Scripture; and so many that tell us we are His Body. But, as I said, let’s not sweat the small stuff. Christ is coming for us in a personal way at the Rapture and we will be with Him for eternity, so in a way that is like a marriage.

And I just clicked on the link in your posting and went right to Pastor Joel Finck’s website. Looks valid to me.

D.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

dfkuz, it seems that you have a convenient system of interpretation. Anything that would seem to portray the Church as the fulfillment of Israel must be referring to the Jews, even if it’s in Paul’s letters, which are supposedly not about the covenants with Israel. It would appear that you’re interpreting Scripture by the light of a pre-existing doctrine rather than forming doctrine based on Scripture.

dfkuz:

And Paul DID NOT get his teachings from the Apostles: ‘But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.’ (Gal. 1:11-12), and, ‘Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter…’ (Gal. 1:17, 18) If it was the same gospel why didn’t Christ just send Paul to the apostles? Seems like He deliberately kept Paul’s gospel from becoming mixed with theirs!

Yet Paul goes on to say, “I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain” (Gal 2:2). It seems that Paul far from trying to keep his gospel separate from the Apostles’, wanted to make sure that what he taught was in line with their message.
He also says that the household of God, which the Ephesians are citizens of, was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20). If his gospel is different than the gospel the apostles preached, how is the church built on the foundation of the apostles?

dfkuz:

When we believe we’re justified (you can’t be ‘further justified’ - you’re either justified or not) and receive the gift of eternal life (it wouldn’t be eternal if it could suddenly become un-eternal!). Paul constantly says ‘we are’ and ‘we have’ and ‘we now,’ because this eternal life is a present possession.

“Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off” (Rom 11:22).
“For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers” (Rom 13:11).
“So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall” (1 Cor 10:12).
“So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up” (Gal 6:9).
“I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own…” (Philippians 3:10-13).
“If we endure, we will also reign with him” (2 Tim 2:12).

 

[Nan_S]

dfkuz:

And I just clicked on the link in your posting and went right to Pastor Joel Finck’s website. Looks valid to me.

I guess it was temporarily down earlier today.

 

[Church_Militant]

I was exposed to dispensationalism while away from the church and read some of the books. I rejected it because it’s just a convoluted way of trying to make the Bible fit some man’s understanding. Most of it seems like such a long stretch that you’d have to WANT to believe it to actually believe it. I sure couldn’t…

Proverbs 3:5 **Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. **

As for dfkuz, his vitriol for our faith seems to have halted his ongoing discourses. I read alot of his posts and there’s a difference between sharing what you believe and lacing your remarks with vitriolic cheap shots at the Catholic Church. sigh
Dominus vobiscum,

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So basically these guys mistake different phases in the fulfilling of God’s plan as mans failure in separate “attempts” of God’s mini plans trying and failing each time?
I read those links the best I could and all I can say is AHHHHH!

First that 2Tim2:15 thing with “dividing” up the Bible!?!?.

And where is the love of God and stuff? Where is all that talk about being saved and grace and stuff all through the NT? This is way past ignoring a verse here and there, this is a whole new Gospel message.

I saw this on that link that G&G put up and all I could say is, is this disturbing or what:In Acts, we do not, according to Bullinger, not have the ekklesia (church) described by Paul as the body of Christ, but a different ekklesia completely All Paul’s other epistles belong to a different dispensation, so do not apply to the believer today. Neither, for that matter, do the Gospels, believe it or not (!!). instead, claims Bullingerism, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John describe the preaching of the “gospel of the Kingdom” and have no direct application to the Church. Instead they refer to a “Hebrew church” as oposed to the “mystery” church of Paul’s prison epistles.
This talk is no different than a book of Mormon or any other book that invalidates the Gospels and Acts.

