Talk:Dispensationalism

Article Length

The article is getting a bit long. I created Dispensationalist Theology and moved the majority of that section to the new article, but there is need for more of this sort of thing (perhaps an article on reasons for and against the theology). The new article also needs some cleaning up and hopefully someone else will have more time than I at the moment. We might also want to consider creating a discussion archive.--eleuthero 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the entire section on biblical arguments be deleted (or moved to Dispensationalist Theology). First off, it is not in keeping with an encyclopedic article; and secondly the section fails to address various pro/con interpretations of the texts in question. In general it only serves to make the overall article hard to digest. Jim Ellis 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate section for tie to Judaism?

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.--eleuthero 20:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started out surprised by the claim that a post-millenialist could be listed as a dispensationalist (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. Mkmcconn 22:07, 19 Sep 2003 (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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. EditAnon 23:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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. Smerdis of Tlön 18:44, 13 Jul 2004 (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.

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. atterlep 15:57, 19 Oct 2004 (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. 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. : 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. 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. 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? 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 Trödel|talk 13:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely you are kidding, right?--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. 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. 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. 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. -- 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. 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". -- 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. 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. 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).--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. 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... --eleuthero 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. However, it ignores the question of genre, making it not so much a "literal" as a "textual" or even "hyper-textual" hermeneutic. --Midnite Critic 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--eleuthero 01:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good points. Dispensationalism is not a static tradition so views have changed over time. Dispensationalism is not centralized, there are a lot of ways to "slice" it and different "pockets" of influence. Classic dispensationalism was expressed by Chafer, Darby and the early edition of Scofield Reference Bible - few modern day dispensationalists hold to it. Traditional or revised dispensationalism expressed by Walvoord, Ryrie, and the Revised Scofield Reference Bible (1967) is the most common view today among dispensationalists. Progressive dispensationalism as expressed by Blaising, Bock, and Saucy is popular in the academic settings. Dispensationalists range all along the fundamentalist-evangelical scale, i.e. from KJV-only to prominent conservative modern translation scholars.

Lamorak 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Biblical arguments in favor of dispensationalism"

From the article, under the above heading:

"Abraham was saved by faith, 430 years before the Law was given to Moses. (See Galatians 3:6,16-19.)"

How is this an argument in favor of dispensationalism? It would seem to me to be the opposite, indicating that salvation is always "by faith" (whether that phrase is understood in a Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox way). --Midnite Critic 05:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, if no one responds to this, I will be deleting the above from the article in a couple of days. --Midnite Critic 07:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. KHM03 10:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Opinion noted, and that from a credible source. The more I think about it, however, I am inclined to move it to the next section, "Biblical arguments opposed to Dispensationalism." Any of you hardcore Darbyites have any comment on that? --Midnite Critic 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can only guess at the point the author was trying to make here. Looking at the verses cited, Gal. 3:19 states that the Law was added "because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made". According to verse 16, this promised seed was Christ. Maybe the author meant to show that the Law entailed a specific dispensation, and Abraham lived prior to that dispensation. Reading down a little farther, a Dispensationalist would conclude that the dispensation of the Law ended when "that faith" of verse 25 came into effect. I have added a paragraph regarding these concluding verses to the Favorable Arguments section. But unless the sentence in question receives further clarification, I can't see it as being an argument either for or against dispensationalism. It's only a statement of fact. I'm not a Darbyite, but if you think it fits better in the "Opposed to Dispensationalism" section, I have no problem with that. Brwebb

Something needs to be done; now the 'in favor of' section is over-large and the article leans slightly towards a pro-dispensationalist tone. (Remember, the article doesn't need to be an exhaustive list arguments pro and con.) But the text added by Brwebb is all very well written and I hesitate to edit it. Suggestions as to what are the less important/persuasive items listed in this section? Eaglizard 16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the weakness of Wikipedia: continuous meddling from pro and con sources. Jim Ellis 19:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I was just trying to expound on some of the more commonly-held dispensational beliefs concerning the Millennium (certain beliefs attributed to dispensationalists are not necessarily held by all dispensationalists). I'm sure there are enough non-dispensationalists around who can weigh in on the "Oppsed" section, and add to that. Or, I can delete some of the things I wrote. You guys just let me know what you decide. Brwebb 19:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Biblical arguments in opposition to dispensationalism"

