So dispensationalism preaches another gospel?
Rey | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 1:59 pm | #

Dispensationalism has many shortcomings and many areas that need to be re-examined - and currently are being considered, under the heading of progressive dispensationalism (see Bock, Blaising, et.al.). Your post, however, doesn't deal with any current problems but instead attacks a straw man created long ago. I doubt that very many people adhere to the charicature you presented.

As far as the Left Behind series, well, it is admittedly an embarrassment. Are you saying that no similar foolishness has ever developed in Reformed circles? Excuse me, but you seem to have a rather large piece of lumber protruding from your eye.

Dispensationalism is, as you say, fairly new in terms of development, a charge which in itself means or proves nothing. I'm sure similar charges were brought against Protestantism in the early centuries following the Reformation. Thank God that the argument failed then - as I am sure it will continue to fail now.

Again, dispensationalism is not without its problems. Those of us who claim to be dispensational - in hermeneutic, theology, or both - need to address them thoughtfully and carefully. The reimplementation of sacrifices implied by a dispensational reading of Ezekiel, to which you refer, is but one of those issues.

I must say that I envy those like yourself who are of a strict Reformed theology. Apparently your own house is so perfectly in order that you now feel compelled to instruct others how to clean up their own. If you believe us to be a cult or heretical, then say so and treat us as such.

Otherwise, allow us to grow and mature. Give us the luxury of 500 years of theologians thinking and reflecting, and then criticize us. Luther and Calvin didn't get everything right; why would you expect Scofield, Darby, Chafer, etc., to succeed where your own patron saints failed?

Could we have just a bit of grace? Or are we so reprobate as to be unworthy of loving treatment? What purpose does your post serve? I simply don't understand the hearts of too many self-appointed Reformed spokesmen who seem to have nothing better to do than tear down others.

Feeling like a bastard child, I am
Mike (or is it Jephthah?) | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 3:05 pm | #

Isn't pretty clear in scholarly circles that the Revelation to St. John was written well after his death and that, furthermore, is is but one example of the Jewish genre of apocalyptic literature. Given its historical context, it seems pretty straightforward as a call to perseverance under Roman persecution. Reading more beyond that seems foolish. Wasn't in one of Hal Lindsey's stream-of-consciousness books that many of the apocalyptic symbols were interpreted as elements of the Soviet Union?

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 09.30.05 - 3:22 pm | #

Shaggy:

You're right and wrong, but not in that order. It is not "pretty clear in scholarly circles" that the Book of Revelation was written after the death of John. I might not date it as early as prior to the destruction of the temple, but it is John's tome and no one else's. You're reading the wrong "scholars."

You are correct about Lindsey's hyperbolic and histrionic attribution of prophecies to the Soviet Union. But you can't fault a belief simply on the basis of some who believe in it. Think Origen.
Mike (or is it Jephthah?) | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 3:40 pm | #

Mike,

I am aware of and delighted by progressive dispensationalism and the shift at DTS, for example. Alas, it has not made its way to the pews, as of yet. Obviously I am attacking classic dispensationalism, given the outline I presented, which is alive and well (I just today listened to David Jeremiah discuss the mark of the beast.)

I do not assume that our Reformed house is in order, I don't even agree with my fellow reformed on everything. And if you think that I am preaching against the gospel, then it is you duty to say so loud and clear--tolerance is not called for at that point. I think the classic teaching of dispensationalism is so wrong that it needs to be addressed with vigor.

If you have looked up my old posts you will have discovered that I also made the point that dispensationalism is not wrong because it is new. In todays' post I did not say it was wrong because it was new, I said that it is so pervasive that many Christians and non-Christians assume it has been with us forever. When I taught eschatology in Sunday School, several adults (lifelong Christians) told me that they had never heard the other millennial views.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:10 pm | #

Rey,

In its teaching that if you accept the Mark (even out of ignorance), it is impossible for you be saved, regardless of whether you accept Christ, then at least in that teaching it is presenting a very different gospel.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:15 pm | #

Then I would take great care with that charge brother for in it you level Paul's wish of such persons being doubly accursed, damned, etc especially when the person (singular) you refer to is not a model of the many shades of dispensationalism (as Mike stated) and similarly seen in the reformed tradition. I would be very careful indeed.
Rey | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:21 pm | #

David.

