Dispensationalism (D'ism?) Any one willing to post a definition? Please do so.

[oatmeal]

As many threads there are on this subject, I thought I might ask for definitions of Dispensationalism.

So, will anyone post their definition of D'ism?

or a definition of D'ism whether they are for or against it?

If we could keep it short, as in say 50 words or less.

My own understanding of this subject I will attend to later, though I have expressed them in the past.

 

[oatmeal]

Seems like if people are going to debate the issue, it would be useful and profitable to clearly define the issue at hand.

 

[Interplanner]

A system of organizing the Bible that believes there are two distinct--even skew--programs. One is that God was going to come in Christ, and did, to deal with the debt of sin. The 2nd one is that Israel would have a kingdom or state on earth in perpetuity. Since that was seriously disrupted in 70 AD, a D'ist believes fervently in its restoration.

 

[Tambora]

As many threads there are on this subject, I thought I might ask for definitions of Dispensationalism.

So, will anyone post their definition of D'ism?

or a definition of D'ism whether they are for or against it?

If we could keep it short, as in say 50 words or less.

My own understanding of this subject I will attend to later, though I have expressed them in the past.

Dispensationalism is the systematic dividing of scripture when a progression or change is revealed resulting in different stages of history.
Basically just recognizing the different historical periods that operated differently than they did before.

All things continue as they have always been is a poor conclusion when evaluating scripture.
Things change.

MAD is a specific subset of Dispensation, as it concentrates on the dispensation change that took place in mid Acts with Paul.

 

[Interplanner]

Seems like if people are going to debate the issue, it would be useful and profitable to clearly define the issue at hand.

"If" they are going to debate? They have been for 2 years at least here at TOL. When I started, I referred 100x to Ryrie's D'ISM TODAY book because of the chapter he claims is the single distinctive: 2 programs, 2 peoples. (Although Chafer said 'never the twain meet' too). My effort has been to oppose/counter 2P2P. Whereyaben?

 

[patrick jane]

"If" they are going to debate? They have been for 2 years at least here at TOL. When I started, I referred 100x to Ryrie's D'ISM TODAY book because of the chapter he claims is the single distinctive: 2 programs, 2 peoples. (Although Chafer said 'never the twain meet' too). My effort has been to oppose/counter 2P2P. Whereyaben?

You just received a definition, what are you debating?

 

[oatmeal]

A system of organizing the Bible that believes there are two distinct--even skew--programs. One is that God was going to come in Christ, and did, to deal with the debt of sin. The 2nd one is that Israel would have a kingdom or state on earth in perpetuity. Since that was seriously disrupted in 70 AD, a D'ist believes fervently in its restoration.

Thank you

 

[oatmeal]

Dispensationalism is the systematic dividing of scripture when a progression or change is revealed resulting in different stages of history.
Basically just recognizing the different historical periods that operated differently than they did before.

All things continue as they have always been is a poor conclusion when evaluating scripture.
Things change.

MAD is a specific subset of Dispensation, as it concentrates on the dispensation change that took place in mid Acts with Paul.

Thank you

 

[oatmeal]

"If" they are going to debate? They have been for 2 years at least here at TOL. When I started, I referred 100x to Ryrie's D'ISM TODAY book because of the chapter he claims is the single distinctive: 2 programs, 2 peoples. (Although Chafer said 'never the twain meet' too). My effort has been to oppose/counter 2P2P. Whereyaben?

I have noticed that.

I have not participated much in them simply because I am not sure what the debate is about.

Since there are two different definitions posted so far, with only a handful of offerings, I find it interesting that maybe there are more than just two basic definitions.

With two dissimilar definitions, would it be worthwhile to know who is arguing what and why?

I had heard of the one you offered. Except by the initials which does little to define it except to those who are familiar with it

Thanks for you input

 

[patrick jane]

You just received a definition, what are you debating?

This post was meant for [MENTION=12603]oatmeal[/MENTION]

 

[Tambora]

maybe there are more than just two basic definitions.

It can have a broad variety of meanings.
The definitions that are usually associated with bible dispensations is about the differing "ministries" that occurred, rather than just talking about a different era of time.
The differing ways GOD chose to minister to mankind
Such as: Israel had a dispensation of GOD ministering to His people through Judges, and then it changed to a dispensation of GOD ministering to His people through kings and priests.

 

[oatmeal]

This post was meant for [MENTION=12603]oatmeal[/MENTION]

So far, nothing.

There are two definitions so far and they do not resemble each other whatsoever.

So far there are two distinct debates a person could involve themselves in

 

[oatmeal]

It can have a broad variety of meanings.
The definitions that are usually associated with bible dispensations is about the differing "ministries" that occurred, rather than just talking about a different era of time.
The differing ways GOD chose to minister to mankind
Such as: Israel had a dispensation of GOD ministering to His people through Judges, and then it changed to a dispensation of GOD ministering to His people through kings and priests.