I've deleted two paragraphs from this section that were not biblical arguments. If they are to be reinstated, I would recommend either deleting the word "biblical" from the heading or creating another section for non-biblical arguments. - 1/5/2006

I have restored them. The text deleted related to the previous points about being peacemakers, and that no one knows the date of the Second Coming, statements referenced to Scripture in the surrounding text. Smerdis of Tlön 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret McDonald

Don't want to see this turn into an edit war; can we get some references on the existence of Margaret McDonald, her prophecies, and her alleged influence on Darby? Smerdis of Tlön 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a site I trust that discusses this issue. http://www.raptureready.com/rr-margaret-mcdonald.html RossNixon 10:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Margaret McDonald

I suggest using an independent source to verify this. Raptureready.com is hardly an "unbiased" source regarding Margaret McDonald. It is well know that Dispensationalists are denying that Darby met with McDonald and have gone so far to even deny her existence. Dave McPherson documents in detail the meeting between Darby and McDonald in his book "The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin." Denying something happened, doesn't make it so. Furthremore, the statement added to the article is in fact ambiguous enough to NOT be discarded: "some historians are pointing out that the beginning of the movement could be rooted in" -- "That this was the origins of Darby's thinking on the subject is a hotly disputed topic.

The bottom line is that muzzling history is not the way to provide accurate information to end users. If anyone is going to talk at all about the history of Dispensationalism without mentioning Margaret McDonald, then question marks are immediately raised in my mind regarding the intellectual honesty of the individual.

--Virgil Vaduva 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not let odium theologicum get out of hand, here. There seems to be a general subcurrent here that if it were in fact McDonald that came up with the idea of a pre-Tribulation rapture, rather than Darby, that the belief would become suspect just because she rather than he first suggested it. This subtext seems to call for even deeper scepticism than the claim about McDonald itself; it seems to be saying that the pre-trib rapture cannot be true if it were suggested first by a woman. For starters, it might be helpful to get an ISBN for the McPherson book and add it to references. It might be useful to track down the McPherson book and find out what his sources for the claim are, and what they actually say. Smerdis of Tlön 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing accuracy and honest historical presentation with a "subcurrent" regarding McDonald. I personally don't care about the origins of Dispensationalism, but my original question remains: how can anyone discuss the history of Dispensationalism and John Darby without mentioning Margaret McDonald? The two go hand in hand (imaginary subcurrents notwithstanding), unless Wikipedia is not interested in honestly presenting reality, accusation too often reinforced by ultra-biased articles. --208.4.153.208 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that you consider the link with McDonald both firmly established, and of the highest importance. I did manage to find an ISBN for Dave MacPherson's 1975 book Incredible Cover Up, ISBN 0931608066, which is apparently the ultimate source for this claim. I have yet to track down a copy and actually read it. I tend to think that the current version of the article is fair enough, but that MacPherson should be credited as the source of the allegation.

Just from his title, I suspect that MacPherson needed to breathe slowly into a paper bag; this is typical of these sorts of arguments. He seems to be under the impression that his discovery of McDonald blows Darby out of the water, and without him the whole dispensational system collapses. This goes way too far; most people who have accepted dispensationalist assumptions aren't even aware of Darby's contribution, much less McDonald's alleged contribution. It seems that McDonald was some sort of proto-Pentecostalist; and Dispensationalism, while influential in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, is also deeply influential among Baptists in the United States, whose churches tend to reject Charismaticism. This seems to be the scandal that MacPherson is suggesting. The websites that argue this this seem to be extremely dodgy: eager to suggest that McDonald was possessed by devils, and that therefore the idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture is a Satanic invention to corrupt the church. I am no dispensationalist; but carrying on in this vein makes me doubt not only their scholarly credentials, but also their sanity.

