Dispensationalism

[Drew0426]

In the town I live in, there’s a church that calls itself a “non-denominational” Bible church. The way I read this statement, “non” negates “de,” meaning that the church is claiming it is the original “nomination.”

Am I right to assume that the church is Dipensationalist (if that’s a word)? I’ve asked one or two of the members, but they haven’t heard of Dispensationalism (not a surprise, as it’s a pretty big word, and doesn’t support their claims of apostolic consistency as well as the title of “non-denominational”). The people who belong to this church believe that they are staying true to original apostolic teachings. Also, looking on the church’s official statement of beliefs on their website regarding Jesus, I encountered this:

“We believe that in fulfillment of prophecy He came first to Israel as her Messiah-King, and that, being rejected of that nation, He, according to the eternal counsels of God, gave His life as a ransom for all.” from lemarsbiblechurch.org/home/we-believe2

Assuming that they are Dispensationalist, what evidence is there to refute, or to support their claims of teaching as the Apostles did?

Also, a few questions about non-denominational jargon that I’d love some help with:

What’s the difference between Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism?

Are these two terms mutually exclusive (i.e., can you be both Fundamentalist and Dispensationalist)?

Am I right in thinking that a “denomination” is a group that’s broken off of another?

 

[ajcstr]

In the town I live in, there’s a church that calls itself a “non-denominational” Bible church. The way I read this statement, “non” negates “de,” meaning that the church is claiming it is the original “nomination.”

Am I right to assume that the church is Dipensationalist (if that’s a word)? I’ve asked one or two of the members, but they haven’t heard of Dispensationalism (not a surprise, as it’s a pretty big word, and doesn’t support their claims of apostolic consistency as well as the title of “non-denominational”). The people who belong to this church believe that they are staying true to original apostolic teachings. Also, looking on the church’s official statement of beliefs on their website regarding Jesus, I encountered this:

“We believe that in fulfillment of prophecy He came first to Israel as her Messiah-King, and that, being rejected of that nation, He, according to the eternal counsels of God, gave His life as a ransom for all.” from lemarsbiblechurch.org/home/we-believe2

Assuming that they are Dispensationalist, what evidence is there to refute, or to support their claims of teaching as the Apostles did?

Also, a few questions about non-denominational jargon that I’d love some help with:

What’s the difference between Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism?

Are these two terms mutually exclusive (i.e., can you be both Fundamentalist and Dispensationalist)?

Am I right in thinking that a “denomination” is a group that’s broken off of another?

I can most certainly be wrong here but my understanding of Dispensationalism is that it is the belief that history can be broken into several dispensations (periods of time?). It was popularized with the schofield reference bible - may have even originated with this. I think it deals more with end time theology than overall belief which is where fundamentalism comes in. So not all fundamentalists are dispensationalists. I am not sure about the other way. I THINK dispensationalism spans all denominations probably even Catholic as there is no “official” end time teaching but I could be wrong about that.

I don’t know if a denomination would have to break off from another, just have a different teaching. Non-denominational to me says they are not part of an organized church.

As far as disputing beliefs - its all interpretation - thats why there are so many denominations (and non-denomiations). There are some real good books on amazon. I read “The Rapture Trap” which was helpful for me.

 

[ajcstr]

I just looked at the link you put out there

I would say Article 1-9 is the Fundamentalist part and article 10 is the Dispensationalism part but again I’m not sure.

LOL big help

 

[JHow]

In the town I live in, there’s a church that calls itself a “non-denominational” Bible church. The way I read this statement, “non” negates “de,” meaning that the church is claiming it is the original “nomination.”

Am I right to assume that the church is Dipensationalist (if that’s a word)? I’ve asked one or two of the members, but they haven’t heard of Dispensationalism (not a surprise, as it’s a pretty big word, and doesn’t support their claims of apostolic consistency as well as the title of “non-denominational”). The people who belong to this church believe that they are staying true to original apostolic teachings. Also, looking on the church’s official statement of beliefs on their website regarding Jesus, I encountered this:

“We believe that in fulfillment of prophecy He came first to Israel as her Messiah-King, and that, being rejected of that nation, He, according to the eternal counsels of God, gave His life as a ransom for all.” from lemarsbiblechurch.org/home/we-believe2

Assuming that they are Dispensationalist, what evidence is there to refute, or to support their claims of teaching as the Apostles did?

