Were you taught Dispensationalism in Bible College or Seminary?

[Ransom]

CU said:

Prove it. A few Spurgeon quotes will suffice.

No, this one's pretty conclusive, actually. Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist, but not a Dispensational (pretribulational) premillennialist. The author, Dennis Swanson (himself a Dispensationalist and on the faculty at The Master's Seminary) concludes:

Spurgeon was most certainly premillennial, although not dispensational. Though in our own age this has been disputed, during his own lifetime his position was well known and attested to. . . .

While Spurgeon must be identified as a premillennialist, he is most accurately described as a premillennialist of the "historic" or "covenantal" variety. He adhered to every major point which identifies this position, while certain features of dispensational premillennialism (e.g. the timing of the rapture and the nature of the millennium) were in opposition to his biblical and theological understanding.

The full document is quite lengthy, but definitive, and worth reading.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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....

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".

You tell me how long a 'generation' is...in the Biblical sense.
The time that Israel spent in Egypt, a period of about 400-440 years, was, according to Genesis 15:15-17, four generations!
Genesis 15:16 in particular:

 

[T-Bone]

In answer to the OP...my experience with either Bible University or Seminary professors in the SBC is that the majority are Historical Pre-mil...there were some that were A-mil and that number is growing...and there were some that were Dispy Pre-mil and that number seems to be shrinking.

Personally, I am Dispy Pre-mil in my thinking, but would not be so to the extent of rejecting the Historical Premil view...I do see a future prophetic plan for Israel...while at the same time believing the church is made up of believing Jews and Gentiles...cannot stand the dual covenant theology of Hagee nor the hyper-dispy views concerning Paul's gospel somehow different than Jesus.  Must reject A-mil as I believe in literal millenial kingdom and totally reject preterism as heresy.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In answer to the OP...my experience with either Bible University or Seminary professors in the SBC is that the majority are Historical Pre-mil...there were some that were A-mil and that number is growing...and there were some that were Dispy Pre-mil and that number seems to be shrinking.

Personally, I am Dispy Pre-mil in my thinking, but would not be so to the extent of rejecting the Historical Premil view...I do see a future prophetic plan for Israel...while at the same time believing the church is made up of believing Jews and Gentiles...cannot stand the dual covenant theology of Hagee nor the hyper-dispy views concerning Paul's gospel somehow different than Jesus.  Must reject A-mil as I believe in literal millenial kingdom and totally reject preterism as heresy.

I am a dispensational minimalist but a dispensationalist!

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel.
I think that means that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes.

I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation but I do believeScripture teaches God has planned a future for Israel.

 

[Winston]

On the 666, I was PMed by someone who attended Hyles Anderson about by interaction with Smellin Coffee.
They indicated that they were not taught Dispensationalism.

That seems so odd to me...how can a college training pastors not teach some basis for Biblical interpretation and eschatology? I would assume HA would be dispensational as opposed to Covenant.

What were you taught?

That is a strange statement. They used the Scofield Reference Bible for years, didn't they? And that is the epitome of Dispensationalism.

I was taught it in Sunday School first, then read a lot of books on my own. Once class in college, and I was a Ryrie type Dispensationalist for many many years.

 

[Ransom]

Tarheel said:

I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation but I do believeScripture teaches God has planned a future for Israel.

You don't have to be a Dispensationalist to believe that (cf. Spurgeon and John Piper).

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Tarheel said:

I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation but I do believeScripture teaches God has planned a future for Israel.

You don't have to be a Dispensationalist to believe that (cf. Spurgeon and John Piper).

I'm an optimistic dispensationalist....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

On the 666, I was PMed by someone who attended Hyles Anderson about by interaction with Smellin Coffee.
They indicated that they were not taught Dispensationalism.

That seems so odd to me...how can a college training pastors not teach some basis for Biblical interpretation and eschatology? I would assume HA would be dispensational as opposed to Covenant.

What were you taught?

That is a strange statement. They used the Scofield Reference Bible for years, didn't they? And that is the epitome of Dispensationalism.

I was taught it in Sunday School first, then read a lot of books on my own. Once class in college, and I was a Ryrie type Dispensationalist for many many years.

Which is why I was surprised.
Tom and qwerty have shed some light on that, they were dispensational in belief, but evidently didn't include it thier cirriculium.

 

[Bob H]

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

I'm not about to dismiss.........John Gerstner as naive and arrogant.

