Talk:Dispensationalism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:49, 21 June 2005

Latest revision as of 13:04, 18 March 2025

(398 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}

== Separate section for tie to Judaism? ==

{{not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in [[Apologetics]]/[[Polemic]]s}}

It strikes me as odd that all dispensationalists should be included with those who hold to a "special" tie to modern Judaism. While it is true that Jews are held to have a continuing role in God's work in history, it should not be stated that all dispensationalists view the current Israeli nation as an explicit example of that.--[[User:Eleuthero|eleuthero]] 20:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |1=

{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=High |theology-work-group=yes |theology-importance=high |latter-day-saint-movement=yes |latter-day-saint-movement-importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Religion |importance=Low |NRM=yes |NRMImp=High }}

}}

{{archives |search=yes }}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(100d)

|archive = Talk:Dispensationalism/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== ''Peak and decline'' section merely reports a blip ==

----

'''(1)''' The ''Peak and decline'' section contradicts the rest of the article, which in the lead begins by identifying the "establishment of Bible Institutes" (not "acceptance by seminaries") as a major factor of the spread of Dispensationalism. The fact that Dispensationalism was not being taught in seminaries is the ''raison d'être'' of Dallas Theological Seminary; it was necessary to found a seminary from the Fundamentalist grass-roots up. Dispensationalism only spread to other seminaries when graduates from DTS were hired. To say that Dispensationalism ''as a whole'' is "in decline" because professors in seminaries prefer covenant theology--what is this? Wishful thinking by the enemies of Dispensationalism? Totally lacks NPOV! If author Daniel G. Hummel fails to understand the grass-roots nature of Dispensationalism to begin with, he is not a reliable source about anything other than the groves of academe. '''(2)''' The history of Dispensationalism is still playing out; it's too early to say that it has "peaked" or "is in decline". '''(3)''' A proper title for this section would be '''Recent decline in academic circles'''; that, and no more. Wikipedia should not be a playground for seminary professors who are worried about Dispensationalism. The "decline" may be due to graduates of DTS only being given seminary jobs only on the condition that they agree to renounce Dispensationalism. Weasels, weasels everywhere! We are not told the reasons ''why'' these seminary professors changed views. (The "pop" of '''Pop prophecy''' is also a weasel word, but at least it alliterates well.) [[User:Vagabond nanoda|Vagabond nanoda]] ([[User talk:Vagabond nanoda|talk]]) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I started out surprised by the claim that a post-millenialist could be listed as a dispensationalist ([[Jonathan Edwards (theology)|Edwards]]); but as I went to address this issue I found other things that I couldn't let go, and it all turned into a significant re-write of key sections. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]] 22:07, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:Well we need solid sources that the theology is declining amongst evangelicals who aren't academics. —'''[[User:Confession0791|Confession0791]]''' '''[[User_talk:Confession0791|^talk]]''' 01:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

----

"Dispensationalism has had a number of (arguably) positive effects on Protestantism..." On what basis are they arguably positive? Additionally, the article assumes that an anti-Roman Catholic view is a negative. Personally I agree with the assessment that these effects are positive, but that assessment is not NPOV. Including the "(arguably)" doesn't really fix the problem. I removed the "(arguably) positive". This leaves the statements about the content and impact of the teaching intact, without statements as to its value.

== Better to define a dispensation as an economy/stewardship, rather than an age ==

In the paragraph which began with "On the other hand, it is a curious fact that dispensationalists tend..." I simply removed the curious fact bit and instead started the paragraph with "On the other hand, Dispensationalists tend..." I don't actually know if the remaining statement is true or not, but it is at least something that could be proven or backed up by referencing some action by Dispensationalists somewhere, whereas "curious fact" is just an opinion (which might be right or not, but it is opinion).