Millenialism is not new. (see Millenialism defined in Wikipedia) It was originally called Chiliasm, and it was not challenged until the Gnostics. It's not surprising that Origen tried to remove the book of Revelation from the canon of Scripture. Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine. I think the double hermeneutic used by Reformed teachers is the problem here. For historic passages (eg the virgin birth, death, resurrection of Jesus etc) the historic/ grammatical approach is used, but for prophetic scriptures an allegorical method is used. In contrast dispensationalists adopt a consistant approach, that the text should be afforded it's plain meaning. By following "the church is Isreal", and vice versa, the Roman church ended up with it's own circumcision, (child baptism), a priesthood (mediating priests), a high priest (the Pope), an alter, (the alter), and continuing blood sacrifices (the mass). IMHO I think dispensational doctrine is much clearer in defining God's program for Isreal, the church, the nations, and unbelievers.

In Christ

David
David Scott | 09.30.05 - 4:27 pm | #

Rey,

I am ready to be corrected; just show me how one could (a) accept the mark out of desperation or ignorance (b) come to faith but (c) not be saved-- show me how that is consistent with the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

By the way, we had a Reformation because we believed tha Catholic Church preached a different gospel. It is a serious charge, but it is also serious to neglect to make the charge.

David

Yes Chialism is as old as the church, and a very well-grounded eschatology (although I don't happen to favor it--I am postmillennial myself). But historic premillennialism is very different from dispensational premillennialism.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 4:37 pm | #

A) A Proponent of Dispensationalism says taking the mark of the beast is unforgiveable
B) Your example shows a human coming to faith after taking the mark and not being forgiven
C) Therefore Dispensationalism is wrong.

And in the end I still don't think how I have to support Dispensationailism with an illustration you painted.

Either way, agree to disagree.
Rey | Homepage | 09.30.05 - 11:43 pm | #

David,

I haven't really looked into this subject. So, I have some basic questions.

How does post tribulation fit into this example? I think your example sort of explored pre tribulation. I'm a pre tribulation person, but I do know a few people who are post tribulation.

Isn't it too late for those who are "left behind?" God has provided us a warning of the coming rapture.

For Christians, does it matter? I mean that Christians will be swept up into the rapture, so that this mark will not happen to them.
Elvis | 10.01.05 - 9:12 am | #

Elvis,

Classic premillenial dispensationalism teaches that those who are left behind can still come to Christ during the tribulation. That is, unless they accept the mark of the beast at which point, according to this view, they are utterly lost irrespective of the gospel.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 10:24 am | #

Thanks for that. I disagree about the timescale (my understanding is about AD90 when John was pretty old), and I would argue that the visions in Revelation are meaningful to Christians facing opposition in all ages. But (having found ourselves in a situation where dispensationalism is live and kicking) it is nice to know that it isn't just a small group that finds rebuilding the temple etc unacceptable to Christianity.
Paul and/or Liz | Homepage | 10.02.05 - 5:10 pm | #

>> Chialism is as old as the church....

Mmm, maybe. My understanding of Alan Boyd's "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers" (written for his thesis as a grad student at Dallas Theological Seminary--he even interviewed Ryrie during its production), is that he *believed* that the early church fell into apostasy with respect to its eschatology (which of course he believes to have been premillennial). As I recall (it's been a while since I've seen it), he said that the early church fathers displayed what he called a "nascent amillennialism." Note that Boyd's thesis dealt with only about the first half-century of the post-apostolic church's existence.
malm | 10.03.05 - 3:33 pm | #

