Six Problems Inherent in Dispensational Premillennialism, Part 6: Compromises in Core Doctrine

[Josheb]

Examples of DPism's anticipations:

"Ready to Rebuild" by Thomas Ice - "But Israel’s Third Temple will one day be rebuild as Dr. Price and I showed in our book from Daniel 9:24-27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 11:1-2. Few observers of world events ever thought Israel would become a nation again, but it did occur in 1948. So too, there will be a rebuilt temple by the middle of the seven year tribulation. Frankly, it does not appear that there are any events on the horizon that might lead to Israel’s next Temple. But, since the rapture of the church could happen at any moment, things could certainly change in a big hurry. I have often taught that the long-awaited permission for the Jews to rebuild their Temple will likely be part of the covenant between Antichrist and Israel which starts the seven-year tribulation after the rapture."

"The Coming Last Days Temple" by Randall Price - "In The Coming Last Days Temple, Dr. Randall Price surveys the latest developments and offers a fascinating perspective on how they fit with Bible prophecies about the Temple."

"Will Israel Build a Temple in Jerusalem?" by John Walvoord - "In attempting to solve these problems, one is reminded of all the insuperable difficulties which lay in the way of Israel’s return to their ancient land. History has recorded that Israel did return in spite of the difficulties. It is safe to conclude that future history will also record a rebuilding of the temple. Such a rebuilding could take place before the rapture of the church but not necessary. The temple could be built anytime in the period after the rapture but prior to the desecration of the temple, which will occur three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ to the earth."

"Dispensational Theology" by Michael Vlach - "Dispensationalism is strongly connected to futurism. Futurism is the view that major portions of Bible prophecy await future fulfillment from our current standpoint in history. This includes Daniel 9:27, much of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21), and Revelation 6–22:5. Particularly significant to Dispensationalism is the belief that the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27 will occur in the future. This allegedly involves a coming seven-year period that includes the activity of an antichrist figure who does an abomination event in the Jewish temple. Dispensationalists believe that several events described in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and Revelation 6-19 correspond to the events explained in Daniel 9:27... All dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and the view that that the thousand-year reign (i.e. millennium) of Revelation 20:1-6 is a future earthly kingdom that follows the second coming of Jesus... While not all premillennialists are dispensationalists, all dispensationalists are premillennialists. What often distinguishes dispensational premillennialists from non-dispensational premillennialists is the dispensational belief that Israel will be restored as a nation with a functional role of leadership and service to other nations during the coming millennial kingdom."

From the Temple Institute website: "In our own times, the commandment of the red heifer takes on more and more significance. For without it, the Divine service of the Holy Temple cannot be resumed... Israel is clearly moving towards the time when the Holy Temple on Mount Moriah - the prophesied Third Temple - will be rebuilt. More and more Jews are returning to the Torah, to the G-d of Israel and the ways of our fathers. And more and more are beginning to realize that the Holy Temple is the only solution for achieving the elusive peace we all desire to see: for the Creator Himself, the Supreme Author of peace, has stated: 'The honor of this last house will be greater than that of the first, says HaShem of Hosts; and in this place I will grant peace, says HaShem of Hosts' (Haggai 2:9)."

This is what Dispensational Premillennialism teaches, NOT Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, or Idealism.

 

[prism]

This op is about compromises to core doctrines found within Dispensational Premillennialism.

I don't consider, eschatology of any stripe (amil-, postmil, premil or dp premil) core doctrine. Do you?

And like I said, all you have to do is read through the ops in this board. That evidence will leave only two options: Either 1) all those Dispies are wrong about their own theology and haven't a clue what their own theology teaches, or 2) they are representative of the theology and you're the one whose understanding is wanting.

I guess my broom is not as wide as yours for sweeping generalizations. If you haven't already noticed there are many different stripes of Dispys, just as there Amils.

 

[Josheb]

I don't consider, eschatology of any stripe (amil-, postmil, premil or dp premil) core doctrine. Do you?