The article may base the definition of dispensation largely upon Bass & Mauro, two non-dispensationalists, as an age. But this confuses the special economy (οἰκονομία) with a time period (aiōn) in which the special economy is in effect. As I understand it, King Henry VIII wanted a dispensation from the pope to divorce a wife. In other words, the Catholic right to divorce depended upon the pope granting the king an exception to the general rule. Such a dispensation would have been a special rule applicable only to this king. It would not have been an age, a time period, but a rule, though of course it had a corresponding age (the life of the king). The idea of a dispensation should be considered as the idea that certain particular persons or some particular time period has special rules which are not universally valid, but only apply to those persons or time period, like the animal sacrifices or the diet rules of the Law of Moses -- like Noah's command to build an ark (which is not taken to apply to all men everywhere for all time). But it seems best to use "dispensation" for the special rules, not for the time period, though there be a corresponding age. Do you think that the definition of "dispensation" would be better taken from Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today, rather than from Bass and Mauro? ([[User:Appletonclack|Appletonclack]] ([[User talk:Appletonclack|talk]]) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC))

Later in the same paragraph it mentions that Jerry Falwell and evidently others "have asserted that the Antichrist will be a Jew". I assume that the implication is that the proponents of that position are anti-Semitic. I do not know if they are or not, but their position as stated in this article is not necessarily anti-Semitic. The Antichrist would have to be from some ethnic group, and the mere fact that someone comes from a nationality or ethnicity does not necessarily say anything at all about the entire group. If other statements made by the Dispensationalists show that they move beyond the mere statement that the Antichrist will be a Jew to suggest that reflects on Jews in general, the point would be much stronger. The reverse argument could easily be made that because (I assume) Dispensationalists believe that Jesus and most or all of the earliest apostles were Jews that Dispensationalists are pro-Jewish. It may be that the motivation for saying that the Antichrist will be a Jew is anti-Semitic, but the case is not made here well enough to tell either way. I'm not sure what to do with this, though, so for the moment I'm leaving it alone. Someone should clarify this section.

:I don't think you can reject Bass or Mauro so quickly. Mauro, who actually coined the term "dispensationalism", was a dispensationalist until he became disillusioned with the system. Bass's text is quoting Scofield directly. In the 1917 version of the Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield defined a dispensation as "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" (this is quoted in Bass's text and footnoted there as well). Mauro's text quotes Matthew Francis from ''Rock or Sand, Which?'' stating, "that system of doctrine which divides the history of God's dealings with the world into periods of time, called 'dispensations'" and later (p. 26), he also provides the verbatim Scofield definition. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The next paragraph claims to discuss criticisms of Dispensationalism. However, not all of the criticisms are adequately explained. How specifically is an expectation that social conditions will decline a thing to be criticized? The same applies to distrust of the UN and similar organizations. Maybe the point made here is valid, but if so it isn't adequately presented. It would help to state what in the view of the critics makes these criticisms as opposed to observations about what Dispensationalists teach.

::You are correct on Scofield. Yet to me it makes little difference how Scofield coined a term (if he did). And I think that by 1970, most dispensational scholars were no longer using "dispensation" for a time period. So since this article is not on Scofield per se, it seems to me that the article should be appropriately revised. ([[User:Appletonclack|Appletonclack]] ([[User talk:Appletonclack|talk]]) 17:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC))

:::Re: "{{tq|You are correct on Scofield}}" - I know. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

== One might add a topic to the article on the historical change in meaning of "Dispensation" ==

The statement regarding the Dispensationalist belief that peace will not be attained in the Middle East being inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount is markedly POV, I think, at least as it reads now. I would like to hear an explanation of the inconsistencies. In the meantime I left it alone in the hopes that someone will expand on the criticism in a way that makes it clear that it is reporting on the criticism rather than presenting the view of the author of the article.

The one could show how the consensus on the meaning has changed over time, including, for example, the definition in the New Scofield Reference Bible. ([[User:Appletonclack|Appletonclack]] ([[User talk:Appletonclack|talk]]) 18:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC))

== The most dangerous quote ==

Finally, my understanding of the Dispensationalist view on the Jews is that it teaches that the only way to salvation is through Jesus, and that Jesus is the Messiah anticipated by Judaism. The position therefore is that in the end the Jews will accept Jesus as the Messiah. In that case, in the Dispensationist view the Messianic Jews are not a curiousity so much as a precursor of the future of the Jews. The idea is that Messianic Judaism is the completion of Judaism rather than really being a departure from it or even a replacement for it. I have not made any edits based on this, though, because I think it would require major changes to a couple of paragraphs, and I didn't want to do that without hearing about how I'm wrong first. [[User:EditAnon|EditAnon]] 07:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