Some questions for Dfkuz-

1. You say mid-Acts Disp. Does that mead that you only accept certain books of St Paul as relevant to today?
2. Why is this: “The EARTH won’t be fully redeemed back from Satan until after the 1,000 year Reign of Christ is accomplished and Satan is finally thrown into the Lake of Fire after being let loose for a little while to again deceive the nations.”? That sounds crazy to me. It something that the JWs would say. What passages are people quoting to come up with this stuff?
3. You said: “There is no covenant with us Gentiles (which includes Jews now that their program is suspended). The Old and New Covenant both relate to Israel only.”
   So how are we saved? You then said: “Of course, all are saved by the Blood of the New Covenant, but that’s where our involvement with it ends. Men are now saved individually by believing God’s new message of Grace given to us through Paul”
   So how is believing not part of the New Covenant?
4. You said: “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”

I was read this in Acts 26 (which is past the mid-point of the book) a few nights ago and it was a new found verse for my arsenal. God must have wanted me to notice it for this very talk Im having right now, it kills two birds with one stone. The first is it meets the second half of Acts Dispensation Test and the Faith Alone Gospel that St Paul was teaching:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.(Acts 26:20 KJV)
Now I then looked it up in English and here is what I saw:20 but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance. (RSV)

20 On the contrary, first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem and throughout the whole country of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached the need to repent and turn to God, and to do works giving evidence of repentance. (NAB)
IF this isnt a Faith + Works verse I dont know what is.

1. You said: “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.”
   Your killing me here.Its just like G&G said. Whats the point of a book that doesnt teach anything? What makes you the boss of what you can accept or reject?
2. You said: “I would NEVER pray the Lord’s Prayer myself now that I understand what an insult it is for a member of the Body of Christ to pray it today!”
   I have had it. I rebuke you Satan-dkfuz, your speaking evil like no one I have ever come across. Give me a James White-Calivinist “only a few are good enough for salvation” or any other wacko unChristian Gospel, but the line you have crossed is beyond what I thought existed.

 

[Deus_Solus]

Gottle of Geer:

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.​

Yes, Dispensationalism is a rather anti-liturgical brand of theology that focuses on “hyper-faith-alone-ism”. Darby invented this theological lens after concluding that the Anglican church had apostasized from the faith of the New Testament church. I say it is specifically anti-Catholic because the framework of its thought is based on sola scriptura. If it denies that the Gospels are applicable to Christian theology today (as dfkuz was arguing), how much more does it deny Sacred Tradition?
Gottle of Geer:

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

Like most Protestant belief systems, it has split off into several branches and flavors since its inception in the early 19th century. Since it is not usually systematically taught, it is easy to find different variations on the same theme. For example, in a typical Plymouth Brethren church, there is no schooling in the dispensations per se, but rather it is implicity present in the assumptions that serve as the basis for Sunday’s message. I cannot speak for what is said in seminaries, but I do see different flavors of it within the church.

 

[Nan_S]

Deus Solus:

Yes, Dispensationalism is a rather anti-liturgical brand of theology that focuses on “hyper-faith-alone-ism”. Darby invented this theological lens after concluding that the Anglican church had apostasized from the faith of the New Testament church.

Is this Darby the same one who first popularized (invented) the rapture? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

I know Protestants who believe very firmly in the rapture who would be shocked to see it equated with dispensationalism and the arbitrary rejection of most of the Bible as non-applicable.

 

[Deus_Solus]

Nan S:

Is this Darby the same one who first popularized (invented) the rapture? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

Yes, it was Darby who first popularized it in the 1830s, and it was legitimized by Scofield’s 1909 reference Bible, which promulgated the doctrine.
Nan S:

I know Protestants who believe very firmly in the rapture who would be shocked to see it equated with dispensationalism and the arbitrary rejection of most of the Bible as non-applicable.

Yes, most “Bible-Christians” who believe in a pre-tribulational rapture (as popularized by LaHaye and Jenkins in their famous Left Behind series) have no idea about the doctrinal origins of the belief, or even how to defend such a belief.