All one here has to do is read his book and decide for themselves. One might come to a different conclusion. He does what the title of the book implies. But that's just my opinion.


PS: I got a nice hardback and I'm keeping it for myself 

 

[christundivided]

CU said:

Prove it. A few Spurgeon quotes will suffice.

No, this one's pretty conclusive, actually. Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist, but not a Dispensational (pretribulational) premillennialist. The author, Dennis Swanson (himself a Dispensationalist and on the faculty at The Master's Seminary) concludes:

Spurgeon has written so many sermons/works that there is evidence either way. Often his writings as a whole seem to contradict one another. When I say partial preterist.... this doesn't mean that he excluded a future millennial reign. I honesty believe Spurgeon never considered such views to be mutually exclusive. I feel the same way.

 

[christundivided]

You tell me how long a 'generation' is...in the Biblical sense.
The time that Israel spent in Egypt, a period of about 400-440 years, was, according to Genesis 15:15-17, four generations!
Genesis 15:16 in particular:

 

[Fresh Air]

... and as you probably know I am rather skeptical of the book of "Revelation". At best.... I consider it have been corrupted early in the 1 century.

That's a little convenient, what, for one who rejects a literal approach to prophecy...

 

[AresMan]

CU said:

Prove it. A few Spurgeon quotes will suffice.

No, this one's pretty conclusive, actually. Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist, but not a Dispensational (pretribulational) premillennialist. The author, Dennis Swanson (himself a Dispensationalist and on the faculty at The Master's Seminary) concludes:

Spurgeon has written so many sermons/works that there is evidence either way. Often his writings as a whole seem to contradict one another. When I say partial preterist.... this doesn't mean that he excluded a future millennial reign. I honesty believe Spurgeon never considered such views to be mutually exclusive. I feel the same way.

Sure, an historic premillennialist can indeed be a partial preterist. A partial preterist believes that the "time of Jacob's trouble" was during the first century with the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. An historic premillennialist can believe this, and also believe that there is a "gap" between this and the future imminent millennial kingdom, where the present can also have "tribulations."

The difference between an historic premillennialist and an amillennialist (who are both partial preterists) is that an amillennialist believes that the "millennial kingdom" is both already but not yet, and is not literally 1000 years. It began with Christ's resurrection and ascension to heaven where He now reigns. It will end with His second coming to judge the world (with His saints). Then, the end happens and eternity unfolds. The historic premillenialist also believes in the already-but-not-yet aspect of the kingdom, but that the "church age" is the gathering of citizens for the coming millennial kingdom that He will establish on earth for a literal 1000 year period. Then, eternity will unfold.

 

[Reformed Guy]

My thoughts on some things expressed in this thread:

-- As already pointed out, a "future" for ethnic Israel is not limited to Dispensationalism.  Most Postmillenialists see a "future" as well.  Romans 11 tells of their future conversion under the gospel-- a "grafting" back in to the ONE body which consists of-- and only of-- those with saving faith in Christ.

-- I am NOT a Dispensationalist and I have FULL confidence in the integrity of Revelation-- as I do in all of the Scripture.

-- My biggest problem with Dispensationalism is it's fatal flaw-- an unwillingness to accept the NT's "plain" interpretation of OT prophecies.  When the inspired writers of the NT give us an interpretation of OT prophecies and symbols, there is no need to look for another, more-literal, interpretation.  Several instances of this has been mentioned already.  The first rule of interpretation must be that 'Scripture is its own best interpreter."  Not some artificial "literal" grid that it is forced through.  If you read Ryrie and others closely, you will see that they insist that the OT must stand alone, apart from the NT, when it comes to interpreting prophecies from the OT.  But does not the OT, and all it's prophecies, symbols, types, etc point to Christ?  In HIM are ALL the promises yeah and amen.  In HIM are the Covenants fulfilled.

--Dispensationalism claims to bring "Unity" to the Bible.  But the "Unity" that it brings is dis-jointed, un-natural, dis-connected.  Think of seeing a full-grown oak tree-- mature and fully developed.  Close by there is a young sprout-- just a seedling.  When I see the young-seedling I see an entire oak tree.  It will be developed over time-- it's full characteristics will be slowly developed and revealed.  But at only a few inches high, it is not something less than a complete oak tree.