----

I left this alone for a while because I'm not sure I'm neutral on this point. However, I don't see the inconsistency between the two statements "Almost all dispensationalists reject the idea that a lasting peace can be attained by human effort in the Middle East" and "Blessed are the peacemakers". The dispensationalists would not claim that peacemakers are not blessed, merely that in the particular instance of conflict between Israel and its adversaries that conflict will not come until we reach the next stage of history. To me, there is no logical conflict between the two. I would like to be enlightened, though. I don't hold to the dispensationalist view here, but I don't see that it is inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount. [[User:EditAnon|EditAnon]] 23:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be significant disagreement over whether this sourced and cited quote should be included.

:Jesus presumably blessed peacemakers as an endorsement of human efforts to make peace; this is, of course, not the only statement of Jesus to that effect, only one of the most conspicuous. Dispensationalists teach that at least in this instance, human efforts to achieve peace are impossible. There is a general tendency for dispensationalists to be suspicious of the United Nations and other peace organizations, with their talk about "one world governments" and frequent resort to conspiracy theories. It moreover implies that Christians should look forward to an escalation of tensions in the region, since this may mean that their prophetic timetables are moving forward, and confirm the imminent Rapture and millennial kingdom. As such, in purely practical terms, dispensationalists have had a tendency to endorse Israeli militarism. Dispensationalist politicking seems predicated on the premise that we may as well get rolling towards Armageddon underway. The statement that dispensationalists have been criticized makes little sense without some sense of where the critics are coming from. [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 18:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any thoughts? [[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 21:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

----

:Actually, I don't think it serves the lead well. The source of the quote is John Bowman as noted by Charles Ryrie in his book, ''Dispensationalism''. The quote is ''already'' in the body article under criticism, where it is stated in context. In the lead, it's kind of undue weight because it is not attributed, and it is not in full context. What is in the lead should be a more general summary of the article, not out-of-context quotes. (I'm not sure if I'm the one who put it in the lead, but I'm fairly certain I put it in the article) [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is probably a mistake to describe "date-setting" as an argument against dispensationalism. In fact, one of the major appeals of dispensationalism was that it reconciled the contradictory passages about Jesus' second coming. Jesus would come "like a thief in the night" to rapture the saints without warning, but a host of signs would precede the Battle of Armageddon when Jesus returned to cast down the Antichrist. Although American dispensationalists did expect the world to end soon they were generally very clear that no date could be set--remember that the first generation of American dispensationalists, people like James Brookes, were old enough to remember the Great Disappointment. I'm not a dispensationalist, but I wouldn't lay that particular error at their feet.

::my error. I thought I was looking at the body, because I saw the citation.

::human fallibility.

By the way, I'm a Ph.D. student writing my dissertation on dispensationalism. I would be interested in editing this page (and others on Darby, Scofield, etc.), but don't want to just change a bunch of stuff without warning. [[User:atterlep|atterlep]] 15:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::it does bookend the lead in an unnecessary way. [[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 22:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would say that date-setting is, at minimum, something that many dispensationalists have done in the past, and it's something that's become associated with the movement. There are a number of books --- the best one I've read is called ''When Time Shall Be No More'', but I don't have it handy and forget the author --- that collect the dates; there's another called ''99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Jesus Will Return'' that collects several dispensationalist dates. Hal Lindsey's title is pretty damning in itself, I think. [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 18:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::This suggests to me that some of the criticisms listed as problems with dispensationalism are more criticisms of particular extrapolations from dispensationalism, rather than of dispensationalism itself. There isn't anything inherent in the dispensationalist view that requires any particular dates. Date setting is, however, a trap that a number of highly visible dispensationalists have fallen into, and any article on dispensationalism would be incomplete if it doesn't deal with date setting. That said, while the errors (assuming they are errors) of adherents to dispensationalism says something about the position, it does not necessarily address problems in the core position of dispensationalism itself unless the errors are somehow called for or inherent in the original position. I don't think that the date setting or peacemaker criticisms of dispensationalism are really closely related to the core of the theological position, although as criticisms of some views advanced by dispensationalists they do have some bearing on the topic. : [[User:EditAnon|EditAnon]] 14:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----