Also, a few questions about non-denominational jargon that I’d love some help with:

What’s the difference between Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism?

Are these two terms mutually exclusive (i.e., can you be both Fundamentalist and Dispensationalist)?

Am I right in thinking that a “denomination” is a group that’s broken off of another?

I came from such a church, so maybe i can help a little.

“Non-denominational” refers mostly to the lack of a hierarchy or larger structure. While such a church may belong to a larger intellectual movement (like the Campbellite church I belonged to), the actual congregation was independent (financially, etc.), really its own church unit.

In the way these groups will use the term “denomination”, it largely refers to clarifying the distinctions between various protestant groups (e.g., General Assoc. of Regular Baptist, Disciples of Christ, etc.); it is classification. Catholics, however, do not use this term to refer to the Church, and you will see on these boards that it raises hackles if anyone calls the Catholic Church a denomination.

Dispensationalism relates to some groups understandings of the end times, or eschatology. A non-denominational church does not necessarily have to hold to some form of dispensationalist teaching, although they might in this particular case. In dipensationalist thinking, the term “dispensation” refers to periods in history as defined by Gods relationship to man. There are several branches and schemes of dispensationalist thought. Fundamentalism is a 20th century protestant movement, which if memory serves, came out of Presbyterian churches, but basically characterizes an approach to theology, relying on certain “fundamental” beliefs as forming the core of their belief system. A non-denominational church can be fundamental.

One of the (ahem) problems with a non-denominational church is that it is its own teaching authority. What is taught on any given Sunday can very much vary depending on who is teaching it.

So in my view, non-denominational is mainly how the church is organized (ecclesiology), fundamental is a theological approach, and dispensationalism is a specific set of teachings about God and history with special focus on eschatology.

 

[ajcstr]

Hey - I wasn’t too far off, thank you for clarifying !

 

[JHow]

I just looked at the link you put out there

I would say Article 1-9 is the Fundamentalist part and article 10 is the Dispensationalism part but again I’m not sure.

LOL big help

Yes, in article 10 they are describing what I thinkwould be called: a “Pre-tribulation Pre-millenial” dispensationalist scheme.

 

[the_7th_one]

Yes, in article 10 they are describing what I thinkwould be called: a “Pre-tribulation Pre-millenial” dispensationalist scheme.

Ohh, I have a sister who goes to a church that holds Pre-tribulation Premillenial. It is a sceme were the church is raptured by Christ (removed from the Earth) as war starts between Isreal and Russia. After Jesus leaves with the church, the Anti Christ will rise and the tribulation will start. after 7 years, the battle of Armageda starts and Jesus returns, beats the Devil and rules for 1,000 years.
My problems starts with there being 3 commings of Jesus, not 2 like the Bible says.

 

[cooterhein]

I can most certainly be wrong here but my understanding of Dispensationalism is that it is the belief that history can be broken into several dispensations (periods of time?). It was popularized with the schofield reference bible - may have even originated with this. I think it deals more with end time theology than overall belief which is where fundamentalism comes in. So not all fundamentalists are dispensationalists. I am not sure about the other way. I THINK dispensationalism spans all denominations probably even Catholic as there is no “official” end time teaching but I could be wrong about that.

Jhow covered most of what you need. I’ll add that if the fundamentalist church is a member of IFCA, you can get a better handle on the teachings you can expect. Also, pre-mil pre-trib is not acceptable as a Catholic teaching. I don’t know why, but it’s not.

I don’t know if a denomination would have to break off from another, just have a different teaching. Non-denominational to me says they are not part of an organized church.

American denominationalism is largely non-sectarian. Some are, but most aren’t. And yes, non-denom means they’re not part of an organized church beyond the local one they meet in. Technically speaking, it means there’s no church headquarters, and while they might belong to an association of non-denom churches like IFCA, each church is responsible for making its own doctrinal statement. IFCA gives you an idea of the boundaries they’ll work within, though.

As far as disputing beliefs - its all interpretation - thats why there are so many denominations (and non-denomiations).

America, as a country, basically invented denominationalism. For the most part, it didn’t involve disputed beliefs, unrest with the leadership, or doctrinal disagreements. Throughout US history, the most active times for the creation of denominations were during the Great Awakenings, especially in the First and the Second. Contrary to popular Catholic belief, the creation of an American Protestant denomination has usually not been through a painful process of disagreement and disengagement. It’s been the exact opposite most of the time- during the greatest times of spiritual revival and religious vitality, that’s when new denominations have been created the most.

