Were you taught Dispensationalism in Bible College or Seminary?

Why should this have to be taught in a Bible College or Seminary. This is basic stuff that should have been taught when you were being discipled in your local church. I can see the schools going over basics to make sure everyone is on the same page but not being a major issue. This might explain all the controversy, the schools teaching doctrine instead of the local church.
 
Inhisdebt said:
Why should this have to be taught in a Bible College or Seminary. This is basic stuff that should have been taught when you were being discipled in your local church. I can see the schools going over basics to make sure everyone is on the same page but not being a major issue. This might explain all the controversy, the schools teaching doctrine instead of the local church.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this be a part of training Pastors?
Who's teaching it to those teaching it in the local churches?
It wouldn't be major issue but a part of theology.....eschatology....which also has a major impact on ones hermeneutics.

What would you consider appropriate curricula for seminary training?
 
Seminary should be the finishing touch to what was taught in the church. If you have a man that is being paid to labor in the word with his purpose of teaching it to you, why would you pay big bucks to go off somewhere else for the same thing? Seminary is nothing more than advanced discipleship and the content should not be a surprise even renamed with ology and nutics after it. You asked what should be training for the pastor? A good number of so called Cemetaries are training pastors like I potty trained my child. Just grunt and go with the same results. Discipleship is what the Lord taught, how you elect to go more indepth as to division of the subject matter depends on how much time you intend to devote, 1 yr certificate, 2yr more than most degree, 4yr, Masters (??how do you master the bible??) or is this a lifetime course of study with more importantly application?  How much time do you spend in formal class study debating the return time of Christ vs time spent telling others how to be saved and either avoiding the trib or being able to go to heaven if you get caught up in that mess.  No matter which camp is right in this debate, the lost sinner still burns.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Were you taught Dispensationalism in Bible College or Seminary?
Click to expand...


No. I didn't go to either.............So I guess I learned it on my own.  :)





 
Tarheel said:

Where do you see the church in the prophets?

According to Peter (Acts 2:16), Joel foretold the coming of the Holy Spirit to the Church at Pentecost.

According to Scofield, Joel was speaking only of the last days of the kingdom age, and not to the events that were happening right there in Jerusalem in the first century.  Scofield's notes on Joel only refer to Acts in passing, and his notes on Acts ignore 2:16 entirely.

Jeremiah (31:31) foretold a new covenant, which according to Jesus was inaugurated by his own blood (Luke 22:20), and which according to the author of Hebrews has already made the old covenant obsolete because Jesus is a superior priest with a superior sacrifice. Yet according to Dwight Pentecost, the Church is not in the new covenant, but a "better covenant"; the New Covenant also awaits the kingdom age for its fulfilment.

The Apostles speak of Joel 2 and Jeremiah 31 as present realities, within the Church. That should settle the matter.
 
Another unfortunate implication of the Dispensationalist church/Israel dichotomy: Christ's atonement didn't really put an end to the sacrificial system. They've just been set aside temporarily until the Millennium, when Temple worship will be restored and the sacrifices resumed, as a "memorial."

Because, apparently, we need a ceremony to memorialize the King who will be right there ruling the world from the throne of David.

What a stupid, stupid theology.
 
The main problem I have with dispensationalism is that it treats the Church as a sort of "Plan B" and implies that it wasn't supposed to happen, but came up only when Jesus changed His mind about setting up His kingdom at that time, because of the Jews rejecting Him. (which implies that God's plan for the ages is not absolute and was thwarted by the Jews' rejection of Christ).
 
I am glad that Tom was able to provide some insight from the Pastoral Theology side......

As an education major, I always thought that most of the teaching was pretty light-weight  in the Bible classes.  They seemed to scratch the surface, but not delve down into the subject matter.