I think these changes are better. The use of the Sermon on the Mount does seem like a pretty weak proof-text against dispensationalism. Oddly enough, it always seemed to me that Gal 3 discouraged dispensationalism, for there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus. According to dispensationalists, Jews and Gentiles who accept Jesus as Messiah and Savior have radically different fates: Jews spend the millenium on earth and Christians spend it in heaven. [[User:atterlep|atterlep]] 0:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:On a purely notional level, I might agree. What makes dispensationalism ''scary'' is the impression that dispensationalists might believe that a mid-East Armageddon is both immanent and desirable, and might try to sway political events to force God's hand. In that sense, it's a pretty good argument. [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 19:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Miles, Grist, Moyers Chinese whispers ==

Is the Watt quote in Miles' book demonstrated to be bogus? Or just the Congress context Grist erroneously added? Or TBD? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Urban Legend ==

If this is an urban legend - shouldn't it be removed - I have not heard it before coming to this page and it is not notable enough to refute in an encyclopedic article {{User:Trödel/sig}} 13:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely you are kidding, right?--[[User:Eleuthero|eleuthero]] 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Peace Talks ==

I, personally, am a dispensationalist, so I find the comment that "Blessed are the peacemakers" being contradictory to this position odd. You see, I was under the impression that the comming of the anti-christ was not particularly something that we should seek to avoid, but rather something that is going to happen and thus we should get ready beforehand. This means that while we might look at peace talks with a bit of trepidation and fear, we wouldn't try to PREVENT it, or seek to have said talks stop.

I mean, WE won't be around for the tribulation, and as mentioned, it's easy enough to avoid being around for the tribulation (if we the church do our jobs), and we get to come back AFTER the tribulation and that time will be the most fantastic thing imaginable. I mean, no more sorrow? That sounds pretty awesome to me. So why try to prevent the anti-christ by stopping peace talks? Besides, even if it were a bad thing, stopping the peace talks would be as impossible as making them succeede according to this view... the 2nd comming comes when God decides. If peace in the middle east is dependant on the 2nd comming, then God decides that too, despite our actions and efforts. [[User:198.200.181.205|198.200.181.205]] 23:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see this comment has already been made above (oops). Well, now there's a topic header for this discussion... all the stuff above is kinda disorganized and hard to find if you (like me) are glossing.

So that said, what can we do about this? I understand that wiki, being encyclopedic, needs to list positions, but I think this particular position needs to have the rebuttle position listed as well. The problem here being how to organize said rebuttle. As listed in the article right now, it seems difficult to insert an opposing view to the opposing view section, esspecially since this particular bit may require more than a single sentence explanation. [[User:198.200.181.205|198.200.181.205]] 23:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:''You see, I was under the impression that the comming of the anti-christ was not particularly something that we should seek to avoid, but rather something that is going to happen and thus we should get ready beforehand.'' Perhaps we should do what we can to assist the anti-christ in appearing. After all, it is inevitable, being foretold in prophecy, and his sooner arrival means the sooner arrival of the Lord. Tell you what: I'll handle starting wars and famines, while you invent a false world religion. Jesus will be so proud of us! We did it all to further His kingdom.

::This doesn't seem to me to be so much a criticism of dispensationalism as it is a criticism of some related positions that some dispensationalists might take. There isn't anything in the core ideas of dispensationalism that would suggest that God would be pleased with someone starting wars or false religions. [[User:EditAnon|EditAnon]] 14:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:This sort of thing is exactly what gives me the willies about dispensationalism. Dispensationalist end times prophecy belief, in the end, is the doctrine that at least for the time being, and as far as we can tell, Satan is mightier than God. This excuses us from any duties we might otherwise have had to show charity to our neighbours, or to be the peacemakers that Christ blessed. -- [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 05:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::This is a fundamental misunderstanding of dispensationalism, albeit a common one. Was Satan mightier than God because God allowed Satan to torment Job? The dispensationalist view of the end times is that Satan is allowed to do certain things as a tool in God's overall plan. That doesn't make Satan mightier than God.