Roger Williams, George Whitefield- good people to look at in order to see how that kind of thing was possible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Its interesting to refer our beliefs as multiple second comings…and it actually the same line of reasoning that Jewish apologists use in arguing against Christianity!
For Jewish apologists, the OT passages referring to a Messiah do not in fact refer to a Messiah that comes in the 1st century and then once again. Perhaps it is more helpful for people who are stuck on this terminology (ie second coming) to list the verses they believe shows our view to be incorrect?
Thanks

 

[ajcstr]

Its interesting to refer our beliefs as multiple second comings…and it actually the same line of reasoning that Jewish apologists use in arguing against Christianity!
For Jewish apologists, the OT passages referring to a Messiah do not in fact refer to a Messiah that comes in the 1st century and then once again. Perhaps it is more helpful for people who are stuck on this terminology (ie second coming) to list the verses they believe shows our view to be incorrect?
Thanks

I was actually going to comment on an earlier post but I would guess to you (not trying to put words in your mouth) the Rapture is not really a “coming” because it is invisible?

 

[Nevermore22]

It is a sceme were the church is raptured by Christ (removed from the Earth) as war starts between Isreal and Russia. After Jesus leaves with the church, the Anti Christ will rise and the tribulation will start. after 7 years, the battle of Armageda starts and Jesus returns, beats the Devil and rules for 1,000 years.
My problems starts with there being 3 commings of Jesus, not 2 like the Bible says.

Funny, we just talked about this in RCIA last night.

My understanding of being non-denomination was that you did not align yourself with a specific established group/church. cooterhein and JHow have a better understanding than I, so please listen to them.

In Christ,
Nevermore

 

[manualman]

You can’t read that much into the “non-denominational” label.

It may mean as little as that they don’t believe that the “church” has a visible, recognizable quantity and that “wherever two or more believers gather in my name” that that’s a church. (Mind you that quote is taken WAY out of context!).

In effect, it is a statement that nobody outside that community has any (name removed by moderator)ut on their beliefs (aside from the Holy Spirit who, of course, ensures that they comprehend their bibles correctly). THEY will say this means their beliefs come ONLY from Scripture. What that REALLY means is that their beliefs come from what they SEE when they read Scripture. The difference is catastrophic!

 

[Rightlydivide]

I was actually going to comment on an earlier post but I would guess to you (not trying to put words in your mouth) the Rapture is not really a “coming” because it is invisible?

Lets think about it this way. Christ descends from heaven but not to the Earth persay. It is not that it is invisible but where it occurs. Now granted, the reference to clouds and in the air does not give an exact location…

 

[GingerSam]

I’m not surprised that the people at the church didn’t know the term Dispensationalism. When I was an evangelical Protestant, I went to many churches that held Dispensationalist beliefs, but they never (or almost never) specifically named the theology. Also, usually people only knew about the end times portions of Dispensationalism (probably because it was around the time the Left Behind books came out). You’d probably get a better answer about what they believe if you ask what they think about the end times.

Ginger

 

[LauraDymphna]

Typically Chruch’s which describe themselve’s as non-denominational really mean not a part of any convention. However all of them closely resemble Baptist or Calvinist or sometimes both teachings. Some of them are more fundamental than nought and prefer the label “evangelical” the term “non-denominational” is very much a misnomer. It really just means “self-governing” and heck…that’s every protestant church out there. non or inter-denom churches fall under one of two headings, the evangelical movement or the cult/occult new age that seeps into aspects of broken faith.
As for Dispensationalism, very few Protestants are not pre millienials dispensationalists. having looked at the link these guys are no different

 

[JonNC]

Typically Chruch’s which describe themselve’s as non-denominational really mean not a part of any convention. However all of them closely resemble Baptist or Calvinist or sometimes both teachings. Some of them are more fundamental than nought and prefer the label “evangelical” the term “non-denominational” is very much a misnomer. It really just means “self-governing” and heck…that’s every protestant church out there. non or inter-denom churches fall under one of two headings, the evangelical movement or the cult/occult new age that seeps into aspects of broken faith.
As for Dispensationalism, very few Protestants are not pre millienials dispensationalists. having looked at the link these guys are no different

Hi Laura, and welcome to CAF. Regarding the part of your post I’ve bolded, I’d like to see a source for your statement.