The Dispensational scheme would force us to look at the mature oak and surmise that it developed in dis-connected, disjointed parts.  First revealed was a fully grown stump.  In a later dispensation was added a fully developed trunk.  In another dispenstion. limbs got stuck on.  Then came branches, then leaves, then acorns-- each added separately and distinctly.  There was no organic growth from one phase-- or dispensation- to the next.  What kind of unity is that?

When I look at the unfolding of scripture revelation, I see a seed growing into a sprout gradually developing and being revealed until the time of the revelation of a full grown, mature tree.  That is to see true unity of Scripture.  It is to see scripture unfold in a natural, unified, organic sense.

 

[AresMan]

My thoughts on some things expressed in this thread:

-- As already pointed out, a "future" for ethnic Israel is not limited to Dispensationalism.  Most Postmillenialists see a "future" as well.  Romans 11 tells of their future conversion under the gospel-- a "grafting" back in to the ONE body which consists of-- and only of-- those with saving faith in Christ.

But, the covenantal view is very different from the dispensational view. The covenantal view sees an "organic" relationship between true Israel and the church. The Israel of God and the church are either one and the same or are still ontologically in the same body that Paul speaks about (Eph 2-3). Covenantalism does not grant promises to anyone for their ethnic heritage if it is not combined with saving faith. Dispensationalism would make Israel and the church entirely distinct, such that Israel has its own destiny and has people of God and people of the devil, and that the visible church also has people of God and people of the devil.

An historic (or covenant) premillennial position would make Israel and the church ontologically the same. The millennial kingdom may shift the number of God's elect more ethnically to physical descendants of Jacob, but Jew and Gentile would still be equal in privilege and bona fide members of Israel. Dispensational premillennialism would put "the church" in heaven with the ontologically distinct ethnic Israel on the earth for the millennium. Ethnic Israelites would, once again, have the preeminence, and Gentile believers would be "second-class citizens" who would have access to the New Jerusalem only through the aid of Israel who would dwell there.

-- I am NOT a Dispensationalist and I have FULL confidence in the integrity of Revelation-- as I do in all of the Scripture.

A-meyahn.

-- My biggest problem with Dispensationalism is it's fatal flaw-- an unwillingness to accept the NT's "plain" interpretation of OT prophecies.  When the inspired writers of the NT give us an interpretation of OT prophecies and symbols, there is no need to look for another, more-literal, interpretation.  Several instances of this has been mentioned already.  The first rule of interpretation must be that 'Scripture is its own best interpreter."  Not some artificial "literal" grid that it is forced through.  If you read Ryrie and others closely, you will see that they insist that the OT must stand alone, apart from the NT, when it comes to interpreting prophecies from the OT.  But does not the OT, and all it's prophecies, symbols, types, etc point to Christ?  In HIM are ALL the promises yeah and amen.  In HIM are the Covenants fulfilled.

Yup. Dispensationalists insist on a "literal-normal" or a "historical-grammatical" method of interpretation, but even they cannot be consistent with this for their own hermeneutic. Even they would have to admit that prophecy can often be characterized by poetic and apocryphal language that cannot always be taken literally.
Dispensationalists would be forced to surmise that the apostles played "loose" with the OT, and that many of their quotations were "applications" and not authoritative statements of fulfillment.

--Dispensationalism claims to bring "Unity" to the Bible.  But the "Unity" that it brings is dis-jointed, un-natural, dis-connected.  Think of seeing a full-grown oak tree-- mature and fully developed.  Close by there is a young sprout-- just a seedling.  When I see the young-seedling I see an entire oak tree.  It will be developed over time-- it's full characteristics will be slowly developed and revealed.  But at only a few inches high, it is not something less than a complete oak tree.

The Dispensational scheme would force us to look at the mature oak and surmise that it developed in dis-connected, disjointed parts.  First revealed was a fully grown stump.  In a later dispensation was added a fully developed trunk.  In another dispenstion. limbs got stuck on.  Then came branches, then leaves, then acorns-- each added separately and distinctly.  There was no organic growth from one phase-- or dispensation- to the next.  What kin of unity is that?

Dispensationalists argue that the Bible contains many statements that are clearly contradictory in nature... unless one "properly" understands the whole of the Bible "dispensationally." In other words, the only way to accept that the Bible is inspired by the same God as a whole is to understand that its legitimate contradictions exist only in that they live in separate, independent parts. For example, Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, but James says that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith only. Dispensationalists (mostly "Pauline" ones) would say that the two statements are entirely contradictory and are both true, but they are addressed to two separate groups upon which God has placed separate conditions. The hypers with which I deal say that Abraham was "saved twice"--first by faith alone before the covenant of circumcision to be the father of Gentile believers, and second by faith+works under the eternal covenant of circumcision that binds Israel. These two writers were simply referencing the specific, separate salvation of Abraham that applied to their audience. 