I don't recall, but I am not sure either Cyrus I. Scofield or Hal Lindsey ever gave Darby any credit for founding their system. My point is that Dispensationalism is something that has outgrown its roots, and that attacks against its nineteenth century originators need to be put in context. — Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a Dispensationalist, I don't think it would matter if John Darby did meet with Margaret McDonald. I just don't see where McDonald ever mentioned a pre-tribulation rapture. At most, she makes mid-trib statements. She even states, "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist". This is a mid- or post-trib statement, and not pre-trib. Likewise, her vision stated that before believers meet the Lord in the air, they will be sealed in their foreheads (an obvious reference to Revelation chapter 7, which occurs during the tribulation) - "Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be". Again, this shows that her two-stage coming of Christ included a mid-trib rapture, not pre-trib. Nor does Dave McPherson prove that McDonald believed in a pre-trib rapture (at least, not from what I have read). In his article entitled "Deceiving, and being Deceived", Mr. McPherson is adamant that McDonald was "the real pretrib originator in early 1830"; but he fails to support his claim with even one pre-trib quote from McDonald. Simply claiming that she believed in a pre-trib rapture doesn't prove that she did. Brwebb 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more or less my impression as well. We are, after all, talking about interpreting Christian and Hebrew scripture, and specifically about some of the hardest parts. Whatever meaning is there, is there; if an interpretation can be defended, it doesn't matter who thought it up first. The claim that it makes a difference if McDonald preceded Darby in this, is in its essence a repudiation of sola scriptura in favour of Tradition and Authority, and the rejection of the Lamb of God for false worldly idols. (Yes, I can do odium theologicum if provoked. ;) — Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a much more ballanced article dealing with MM's possible influence on Darby. History of Pretrib Development User:Pfrs 18 Feb. 2006

Link added

I am adding back in the links to the traditional Catholic view of dispensationalism and the "End Times" because that position isn't otherwise represented. Malachias111 15:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need to be discussed in the main article as well? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it fairly clear that Dispensationalism is a Protestant phenomenon. Not sure there's much to say other than that "Roman Catholics do not believe in dispensationalism." Smerdis of Tlön 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I know Catholics who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, which this article identifies as the fourth Tenet of dispensationalism - 'A distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ; that is, the rapture of the church at Christ's coming "in the air" (1 Thess 4:17) precedes the "official" second coming by 7 years of tribulation'. Being a Protestant, I'm not sure how this clashes with "official" Catholic doctrine, but belief in a pre-trib rapture also seems to imply endorsement of the first Tenet of dispensationalism ("A radical distinction between Israel and the church; that is, there are two peoples of God with two different destinies, earthly Israel and the heavenly church"). So I wonder if, in the History section, the statement is accurate that "all of the Christian churches (e.g., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) reject dispensationalism". Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that these churches reject most of the dispensational tenets, instead of dispensationalism itself? Brwebb 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics who believe in a "pre-Tribulation Rapture" believe against the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church has always defined itself as Israel itself (see writings from the early Fathers to Nostra Aetate). Catholic teaching is that the Church will go through the Tribulation, following Christ in His Passion. Then He will come again to judge the living and the dead in the Last Judgment. See the catechism http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm and listen to the Audio called "The Rapture Trap" here [spam block]TigerLille 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links; my computer won't play the audio, but I have been reading the catechism. I also added some comments on my Talk page, where I have described the non-Catholic beliefs of three different Catholic friends. I won't reiterate their beliefs here, but I will reiterate my questions: Are their beliefs actually forbidden by the Catholic Church? And if so, does this mean they would be excommunicated if their church found out? Thanks, and God bless! Brwebb 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited slightly; left the link to the "Dispensationalism" critique, removed "End Times". There is a difference between the "End times" and the specific dispenational school of thought, which is a minority among Protestants as well as Catholics, Orthodox, etc., most of whom do have some theological teaching on the "end times" (even if other language is used). Merry Christmas...KHM03 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==

External links

OK, time to grasp the nettle. WP:EL makes it pretty plain that the primary function of external links is as sources. What we have here is apparnetly a group of sites arguing point of view, as a sort of collective offsite fork. The article itself is comprehensive, well written and highly informative. I propse that any external links which are not sources for the article be removed, to avoid distracting from what is a very clearly stated presentation. I believe the links spoil it, rather than improving it. This is a really good article.

Dispensationalist sites

Critics of Dispensationalism

Planet Preterist
There is no tomorrow by Bill Moyers
The Godly Must Be Crazy by Glenn Scherer
When U.S. Foreign Policy Meets Biblical Prophecy by Paul S. Boyer
The Obituary of Dispensationalism: 1830-1988 by Vic Reasoner
The Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) by Michael Marlowe, a Reformed critic of dispensationalism
Origins of the three interpretations of prophecy including the works of Isaac Newton

Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Babylons

(the book The Two Babylons explains the Evangelical perspective on the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church).