Two initial responses. The first is, "Then why are you here in this thread?" The second is, "No, I mostly do not, however, your personal opinion and mine answering that question is irrelevant to the op." The one point for which I do think eschatology important is this: The way a Christian lives his or her life should be consistent with how s/he thinks the world will end. This is one of the reasons I wrote the ops on hypocrisy and delusion. A DPer constantly claims the world is going to soon but they do not live their lives as if that is actually true. They should either stop telling everyone X is going to soon occur or live their lives in a manner consistent with that statement. They do neither and for the last 190 years not a single prognostication they've made has ever come true. They live their lives in a constant state vacillating between hope and disappointment and trying to get everyone else (Christian and non-Christian) to do the same. It is not uncommon for self-described Dispensationalists (or modern futurists) to say, "Well, I do not believe that," as if that makes everything being discussed in these ops oaky. It does not. It's like a Calvinist saying, "I'm a 4.75-point TULIPer." All that statement means is the person is either an inconsistent Dispensationalist, or a marginally so in one (or more) particular ways.

The op-relevant fact is Dispensational Premillennialism asserts eschatology as important, and they do so at the expense of compromising other doctrines that are core and preeminent. It does not matter if you or I think eschatology particularly "of any stripe" whatever that might mean), the fact is DPism says it is. In his doctrine-establishing book "Dispensationalism," Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) founder wrote,

"To a large degree, eschatology is the consummation of soteriology, and of necessity reflects the scope and ultimate purpose of the soteriology to which it is related."​

And then he went on to say "The national salvation and forgiveness of Israel is yet a future expectation and its promised to occur when the Deliverer comes out of Sion (Rom. 11:26-27)" which is NOT what the larger Romans 9-11 narrative teaches at all.

"...salvation for Israel is... declared to be after the present age-purpose of the fulness of the Gentiles which is now accompanied by Israel's blindness...... On the other hand, the Christian is saved when he believes and that salvation is related only to the first advent of Christ."​

So, in Dispensationalism eschatology is very important. It does not matter whether you or I think otherwise. Charles Ryrie, Chafer's successor as president of DTS also wrote a doctrine-defining book (his definition of Dispensationalism is the most frequently cited in Dispensational literature) with the same title, "Dispensationalism."

"That the systematizing of dispensationalism is recent should not be surprising. It would not be unexpected that a subject whose primary distinctions have to do with eschatology should not have been systematized until eschatology began to be refined seriously by the church."​

Aside from the fact that statement misrepresents Christian history, Ryrie's statement necessarily and inescapably means the entire theological system of Dispensationalism is built on eschatology, "refined" eschatology that was purportedly previously ignored by the Church. Ryrie also makes a similar claim about ecclesiology (the doctrine pertaining to the nature of the Church)....

"The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between classic, or normative, dispensationalism and other doctrinal systems. Indeed, ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism."​

He then embarks on a brief ad hominem criticizing those who subscribe to a different view of ecclesiology. The germane point is that Ryrie clearly asserts eschatology and ecclesiology as important, and critically important to Dispensational Premillennialism. In his book similarly titled, "Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths," contemporary leading Dispensationalist Michael Vlach wrote,

"Our assertion that dispensationalism is primarily about ecclesiology and eschatology and not soteriology is also evidenced in the works of leading dispensationalists who have addressed what dispensationalism is about."​

He quotes John MacArthur in "Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles," to prove the point,

​

"So dispensationalism shapes one's eschatology and ecclesiology. That is the extent of it. Pur dispensationalism has no ramifications for the doctrines of God, man, sin, or sanctification. More significantly, true dispensationalism makes no relevant contribution to soteriology, or doctrine of salvation."​

The above is a sampling of the leading Dispensational Premillennial teachers that covers the last 100 years. I have provided links to the sources so everyone can 1) objectively verify my post(s) for themselves, and 2) learn about Dispensational Premillennialism's teachings as asserted by the leaders in their own words.

I guess my broom is not as wide as yours for sweeping generalizations.

That statement is bait. It is a lie intended to marginalize the facts of Dispensational Premillennialism, attack me personally as someone who makes "sweeping generalizations," and avoid the specific subject of this thread. It would be better to simply ask, "What is the evidence for that claim," because I have read the DPers in their own words and I can provide evidence for every claim I have made. I will not trade posts with those who do what you just did.

If you haven't already noticed there are many different stripes of Dispys, just as there Amils.

Yep. And nothing I have posted should ever be construed to say otherwise. If you hold specific views that vary then that is ALL on you and not in any way a matter particularly salient to the fact mainstream Dispensational Premillennialism asserts a given core, orthodox set of viewpoints that are the measure of the variations within the larger population. This particular thread is specifically about the problem of Dispensational Premillennialism' compromising long-held core, orthodox Christian doctrine. In some places Dispensationalists are either unaware or unengaging with these discrepancies, but in other areas, like the emphasis placed on eschatology and ecclesiology they are very aware and assertive about the departure.