When I look at the unfolding of scripture revelation, I see a seed growing into a sprout gradually developing and being revealed until the time of the revelation of a full grown, mature tree.  That is to see true unity of Scripture.  It is to see scripture unfold in a natural, unified, organic sense.

Absolutely. The dispensationalist will yell and scream about perpetual land promises and the literal names of places described in OT prophecies to argue that the New Covenant has not yet been inaugurated, and the church is not really part of it. We're only "ministers of the new covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6) because we "minister the Spirit" now Who was promised in the New Covenant, you see.

 

[christundivided]

... and as you probably know I am rather skeptical of the book of "Revelation". At best.... I consider it have been corrupted early in the 1 century.

That's a little convenient, what, for one who rejects a literal approach to prophecy...

It has never been convenient to my thinking.

I believe in a mix of literal and figurative interpretation of prophecy. I remember the first time I read John Gill's comments on the "new city" and the "golden streets". It was an enlightening experience. It is impossible to take such literally. Pure gold so clear as to be transparent could never be used a "road material" Nor could a gate made of solid pearl become a "working" gate in any city.

Don't you agree?

 

[Izdaari]

I believe in a mix of literal and figurative interpretation of prophecy. I remember the first time I read John Gill's comments on the "new city" and the "golden streets". It was an enlightening experience. It is impossible to take such literally. Pure gold so clear as to be transparent could never be used a "road material" Nor could a gate made of solid pearl become a "working" gate in any city.

With a sufficiently advanced technology (indistinguishable from magic according to Clarke's Law) it could work. And there are no tech secrets God doesn't know.

But I agree. I have a hunch that passage is not meant to be taken completely literally.

 

[Fresh Air]

It has never been convenient to my thinking.

I believe in a mix of literal and figurative interpretation of prophecy. I remember the first time I read John Gill's comments on the "new city" and the "golden streets". It was an enlightening experience. It is impossible to take such literally. Pure gold so clear as to be transparent could never be used a "road material" Nor could a gate made of solid pearl become a "working" gate in any city.

Don't you agree?

I agree that a literal hermeneutic still allows for figures of speech/types, etc. I disagree that you can know what a pearl/gold can/cannot be used for in heaven. I emphatically disagree that anyone has the right to proclaim a spiritualized interpretation of prophecy when there is no grounds for such given by the Author.

 

[christundivided]

It has never been convenient to my thinking.

I believe in a mix of literal and figurative interpretation of prophecy. I remember the first time I read John Gill's comments on the "new city" and the "golden streets". It was an enlightening experience. It is impossible to take such literally. Pure gold so clear as to be transparent could never be used a "road material" Nor could a gate made of solid pearl become a "working" gate in any city.

Don't you agree?

I agree that a literal hermeneutic still allows for figures of speech/types, etc. I disagree that you can know what a pearl/gold can/cannot be used for in heaven. I emphatically disagree that anyone has the right to proclaim a spiritualized interpretation of prophecy when there is no grounds for such given by the Author.

You would have to admit.......such thoughts would be a stretch of the imagination.

Do you believe Gold or Pearl has suffered from the curse of mankind upon the earth? At the very least, you would have to consider a literal heaven is made of varying components with varying characteristics/properties.

Do you believe light (in heaven) will cease to fade away or will there will be an endless supply of light? One perspective is correct and one is not. It is very hard for me to believe that Gold or Pearl will be anything other what it is now. Free of impurities... probably. Yet, we know that Gold (itself) has certain physical characteristics. I don't see such changing in eternity.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The 'building materials' of the New Jerusalem are the least of my hermenuetical problems.
I don't understand why some have such a problem with seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible.

A Premillennial position is, to me, the only logical and intelligently honest way to interpret the whole body of prophetic scripture.
And, dispensationalism is the most logical way to carry out a consistent Premillennial hermeneutic.

There are problems with other systems as well....infant baptism is the circumcision of the old covenant, but we baptize male and female babies.....
There is no rapture....if not, is 1 Thess. 4 talking about the Second Coming where we meet Christ in the air on His way to setting his feet on the Mt of Olives?

Just sayin....