::More to the core of the peacemaker criticism, apparent peacemaking is different from real peacemaking. Dispensationalists say that the Anti-Christ will bring an apparent peace to the Middle East, but that the peace is a deception and short-lived. Not all who claim to be peacemakers really are, any more than Neville Chamberlain's proclamation of "peace in our time" averted World War II.

::Finally, one should not confuse a statement that something is inevitable with saying it is desirable. Jesus' statement that there would be wars and rumors of wars was not an endorsement of wars or rumors of wars. [[User:EditAnon|EditAnon]] 14:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Premillennial dispensationalism? ==

Isn't that the more precise term for the subject of this article? That is how it is usually referred to elsewhere. After all, there have been other dispensationalisms before Darby's.

In any case, I have created the new page "Premillennial dispensationalism", and have redirected it to this page.

Also, isn't the term "fundamentalist Christianity" (used in the first sentence of the article) POV? The more neutral term is "Christian fundamentalism". -- [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 06:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: I think you are mistaken. You have your terms reversed. There was no formal dispensationalism before Darby -- however, premillenialism may be traced back to some of the early church fathers. The appropriate contrast would therefore be between Dispensational premillenialism and Historic premillenialism. [[User:Jim Ellis|Jim Ellis]] 17:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

== The NT church as a parenthesis ==

This tenet of dispensationalism is not merely saying that the people of OT times did not anticipate the NT church as suggested by [[User:Eleuthero]]; it is saying that according to dispensational theology, the NT church was a parenthsis (or intercalation) in God's plan which was not anticipated or prophesied about by the OT Scriptures -- and I quote, "dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament," John Walvoord, ''The Millenial Kingdom'' (Zondervan, 1959) p.227. [[User:Jim Ellis|Jim Ellis]] 02:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

<-- signature? -- Good point, however, the article as written would seem to indicate God was not in on the plan either and had to create a stopgap measure to keep things running, which, to my knowledge, no dispensationalist is going to agree to with the possible exception of some who might hold to Open Theism (the two theologies would seem to be at odds however).--[[User:Eleuthero|eleuthero]] 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Literal Hermeneutic ==

I reverted a sentence changed by User:Eleuthero. Here is why. Both Reformed Theology and Dispensationalism claim a "grammatical-historical" hermeneutic -- the term inserted by User:Eleuthero. However, the distinguishing aspect is the dispensationalist claim of consistently "literal" interpretation of OT prophecies referring to Israel. And I quote, "In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism," Charles C. Ryrie, ''Dispensationalism Today'' (Moody Press, 1965) p. 97. [[User:Jim Ellis|Jim Ellis]] 02:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

<--Always good to sign those entries there. -- There has been an update to the the Ryrie book now titled, Dispensationalism. Thank you for the correction, however, "consistent literalism" as in the quote, would be more appropriate than simply "literal". I felt, in making the initial change, that "literal" alone was an incomplete view of Dispensationalism. It holds to a literalism which avoids allegory / spiritualization but also allows for the normal literary sense of symbols/metaphors... --[[User:Eleuthero|eleuthero]] 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Many Branches? ==

It would seem to me to be appropriate to view those who continue to hold to Chafer's Dispensationalism alone distinct from those who would identify with the clarifications made by Ryrie, and then there are those identify with Progressive Dispensationalism. You also have those who have taken an extreme apocalyptic view (such as you will find in some of the stuff on TBN - admittedly, not a developed theology like the other three). Some will argue for a chronological development scheme where Progressive Dispensationalism is merely the next incarnation of the theology, but since many would still hold to the traditional Dispensational viewpoint (be it the developed model by Ryrie or that presented by Chafer or what I have seen in Europe), this would appear to be inaccurate. Since both those who hold to the traditional (or "Revised" if you prefer Blaisings terminology) and the Progressives find many problems with some of the more pronounced apocalyptic viewpoints, it would seem appropriate to make the needed distinction in the article.--[[User:Eleuthero|eleuthero]] 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)