Sorry, it's just not any kind of 'orthodox dispensationalism' I'm aware of.

That means your personal views have limited saliency regarding what Dispensationalism teaches, not that I am in any way, shape, or form incorrect or making "sweeping generalizations." If my posts do not reflect your particular views that simply means you're not entirely Dispensationalist, not that I have erred. Don't be sorry about that; it's probably a good thing and maybe once the teachings of Dispensationalism are closely examined whatever allegiance to the theology exists will be discarded.


Dispensational Premillennialism compromises historical, orthodox, core Christian doctrine. Not only does it elevate eschatology and ecclesiology above the doctrines of God, Christ, man, sin, and salvation, its doing so has unavoidable consequences on those doctrines for which the Dispensationalist is often unaware. The Chafer quote alone proves they hold to a different soteriology.

 

[prism]

That means your personal views have limited saliency regarding what Dispensationalism teaches, not that I am in any way, shape, or form incorrect or making "sweeping generalizations." If my posts do not reflect your particular views that simply means you're not entirely Dispensationalist, not that I have erred. Don't be sorry about that; it's probably a good thing and maybe once the teachings of Dispensationalism are closely examined whatever allegiance to the theology exists will be discarded.

You're most likely correct on that one point, but seeing all your recent posts assaults on Pre-Mil Dispys,
if I may make my own 'generalization, I'd say you have made a 'reverse' idol out of that which you loathe. Again, to me it's not a core issue, unless it drives one to idolatry.

 

[Josheb]

You're most likely correct on that one point

I am correct on all the points.

, but seeing all your recent posts assaults on Pre-Mil Dispys,

There are no "attacks." There are observances of objectively verifiable fact. If DPers feel attacked when exposed to the facts then I will gladly discuss their experience with them as long as they do not attempt gaslighting these ops (or me personally) or misrepresenting them as "attacks." I used to be a DPer. I know how alarming it can be to realize much of what you've believed as a Christian is incorrect, that there is an alternative that has greater integrity with scripture, and how discerning we must be trusting our teachers. Much of it is due to the awareness what's posted is correct. That some might react strongly defensively and/or adversarial, is normal and natural but it's not the best response.

An objective examination of the evidence is the best response. Every, therefore, is invited to ask for and examine the evidence objectively.

 

[Josheb]

An examination of the evidence readily proves,

• Every Dispensational Premillennialist knows eschatology has been elevated to preeminence. S/he does not need my posts to bring that to anyone's attentions because it's an intuitively known fact of the theology. What may or may not be known is how this is a formal and intentional aspect of the theology, and how much it deviates from historical, orthodox Christianity. Many DPers incorrectly think DPism is the normative and statistically predominant pov, the historical pov, and the orthodox pov when in fact it is none of the three. It's simply very popular.
• Every DPer knows the theology asserts a two-peoples/two-kingdoms pov.
• Many DPers don't realize DPism teaches discontinuity when that is an inherent and assertive component of the theology.
• Many DPers don't realize the different Christology, the distinction between a divine Christ who cannot logically be anything but King of all kings, and a Christ who is not yet King of the earth because he hasn't yet established his earthly kingdom.
• Many, if not most, DPers haven't considered the premise of a corrupt and eventually impotent Church in contrast to the impeccability of Christ and the Church as his body,
• Most DPers aren't aware DPism teaches two soteriologies while claiming to teach one.
• Many, if not most DPers aren't aware of the problems DPism causes with imminency.
• Most DPers do not pay much attention to the history of failed predictions, or the lack of accountability (both of which directly relate to core beliefs about how the Church should operate with integrity, and why it should do so.

These are doctrinal matters that are prevalent in Dispensationalism and Dispensational Premillennialism as a whole, and they have relevance to the pre-tribulational rapture modern futurist, the mid-tribber, the post-tribber, the Acts -28 DPer, the pre-kingdom land acquisitioner, the post-kingdom land acquisitioner, and all the other variations within Dispensationally-informed modern futurism.



These matters can also be discussed referencing only the leading Dispensationalists themselves. So too can the specified subjects of the other five recent ops. There's no need to for anyone to feel attacked or think those observations are sweeping overgeneralizations. There is a fact-basis for everything posted.