I too probably had the most in depth Bible classes taught by Grady, and think I remember the "Laodicean" church debacle, that would have been about 91-92 school year.  I remember sitting in on an evening college class of Grady's one night and he was getting into it and I remember taking some pretty copious notes and found it very interesting.  Later in the year, Bro. Hyles "addressed" the issue.

That being said, most of my "theology" was obtained in outside reading rather than in the class which required it.
 
Q: What do you call a pastor who didn't go to seminary?

A: Joel Osteen

Seriously. Nice guy, good motivational speaker, but a theological flyweight. Now, in a similar situation but with an IFB background? You might get a guy with fundamentalist doctrine, but likely to be just as much a theological flyweight as Osteen.
 
Ransom said:
I was surprised as anything to learn Jacky-boy wasn't a Dispie. I always thought that went hand-in-hand with extreme fundyism.
Click to expand...
I am sure he probably didn't study it in-depth, but he probably regurgitated whatever carry-over traditions he was taught. The Hyles type "dispie" is one that will claim that "the law" (at least their cherry-picked version) is "still in effect," but will also hold to the futurism part of it (rapture -> tribulation -> millenial kingdom) and the "we need to support national Israel or be cursed as a nation" part.
 
I do believe some dispensationalists take some of their versions to the extreme.
I am a John MacArthur dispy....a Soteriological Calvinist and an eschatological Pre-millennialist.
Because it is the most logical and follows the most Literalral interpretation of Scripture.

To dismiss dispensational theology as somehow untenable is naive, not to mention arrogant.
 
qwerty said:
I am glad that Tom was able to provide some insight from the Pastoral Theology side......

As an education major, I always thought that most of the teaching was pretty light-weight  in the Bible classes.  They seemed to scratch the surface, but not delve down into the subject matter.

I too probably had the most in depth Bible classes taught by Grady, and think I remember the "Laodicean" church debacle, that would have been about 91-92 school year.  I remember sitting in on an evening college class of Grady's one night and he was getting into it and I remember taking some pretty copious notes and found it very interesting.  Later in the year, Bro. Hyles "addressed" the issue.

That being said, most of my "theology" was obtained in outside reading rather than in the class which required it.
Click to expand...

I did my undergrad at a school that thought Dallas Seminary was the holy land...so I was thoroughly indoctrinated into the Scofield - Pentecost - Ryrie version of Dispensationalism.

Since then, I have also formulated my current theology from study outside of my formal training.
I'm still a strong Premillennialist, just not the purist I was in college.
 
Izdaari said:
Q: What do you call a pastor who didn't go to seminary?

A: Joel Osteen

Seriously. Nice guy, good motivational speaker, but a theological flyweight. Now, in a similar situation but with an IFB background? You might get a guy with fundamentalist doctrine, but likely to be just as much a theological flyweight as Osteen.
Click to expand...

You make some good points...but I have also heard some real drivel preached by Seminary graduates, so there is no fail safe to assure sound doctrine.
 
To dismiss dispensational theology as somehow untenable is naive, not to mention arrogant.

I'm not about to dismiss Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, or John Gerstner as naive and arrogant.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I do believe some dispensationalists take some of their versions to the extreme.
I am a John MacArthur dispy....a Soteriological Calvinist and an eschatological Pre-millennialist.
Because it is the most logical and follows the most Literalral interpretation of Scripture.

To dismiss dispensational theology as somehow untenable is naive, not to mention arrogant.
Click to expand...

I was raised a dispensational-list but long since abandoned the system. I consider the teaching to be untenable at best. Call me arrogant or naive.... you have to admit it is the most convoluted systematic theology in existence today. MacArthur has done little to change that fact.

The entire doctrine is based on a misunderstand of Ephesians 1:10 and more specifically..... the combining of the words οικονομιαν and καιρων.

For once in my life...  I would really love a dispensational premillenialist to admit.....that they have no idea when "this generation" is actually going to be fulfilled. (in light of their respective system).

I'm not kicking anyone. We are all wrong at some point in our theology.... even if we don't consider ourselves to be wrong.
 
