The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Looking for Artcle on Dispensationalsm

I am looking for a fairly short easy to read article that shows what is wrong with Dispensationalism.

Hopefully I can use it to show others who embrace that system because that is the only position that they know about.

Tom

Now Tom I think your going to have trouble with that request. Reason why is that Dispensationalism has broken into so many different branches that you may face something I did when I brought a short concise article to a pastor I knew who asked me why I didn't hold to it. He looked at my article's list of objections and said: "We don't believe/teach that anymore"

To say that I was nonplussed would be an understatement. But it seems my arguments were for a group of hyperdispensationalists. So know the group Tom.

Peter

You are correct about there being different branches of dispensationalism.
In the last case I dealt with a person that talked about 144,000 Jews who remain after the rapture to evangelize the world.
But isn't there a general belief that all or most dispensationalists share in common?

Tom

Tom,

You didn't find anything of interest/use HERE?

Pilgrim all of those are great sources the trouble is Tom's dispensational opponent would probably claim that since these are written by Reformed people they still haven't shook themselves completely free of Rome's influence regarding eschatology. Which is a base canard without a doubt.

Tom right now the golden boy among dispensationalists is Michael Vlach if you really want to answer your dispie friend read his stuff on Dispensationalism then hunker down and point out the errors.

Pete,

It may be the case that Tom's opponent might use that argument, i.e., the articles have a Roman influence, which historically is rather absurd since the ECF held to A/Post millennialism as did some of the Reformers who were more than aware of Rome's errors and thus not wanting to repeat them. However, regardless, there is no reason why the CONTENTS of good biblical Amillennial polemics can't be used in its defense. If the defense is biblically sound, then it stands firm on its own regardless of the attacks against it, eh? Of course, the wrong approach IMHO is to simply provide links to the articles themselves if there is reason to believe that the response would be as you suggested. It is incumbent upon us as individuals to be ready to give a reason for the hope that resides in us and not simply provide a litany of links to articles. The Spirit works through OUR testimony of the truth no less than that of a scholar. We should STUDY those writings so that we can personally defend the faith as we have been enabled and not function simply as a parrot.

Pilgrim

Though those articles were very good, I am not sure they are quite what I was looking for.
Though to be honest I only looked at a few of them and intend to look at all of them, I was hoping for something that is a little shorter pointing the reader directly to the problems that Dispensationalism has.
I am a little scater brained lately (more so than normal ) because I have been very busy helping out with my daughter's wedding. Hopefully now that she is married I can spend a little more time researching this matter.
Perhaps in my business I have missed something among the articles you provided? If so I apologize in advance.

Tom

Pete

Though you are right that many might claim that since the articles were written by Reformed people, they would claim that they don't have merrit because of the reasons you gave.
However I don't believe that you can say that about all Dispensationalists. Would John MacArthur use that excuse? As much as I disagree with MacArthur on this issue, I doubt he would use that as an excuse; but then again after what he said about Calvinists who are not Dispensationalists, it would not surprise me.

Tom

In that case, I would highly recommend this one: What is Literal Interpretation?, by Dr. Vern Poythress.

This is something that I have struggled with for years, not because I don't understand these doctrines. But because I have found that when I try to communicate what I believe; I have found that in many cases it becomes obvious that the person does not understand what I am trying to say.

What I have found that is fairly helpful in my case is getting people to read or view things that communicate what I am trying to say.
One example of this is with a friend of mine. I had been trying to communicate what I believed about the doctrines of grace to him for quite some time with very little success. I was almost ready to give up, when I remembered that I had a DVD called 'Amazing Grace- the History and Theology of Calvinism'.
My friend and I viewed this DVD together and a light went on in his head and he said "that is not what I was telling him." When in reality it was exactly what I was trying to tell him all along.
To make a long story short, my friend now embraces Calvinism. In talking to other Calvinists I have found that I am definately not alone when it comes to communication problems.
Now I am certainly trying to sharpen up my knowledge of how to communicate what I believe. But, the reality is sometimes it is better to let others who are great communicaters do it for me.

This is mainly my reason for starting this particular thread; I am hoping that it will be a spring board to some solid dialogue. Especially considering when it comes to eschatology I don't have a solid enough grasp on the subject to communicate it effectively.

Tom

Well Tom I know that some of his guys (although I should probably qualify that and say Pyromaniacs) have used that statement when in discussion with Tom Chantry. So would he? Don't know, could he sure.

Tom,

I was searching on Google for something that might help you and found this link to the Monergism website. There are numerous links to other websites with various sized articles countering Dispy and Premil beliefs. Hope something in there is useful to you:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Dispensationalism/

Good article and one that I think I will use if the opportunity presents itself.

I have another question that I hope you can shed a little light on.

The person I was talking to mentioned 144,000 Jews who are left after the rapture to proclaim the Gospel.
I am personally not all that familiar (though I have heard of it) with this particular teaching and wondered where they get this particular belief.
Also, how would you answer someone who said that to you?


Tom

The number 144,000 (12 times 12 times a thousand) represents the complete number of all the saints. It is not a literal figure, nor does it represent only Jewish saints. The number represents company of kings and priests (Rev 5:10) in their destined role. There is no distinction made between saints of Jewish descent and those of non-Jewish descent in the passage at all. Those who claim that these are literally 12,000 individual Jews from each of the twelve tribes are saying much more than the biblical text does - adding human invention to God's word.

-Robin

A problem that comes up often dealing with DF (Dispensational Futurists) is thier ignorance of the basics and history of the system. The average DF believer doesnt know the Lord's Prayer is law and unfit for the church. The DF ever excited over todays headlines from the Middle East doesnt know that nearly every DF teacher writing before WWII claimed the church would and had to be raptured before the birth of modern Israel. Most of them dont know that only a decade or two ago the KOG/KOH distinction was a major plank of the party. But as you no doubt have experienced that same brother can give you 88 reasons why the rapture really is just around the corner ,,this time.
Its sad but it can be much the same ae dealing with Mormons.

H


BTW I have a 1917 Scofield Reference Bible (SRB) should any one need a reference for a particualr note.