From Wikipedia (yeah, I know , but it was easist to find )

Modern times
Amillennialism has been widely held in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, which generally follows Augustine on this point and which has deemed that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught.”[4] Amillennialism is also common among “mainline” Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican and the 19th century restoration “Campbell-Stone movement” including the Disciples of Christ, Christian, and church of Christ churches, and even has a significant following amongst Evangelical Christian denominations. Partial Preterism is sometimes a component of amillennial hermeneutics. Amillennialism declined in Protestant circles with the rise of Postmillennialism and the resurgence of Premillennialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it has regained prominence in the West after World War II.

Lutherans are amillenialist, and to my knowledge so are Anglicans and Reformed, so I’d say it is probably not completely accurate to claim “very few Protestants are not pre millienials dispensationalists.”
Certainly, in America, it is true among some groups.

Jon

 

[Drew0426]

The difference is catastrophic!

I’ve noticed!

 

[Drew0426]

Hi Laura, and welcome to CAF. Regarding the part of your post I’ve bolded, I’d like to see a source for your statement.

I’m guessing he looked at the website link I provided? It’s a statement of the beliefs of the church in question.

Lutherans are amillenialist, and to my knowledge so are Anglicans and Reformed, so I’d say it is probably not completely accurate to claim “very few Protestants are not pre millienials dispensationalists.”
Certainly, in America, it is true among some groups.

Jon

I hope you don’t take any offense to what Laura said. It’s probably not easy to calculate the “number” of groups holding such a belief, but it was a broad statement, and not meant to be take derogatorily by anyone. Maybe a better way to word it would’ve been “very few ‘non-denominational’ groups are not pre millenial dispensationalists.”

I’m (obviously) Catholic, and I have a great friend who is a Lutheran who is usually first on the list (ahead of most of my Catholic friends) to consult if this church does anything to make me feel uncomfortable, if that means anything to you.

 

[JonNC]

=Drew0426;7262205]I hope you don’t take any offense to what Laura said. It’s probably not easy to calculate the “number” of groups holding such a belief, but it was a broad statement, and not meant to be take derogatorily by anyone. Maybe a better way to word it would’ve been “very few ‘non-denominational’ groups are not pre millenial dispensationalists.”

Goodness no! Your post makes me wonder if I came off harsh towards her. If so, it wasn’t my intent, and I apologize. I agree, has she stated it the way you did, I wouldn’t have even commented, but I felt qualification necessary so as not to leave the wrong impression.

I’m (obviously) Catholic, and I have a great friend who is a Lutheran who is usually first on the list (ahead of most of my Catholic friends) to consult if this church does anything to make me feel uncomfortable, if that means anything to you.

Oddly enough, I view CAF in a similar role for me.

Jon

 

[LauraDymphna]

Hi Laura, and welcome to CAF. Regarding the part of your post I’ve bolded, I’d like to see a source for your statement.

From Wikipedia (yeah, I know , but it was easist to find )

Lutherans are amillenialist, and to my knowledge so are Anglicans and Reformed, so I’d say it is probably not completely accurate to claim “very few Protestants are not pre millienials dispensationalists.”
Certainly, in America, it is true among some groups.

Jon

It maybe bigger in my region of the US. (The Southeast) where Baptist, Hypercalvinism, and non-denom certainly dominate our region. And it seemed to have taken a foothold inside the Plymouth Brethren (source Dave Macpherson, The Rapture Plot. The Kingdom of the Cults Walter Martin Ph d ) The Adventist Churches and the wholeof the Independent Baptist, American Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Hypercalvinist groups and splinters many many of the modern Presbyterian groups home churches and so on. It tends to radiate from the members. Fundamentalism seems to have a massive hold in the Southeastern region and certainly in other areas and with it comes pre millenialism (a marker of “the Fundamentals” I think the Missouri Synods and Wisconsi Synods are currently divided over millenialism (source a local Wisconsin Synod Pastor who is a millenialist) I’m a newbie Catholic, (2 years) and two say the least this is one of the more distressing dogmas inside hyper fundamental churches. Many of them especially literalists believe premillenialism to be a necessity for salvation too (source Southern Baptist Convention Declarations) Now I do understand of course there are many who are not Pre millenials, but at least with what I’ve seen and read it seems to be a majority, maybe not. Thanks for the info