I moved this sentence to talk. At least one evangelical Christian thinks that Hislop's The Two Babylons is a load of myth-mongering horsepuckey. The rest of the edit I removed this from may say things that ought to be said --- certainly, some identification of the Papacy with apostate Christianity remains in the Scofield Reference Bible, I really don't think that many evangelical Christians take The Two Babylons that seriously anymore. Smerdis of Tlön 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That surprises me. Last time I looked it appeared to be a well researched book. I will have to find a copy. ^ross ^nixon 03:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Babylons is typical late-19th century mythography. It takes a stock image (such as that of a mother and child), ignores what the people who are using it say that it means to them, and seeks to impose its own construction upon them: in this case, the notion the Roman Catholic Mary is really the semi-legendary queen Semiramis. In this way, it is perhaps the exact counterpart of The Golden Bough, which resorted to similar methods in support of a very different thesis: in fact you can support just about anything to the extent you are willing to ignore the actual data and impose your own interpretation by will and words. The only person I'm aware of who still takes The Two Babylons seriously is Jack Chick, and I wouldn't say that Chick's is a typical "Evangelical perspective" either. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the WP article on it and have to agree - the author was exaggerating. But there is no doubt that Roman catholics have borrowed heavily from Babylonian concepts, I guess to ease acceptance with pagan people-groups. ^ross ^nixon 01:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messing things up?

I made a number of edits to the history of dispensationalism sections based on my dissertation research. The information I've found is all available in well-known references, including Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, Rowdon, Origins of the Plymouth Brethren, and Findlay, They Called Him Mister Moody. The only thing that requires serious primary-source reading is the comment that Darby and Brookes both rejected the possibility of finding prophecy fulfillment in current events, but I could provide citations to this from their writings.

It would be worth mentioning more clearly that dispensationalism was exclusively pre-trib for at least 30 years. I didn't want to push that point too hard because it might seem POV, but the historical record is unambiguous.

I think it is also worth noting that while Darby didn't invent futurism, he was one of the major influences that made it popular.

Atterlep 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed PBU date of origin

As a current student at Philadelphia Biblical University, I can assure all involved that the school's creation was in 1913, not 1914. Trust me, half my school t-shirts all say 1913, not 1914. Minor change, hope this is acceptable to all involved.

"Visions" and Darby's Secret Rapture

I removed this section from the history portion of the article as it 1) did not add to the immediate context of the discussion 2) had no introduction (why was it included? -- reasons one and two are thus related) and 3) in its current form and position it seemed to be a POV effort to discredit the movement as a whole.

Text removed: There is some question as to whether Darby was the first theologian of his time to propose a secret Rapture. Dave MacPherson, in his 1975 book Incredible Cover Up, stated that the idea was first expressed in 1830, in the visions of a fifteen-year-old girl named Margaret McDonald who claimed to have the gift of prophecy and visions of the end of the world. McDonald would often go into "prophecy trances" and write down her visions soon after. MacPherson claimed that Darby learned of McDonald's visions during a visit to Scotland in the 1830s. Whether this was the origin of Darby's ideas on the subject is a hotly disputed topic, because Darby publicly rejected the validity of McDonald's visions. One account of the early Plymouth Brethren attributes the idea of the secret Rapture to an otherwise unknown Irish evangelist named Tweedy. --eleuthero 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed major edit recently reverted

Chiliasm (embryonic premillennialism) in the early church and the acknowledgement of God 's dealing in successive economies (ala Augustine and/or Poiret) contain elements which may be common to Darby's dispensationalism, but they do not involve the the defining tenets of dispensationalism. To suggest that "dispensationalism" may be "traced" to any point prior to Darby is POV. The basic tenets of classic dispensationalism (set forth in the article) are not found in the early church fathers, Augustine, Poiret, or anywhere else prior to Darby. The proposed edit may be the position of certain recognized dispensational writers, but that does not make it NPOV. If the proposed edit were to say something like "certain elements of dispensationalism (e.g. premillennialism and successive divine economies) may be found here or there," it would be acceptable. But to say that dispensationalism per se is found in antiquity is POV and a misrepresentation. I believe changes can be made to make valid points, but the proposed change is not the way to do it. Jim Ellis 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sounds fair enough. ^ross ^nixon 01:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The four basic tenets

I respectfully suggest that the "four basic tenets" be replaced with something which more accurately describes dispensational beliefs today. The first tenet of two peoples of God characterizes classic dispensationalism but not traditional or progressive dispensationalism. As worded with the multiple "gospels" it is more in line with ultradispensationalism rather than mainstream dispensationalism. The second tenet of law/grace was never really a tenet of dispensationalism; it was rather a (mis)interpretation of earlier classic dispensationalist statements. The third tenet on the parenthesis does describe classic and traditional dispensationalism, but not progressive dispensationalism.