Ransom said:
To dismiss dispensational theology as somehow untenable is naive, not to mention arrogant.

I'm not about to dismiss Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, or John Gerstner as naive and arrogant.
Click to expand...

I am very familiar with Spurgeons' views....he was a 'historic Premillennialist'.
He believed in a tribulation period and thought the Antichrist religious system was the catholic church. He also believed in a literal millennial reign.

Hardly dismissive....
 
christundivided said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
I do believe some dispensationalists take some of their versions to the extreme.
I am a John MacArthur dispy....a Soteriological Calvinist and an eschatological Pre-millennialist.
Because it is the most logical and follows the most Literalral interpretation of Scripture.

To dismiss dispensational theology as somehow untenable is naive, not to mention arrogant.
Click to expand...

I was raised a dispensational-list but long since abandoned the system. I consider the teaching to be untenable at best. Call me arrogant or naive.... you have to admit it is the most convoluted systematic theology in existence today. MacArthur has done little to change that fact.

The entire doctrine is based on a misunderstand of Ephesians 1:10 and more specifically..... the combining of the words οικονομιαν and καιρων.

For once in my life...  I would really love a dispensational premillenialist to admit.....that they have no idea when "this generation" is actually going to be fulfilled. (in light of their respective system).

I'm not kicking anyone. We are all wrong at some point in our theology.... even if we don't consider ourselves to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I mention MacArthur because he's much more intelligent and knowledgeable than most of the critics of his position....IHHO.

I have no idea what you believe, but have considered other theological and eschatological perspectives. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the correct belief system, according to you....
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Ransom said:
To dismiss dispensational theology as somehow untenable is naive, not to mention arrogant.

I'm not about to dismiss Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, or John Gerstner as naive and arrogant.
Click to expand...

I am very familiar with Spurgeons' views....he was a 'historic Premillennialist'.
He believed in a tribulation period and thought the Antichrist religious system was the catholic church. He also believed in a literal millennial reign.
Click to expand...

Prove it. A few Spurgeon quotes will suffice.

Spurgeon was probabily a partial preterist..... John Gill's works had rather large affect upon Spurgeon. It seems that everyone wants to claim Spurgeon for something...... I doubt very seriously you can begin to trun Spurgeon into a dispenstional premillenialist.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I have no idea what you believe, but have considered other theological and eschatological perspectives. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the correct belief system, according to you....
Click to expand...

How about telling us what generation is represented in

Luk 21:32  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

or "this generation"..

If this is literal representative of a generation associated with the physical descendants of the Jewish nation of Israel.... Then name this generation??? To my knowledge... time has already run out on all the premillenial generations to be accomplished before the "millenial regin" associated with "premillienial" doctrine.

Please enlighten me. :)

I do believe Israel is accomplished in the Church. This doesn't mean I reject that God could and does deal with natural Israel in some ways not limited to the "Church".
 
Tarbaby said:

Hardly dismissive....

Spurgeon had nothing good to say about J. N. Darby, his theology, or his Brethren disciples. He had no issue with Benjamin Newton, one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren movement; nor with George Mueller, whom he counted as a friend: it was the Darbyite faction that he objected to because of their theology. In his notes on commentaries in Commenting an Commentaries, Spurgeon is instantly dismissive of any work associated with Darbyism. For example: "The name of the writer sufficiently indicates the character of the book," he says of Darby's commentary on Daniel; and on his commentary on the Psalms, he says, "Too mystical for ordinary minds. If the author would write in plain English his readers would probably discover that there is nothing very valuable in his remarks."

He was, in fact, a covenant theologian: his modified Baptist Confession of Faith makes it clear that he retained the same view of the covenants found in the Westminster Confession: that a covenant of works was made with Adam, which he broke at the Fall, leading to a covenant of grace.

Premillennialist Spurgeon may have been (as am I), but he was no Dispensationalist, or a friend of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top