I think it is clear that some church fathers held to a form of chialism-- I have references in my notes I can dig up. But it didn't seem to last long. The early creeds, such as the Apostle's Creed, would seem to favor amillenialism. They (a) imply a simultaneous judgment of all and (b) neglect to mention an earthly millennial kingdom, which would seem to be a hope they would have included if they were premillennial. Also, (c) they do not seem to have an optimistic, postmillennialist's view of the ultimate success of the Great Commission.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.03.05 - 5:03 pm | #

A couple of things:

Mike wrote "Otherwise, allow us to grow and mature. Give us the luxury of 500 years of theologians thinking and reflecting, and then criticize us. Luther and Calvin didn't get everything right; why would you expect Scofield, Darby, Chafer, etc., to succeed where your own patron saints failed?"

There is a problem with this. If opponents of your beleives don't speak out, if you are allowed to hold them uncritically and undefended for 500 years then you may end up 500 years down the wrong path.

Debate is **good*. 1 Peter 3:15 says we need to be prepared to defend our beliefs. This is both good for us and good for the listener.

If we do not expose our beliefs to criticism (whether from with our tradition and relgiion, from another tradition in the same religion or from another relgion) then we are exposed to our own wishful thinking. It can be quite an emotional struggle to expose our dearly held beliefs to opposing views; it may mean in the end, that we have to revise or give up our beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a bad thing.

God is refining us, and this is one of the ways of being refined.

On a broader note; I hold a generally agnostic position to the details of Revelation. I accept that it is telling the story of the end of history, and it's broad themes of judgement, redemption, and the new heaven and new earth. But I don't think it's sensible to hold to one of the millienial veiws so strongly that it becomes a matter central to my faith.

My faith rests upon the Gospel fo Grace. I am saved by grace alone. I am sanctified by grace alone.

All the rest, expecially the apocalypitic stuff has to be interepreted through the light of core of my faith. By Grace alone.

I think David's entry was a good read and pointed out something about premillenial dispensationalism that I hadn't seen before. If you disagree then enter the debate, state why you disagree and support that from scripture. This is the process of refining belief.
matt | Homepage | 10.03.05 - 8:00 pm | #

> "As far as the Left Behind series, well, it is admittedly an embarrassment. Are you saying that no similar foolishness has ever developed in Reformed circles?"

Provisionally, yes, I would say that. All the silliest fads come from the end of the Evangelical/ Protestant spectrum that is furthest from Calvinism. (Is Prayer of Jabez II: The Awakening out yet?).

But I'm open to persuasion -- find me some examples.
Tom R | 10.03.05 - 8:15 pm | #

Duh... it's an apocalyptic text explicitly relevant to the context in which it was written, i.e. Roman persecution. Can the Holy Spirit deliver God's Word for the ages in reading and hearing the words of Revelation? Sure. But reading the text primarily as a prophecy about the end times may make for best-selling books and successful horror movies and little else, IMO.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 10.05.05 - 12:31 pm | #

Tom:

James Arminius was - and died - a Calvinist, but his followers developed "Arminianism" from his teachings. Maybe it's not fair to call it foolish or a fad, but it's a bit of an embarrassment for Calvinism, don't you think? I suppose we could toss theonomy in there, too, although I don't know much about it: it's not an issue for dispensationalists since it won't grow in our soil (fertilizer?).

Maybe at the present our branch on the evangelical tree produces more stupid fruit than yours, but you've had your moments, too. And maybe some of your fruit has been more poisonous in the long run. (Although I'm sure we'll give you a run for your money somehow.)
Mike | Homepage | 10.05.05 - 11:26 pm | #

This is interesting reading...

I just stopped by for the first time, but maybe we all agree to at least one clear teaching of Christ and our Father.

If we identify ourselves with Christ first, then movements, men, in and of themselves are left to be as they are... By God and God alone - they gave us insights in revealing God's word just as the prophets were led of God what to say, God moved men at times to bring us more into the light. Therefore it was 'Christ in them' which revealed to us the truth, not the people themselves. The people were the vessels which God used.