The first tenet: Only ultradispensationalists would make a mutually exclusive distinction between Israel and the church. While Traditional and progressive dispensationalists do perceive a distinction between Israel and the church, there is some acknowledged overlap: Jewish believers in the early church (Paul, Peter, John, etc) are members of both Israel and the church. Mainstream dispensationalists do not hold that Israel and the church have different eternal earthly/heavenly "destinies." The "earthly" purpose of Israel will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom. Mainstream dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Pentecost hold that the church and Israel will be together in the heavenly Jerusalem in the eternal state. With regards to the wording, mainstream dispensationalists believe there is only one gospel. Only ultradispensationalists would refer to plural "gospels" and distinguish between a gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of the Grace of God.

The second tenet: Statements by Scofield and other early classic dispensationalists were misconstrued by opponents to teach a radical law-grace distinction and law-based salvation. Charles Ryrie's book Dispensationalism Today and The New Scofield Reference Bible (1967) notes explain how dispensationalists hold that grace is present in all dispensations, dispelling the earlier charges. Daniel Fuller, a non-dispensationalist, stated in his book Gospel and Law (p. 51) that "Although today's dispensationalism explains the relationship between law and grace in wording that is different from that of covenant theology, there is no substantial difference in meaning."

The third tenet: While traditional dispensationalists do hold to the idea that the present dispensation is a parenthesis, progressive dispensationalists do not. Progressives hold that the present dispensation is a progression or link between the past dispensations and the future dispensations. In general that means God's plans have continued in this present dispensation, marking it as a crucial link between past and future dispensations and not a parenthesis. This idea of "progression" between the dispensations is where the name [b]progressive[/b] dispensationalism comes from.

I would suggest what dispensationalists hold in common together are: 1) Israel and the church are distinct and 2) Israel has a prophetic future. The major reason why dispensationalists hold these is the heavy emphasis on progressive revelation, which in turn means dispensationalists will interpret the OT in such a way as to retain the original meaning and audience.

Lamorak 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I really hate to sound this critical, but as someone who had no idea of what "dispensationalism" is, the first paragraph of this article did nothing to give me even the slightest clarification of what it really is. It makes references to a lot of other things that "dispensationalism" is not, and what dispensationalists disagree with. But even for someone like me who was raised Christian, it's all pretty much technobabble to me. Sorry! --Daniel (Unsigned comment by 202.20.0.152, 25 May)

Previous comment makes a legitimate point. The article is incomprehensible to the lay reader. I'll try to rewrite the intro to make it usable. --AuntieMormom 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being another "huh" total newcomer to the subject, I have Been Bold and moved text into and out of the introduction. I created a heading on "Attitude to Judaism" which I now see is illogical since there is another section below relating to Judaism. However, what is written in that existing section is completely impenetrable to me. I won't lose any sleep if my edits are reverted, but there is still a job to do in making the article comprehensible. Itsmejudith 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Eaglizard. The two sections relating to Judaism need merging somehow. I might have a go in the next few days. Itsmejudith 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non compliant

This extensive article includes a single reliable source. To be compliant, the article needs to be fully referenced and supported by verifiable, published sources as per WP:V, and it needs to describe any conflicting viepoints and attribute these viewpoints to notable sources in accordance to WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the 20 references in the reference section? —Wayward ^Talk 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too sleepy to check the diffs, but whether you added it or not, I disagree with the 'noncompliant' tag. This article has been worked on by some very knowledgeable ppl, real scholars (and a few idiots like me ;), and has adequate source links. I won't remove the tag myself, tho, just contributing to what I hope will be consensus on the matter.Eaglizard 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided are not assigned to the text, so the reader does not know how these references supports what is asserted in the article. We need inline references. See WP:CITE#How_and_where_to_cite_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your point here; changing the tag was a good solution. I'm not qualified to add cites, hopefully Lamorak or one fo the contributers to this article will do so. Eaglizard 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that inline references are needed. I have access to large number of dispensational references, pro and con, so I'll make an attempt to cite supporting sources. --Lamorak 16:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Buddhism

"Some dispensationalist Christians note that the name Maitreya, spelled in all seven possible ways in the Hebrew alphabet, adds up to the number 666 (that of the Beast in the Book of Revelation) when traditional Jewish numerical values for letters are used."