Yes, thank you.


I have been taught something similar that makes sense from scripture and from a practical point of view.

By asking a few simple questions, we find out that the policies of God have differed from time to time.

For instance, why are people not in paradise and subject to the commandment to not to eat of the one tree?

Did God change His policies after Adam and Eve sinned?

What law did the people from that time to the law of Moses live by?

Did God change what believers were supposed to believe when God added the law of Moses?

Did Jesus Christ fulfilling the law change what believers are to believe now?

Is this age of grace different than living under the law? Why? Who changed it? Man or God?

The answers point to God adjusting His policies to meet the needs of mankind according to His plan for man's redemption and salvation.

Future events, will they change what God chooses to implement for policies that man needs to follow?

 

[Squeaky]

DISPENSATION OF THE TIMES
(SPIRITUAL LAWS OF THAT TIME PERIOD)

Eph 1:3-14
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth-- in Him.
11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Eph 3:1-5
1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles--
2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,
4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),
5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
Acts 17:29
29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.
(NKJ)
2 Pet 1:4
4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
(NKJ)
2 Pet 1:2-3
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,
3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,
(NKJ)

xxx Dispensation is the spiritual laws dispenced for a specific time period. And for us in christianity it is to find the Holy Spirit and submit to Him.
In the beginning some of the dispensations-Gen 2-17,Gen 4-7, Gen 27-8, John 15-14. Ro 8-1,2

Rom 8:1-2

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

2 Cor 5:5
5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
(NKJ)

 

[musterion]

DISPENSATIONALISM:

An acknowledgement of the obvious Bible fact that God has dealt differently with different people at different times, demanding the conclusion that not all the Bible applies to everyone at all times.

 

[northwye]

In my experience here,many dispensationalists avoid clearly defining their theology, in part because once you have clear definitions of the theology to compare with relevant scripture, this gives an advantage to opponents of the theology in the ongoing quarrels.

I have quoted the founders of the theology, John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer. TOl dispensationalists do not like this at all, claiming that their theology is different from what the founders say it was.

 

[Tambora]

Did God change what believers were supposed to believe when God added the law of Moses?

I'm just quoting this one question because it can represent how definitions can be misconceived depending on whether you macro or micro it to death.

In the macro sense, one can say GOD's message never changed, in that He always wanted a relationship with His creation - man.
In in micro sense, we see His instructions for a relationship changes.

Another type of example of micro or macro would be like one saying,
"No man is sinless." (That's macro - in a broad sense).
And another pops up and says,
"Jesus was a man and He was sinless". (That micro - in a very limited sense).
Obviously micro was not the context in which the first statement was made, and makes the second statement border on being a strawman response because it is not dealing with the statement in the same type context the first statement was made.


I know you know this, I was just using your post to give the sentiment a little more detail to further the conversation into a healthier way to discuss with others.

 

[Tambora]

I have quoted the founders of the theology, John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer. TOl dispensationalists do not like this at all, claiming that their theology is different from what the founders say it was.

As far as I know, there is no Dispensational Church Creed that all must adhere to in order to be considered a Dispy.

Here's my problem with bringing up what scholars have said, and asking folks here to defend it ......
No one is here to defend old scholars beliefs, who are not here to defend or explain what their heartfelt intent is for each thing they say about their understanding of scripture.
Not a one of those scholars have authority over us.
We defend our own beliefs and what we mean about our understanding of scripture.

So when someone comes along and say something like, "Well you must not believe in dispensationalism because you don't agree with everything Darby says about it", we see that as a foolish strawman argument (which it is).
The more we can get out of the habit of making strawmen arguments, the more productive discussion will become.

That's general advice for all, and not directed at you personally.

 

[Squeaky]

As far as I know, there is no Dispensational Church Creed that all must adhere to in order to be considered a Dispy.

Here's my problem with bringing up what scholars have said, and asking folks here to defend it ......
No one is here to defend old scholars beliefs, who are not here to defend or explain what their heartfelt intent is for each thing they say about their understanding of scripture.
Not a one of those scholars have authority over us.
We defend our own beliefs and what we mean about our understanding of scripture.

So when someone comes along and say something like, "Well you must not believe in dispensationalism because you don't agree with everything Darby says about it", we see that as a foolish strawman argument (which it is).
The more we can get out of the habit of making strawmen arguments, the more productive discussion will become.

That's general advice for all, and not directed at you personally.

I said
If you don't mind could I ask you what a strawman argument is?

 

[Tambora]

I said
If you don't mind could I ask you what a strawman argument is?

Sure.
It's called a stawman to give the imagery of making an image (scarecrow/strawman/dummy) to attack rather than the real thing.
Or to attack a concept that is out of context of what was presented.

In other word, you misrepresent and distort what they say, and then attack the distortion you made up as if you are actually countering what they actually said.
But you are not countering what they actually said; but are countering your own distortion of what they said.
You are attacking an image (strawman) you built yourself.