Not one man, woman, or movement is the way, only Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

So, all the Popes, Luther, Calvin, Darby, etc., are but people searching for the way. Each one of us can use their insights, "even their stumbles and falls and errant teachings" to help ourselves find The Way in The Word.

We have the remarkable ability during this age to compare logic, translations and historic information directly online with each other for teaching and debate.

The truth is God will use us all for his own good and pleasure. Whether it be 'Left Behind...' or Calvin, people will come to him in their own moments of truth, in darkness and despair, in light and reason, will repent and be saved and only God knows our true hearts even in our mistakes.

This should not be a personal issue or insult unless one throws false accusations against a brother or sister.

It is here we must be careful. Admonishing a brother or sister for sin and false teaching if it is done is perfectly legitimate. We are taught what to do.

False accusations against our brethren is another. We take to much from the world at times, right left, left right and media snippets of one liners and 30 second sound bites. We ourselves are a product of the current environment we live in. Our opinions quickly are distributed around the world for all to see and therefore our example is seen by non-believers as well.

Ours is to reason with each other in our Father's word, to show the word as our proofs, not hurl angry comments like the world. We are to pray with each other that we in fact come together in Christ, Yeshua's name nor for our glory, but the true Glory of our Father.

Each of us brings our pride and arrogance to the table in such arguments. My question is, do any of us 'pray' before we begin to post arguments against each other on sites such as these? It just occurred to me, that I should pray, not for just me, but for all of us, that our Father show 'us' His way, that we are humbled in His Word as we discuss it amongst ourselves. I admittedly have been to often ready to fire away at another brother.

Self-rigtheousness abides in all mankind. Personally, I can rush very quickly to judgement of peoples motives at times. To learn The Way and not to hurl accusations at times in a fit of anger is very hard not to do and is as tempting as any sin that I know. Even if we are 'right', Christ taught us to be humble in our admonition through his disciples.

Well... that was maybe a little long winded, so onto the item I'm curious to discuss if ya'll would like to.

The issue of the 'mark of the beast' which David mentioned gives me pause for thought. I had not thought clearly about the implications regarding accepting the mark.

I'll post the verses in the next post with a follow up.

Even though there will be disagreement, maybe we can all take something to heart from the Revelation of John and one of the objections by David.
Michael | 10.21.05 - 1:06 pm | #

Here are the versese from John's Revelations 14:9-12...

"9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

Some questions which come to mind,
1) Was this a limited time to John's world?
2) Does anyone know if people were forced to buy and sell with marks during the time of John?
3) If not, then are these verses still relevant to today's Christian?
4) If so, then do the verses in fact mean we can suffer the wrath of God if we take the mark?
5) Or, do we also have to 'worship' the beast "and" take the mark as a willing participant?

Curious to know what everyone thinks because the verses themselves seem to be very clear if certain steps are taken, then people will suffer. Question is how do we relate to this now? What is just historical? If so, then where is the evidence of those who suffered and survived by not taking the mark? You would think that if it already happened, then past Christians would've recorded it and we would have this as proof of past prophecy fullfilled.

Finally, is it literal or figurative?
Michael | 10.21.05 - 1:16 pm | #

David,

As a result of sole's recent post I looked at some of your earlier writings on premillenialism. In your post titled 'Dispensationalism Adds a Second Unforgivable Sin' you said:

"To the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit dispensationalism adds another: accepting a mark, which may mean nothing to you other than you need to work. "

My reading of scripture is that every place where the wrath of God on those who have the mark is discussed there is also the mention that these people 'worshipped' the beast. Clearly, only God knows if somebody is worshipping or not. So one taking the mark may or may not connote worship. Also, I understand the concept of weakness and feeding one's family. However, to be sure that this means that dispensationalism adds another 'unforgiveable sin' seems somewhat extreme.
David W | 01.07.07 - 3:54 pm | #

David W,

I agree. That was a lousy post. I'm not sure what I was thinking.
heddle | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 8:56 pm | #