I quoted this from the ariticle about Maitreya, a buddhist deity. Is the above quote a true replection of dispensationalist thinking? Does it not border on religious discrimination to call other religion's deity the Beast?

This point is on the Maitreya page but no source is given. I tagged the point "citation needed" and put a request on the talk page for someone to try and find the source. Perhaps someone here has a lead. Itsmejudith 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote does not reflect dispensationalism. The quote should be attributed to Harry Walther, not "some dispensationalist Christians." Mr. Walther and his website clearly reject dispensationalist beliefs and teachers, so he is not a dispensationalist. Also the reference to Maitreya is not to the buddhist deity, but to a person promoted by Benjamin Creme called "Lord Maitreya" who claims to be Christ. --Lamorak 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Mr Walther is a dispensationalist or not, but the web page [1] that appears to be his most clearly identifies Maitreya with the Buddhist deity. Itsmejudith 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walther may speak of "the 5th and coming Buddha" as Maitreya, but in his website he has clearly defined Maitreya as a person specifically associated with Benjamin Creme[2]:

"Keep in mind that their spokeman, Benjamin Creme, had falsely announced that MAITREYA, the world teacher, was to be revealed in 1982, in 1984 and again in 1999"

Walther furthermore expects this fellow to announce himself publically to the world on television in August or September 2006. So he perceives Maitreya as a person who has taken on the name of a Buddhist deity. --Lamorak 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamorak, I expect it's very complicated, but Walther appears to be a believer in the Rapture and from what I read here and in Christian Zionism and Rapture that would make him a dispensationalist. I have amended the Maitreya page to refer to Walther rather than dispensationalism but there still seems to be a need to clarify. If I can't get the picture then other ignoramuses like me might not be able to either. Itsmejudith 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your confusion over the details, and sympathize with anyone who even attempts to read Walther. The Harry Walther page points out that he rejects the rapture as commonly taught (in dispensationalism) and replaces it with his own "2 rapture" view. Not only does Walther never identifies himself with dispensationalism, he in fact spends a lot of time criticizing and condemning dispensational authors and leaders.--Lamorak 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wth?

The current section on Messianic Judaism commences with a long rambling verging-on-vanity disclaimer, whereafter the actual text of the section begins with an incoherent "per above disclaimer" remark, all of which is highly irregular, and reeks of POV editing. I don't know much about Dispensationalism, but I can authoritatively tell you [the editors whose brilliant idea this "style" choice was], that that's not the way Wikipedia nor any other encyclopedia article is to be written. All of that, however, doesn't even begin to address the attrociously Messianic POV of the section, which _also_ requires clean-up. If I knew more about the subject, I'd clean the section up myself, but I don't--which leaves me itching to just delete it instead...not only is it an embarrassment to the article, but to WP as well. 4.158.156.184 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree in re: the formatting here, it struck me as damned odd when I saw it. On the other hand, your language might be a tad inflammatory, don't you think? Like many religious articles, this one has a history of contentious editing, and a compromise has clearly been reached. There's no policy against this format, precisely (that I know of), so if consensus produces this ugly hybrid, I suggest we leave it alone unless we have something we think will elicit a more complete consensus.Eaglizard 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic definition

I made redirects from Dispensational theology and Dispensation theology. Why the word dispensation? What is the basic definition of this term?

The article seems to be about the practices of groups that are categorized at dispensational. My filmmaking group has chips and salsa at events but I wouldn't define filmmaking in terms of serving chips and salsa.

"Dispensationalism teaches biblical history as a number of successive economies or administrations..." This says how some practitioners organize and present their views. It does not say what dispensationalism is.

--Gbleem 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, a "dispensation" is an era in which God is dealing with the world in a distinct way, a way which is unique to that time period. For example, according to this scheme, during the time between Moses and Christ, God was primarily dealing with one nation, the Hebrews, by way of a covenant he made with them through Moses, usually called the Torah. This thought is called "dispensationalism" because while all Christians recognize differences between the periods before Christ and the era after the coming of Christ, dispensationlists emphasize these differences, these discontinuities, while most Christians would emphasize the continuity. See the edits I made to the first paragraph, and see the second paragraph as well. This may clear things up a bit for you. If not, feel free to ask further questions. --Midnite Critic 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes to Judaism section

I have had a go at a revised section on Attitudes to Judaism incorporating my previous text on “Attitude to Judaism” and the section “Dispensationalism and Messianic Judaism”. I expect there’s a lot wrong with it, so please treat as just an attempt to get things moving, and ignore if necessary. Proposed text follows.

Christian Dispensationalists sometimes embrace what some critics have pejoratively called Judeophilia -- ranging from support of Zionism and the state of Israel to observing traditional Jewish holidays and practicing traditionally Jewish religious rituals. (See also Jewish Christians and Judaizers.)

Dispensationalists tend to be energetically evangelistic, with special interest in the Jews because they are "God's chosen people." There are some parallels between Dispensationalism and Messianic Judaism. Followers of Messianic Judaism usually call themselves Jews rather than Christians. They follow most traditional Jewish rituals while believing Jesus (whom they call by his Hebrew name Yeshua) to be the Messiah. However, some followers of Messianic Judaism explicitly reject Dispensationalism and proclaim Olive Tree Theology (as detailed in David H. Stern's Messianic Jewish Manifesto).

In some dispensationalist circles, the Jewish converts to Christianity are sometimes referred to as "completed Jews". Thus, while it is at odds with traditional supersessionism (which was formulated to discourage directly carrying over Jewish practice into the Christian Church), dispensationalism generally is markedly at odds with modern religious pluralism, which is typified by the view that proselytism of the Jews is a form of anti-Semitism. Also, some dispensationalists, such as Jerry Falwell, have asserted that the Antichrist will be a Jew, based on a belief that the Antichrist will falsely seem to some Jews to fulfill prophesies of the Messiah more accurately than Jesus did. This assertion stems from the dispensational belief that "he" who confirms "the covenant with many for one week" (Dan 9:27) refers back to "the prince that shall come" in verse 26. In turn, this "prince" will stand up "against the Prince of princes" and destroy many "by peace" (Dan 8:25); and will be responsible for the false "peace and safety" that will precede the destructive day of the Lord (1 Thess 5:2–3). Many dispensationalists believe this man will be a Jew, based in part on John 5:43, where the Lord stated that the unbelieving Jews would receive another who "shall come in his own name" (as opposed to the Lord Himself, who came in the Father's name). Further evidence is from Daniel 11:37, "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all," although in a passage as late as Daniel, a better translation is probably that "He will reject the gods (Eloha) of his fathers." The prophet Daniel refers to this man as "a vile person", who will "obtain the kingdom by flatteries" (Dan 11:21). This belief is not essential to dispensationalism.

Itsmejudith 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispensationalism and Judaism: Cleanup issues

The current "Attitudes to Judaism" section is of minimal content, and that content is and should not preceed the more important theology section. In the current "Dispensationalism and Messianic Judaism" the initial paragraph criticizing the subsequent content does not belong in the article, but rather on this discussion page. I would much rather see a single "Dispensatoinalism and Judaism" section discussing all these issues.

As a former member of an independent Baptist church, I offer the following insights on the dispensational view of Judaism. I can offer some Biblical support for our own particular views, however, I will not go into detail here.

Our general attitude towards Jews was one of deeply respectful disagreement, seeing mainstream Jews as "enemies for the gospel's sake", because they held to the Mosaic law, while also "beloved for their fathers' sake", being God's chosen people and keepers of his Scripture.

We believed that the Mosaic law was unfulfillable except by Christ, and, when Christ had fulfilled the law through obedience to God, God accepted Christ's death and innocent blood as fulfillment the law for those others who would freely partake of them through faith.

We believed that after the Resurrection, Christ stayed on Earth for forty days preaching the Kingdom of God (the Millenial dispensation), and that had the Jews accepted him collectively at that time, he would have ushered in the Kingdom immediatly. However, as he had prophesied, he was rejected, and therefore offered salvation to any, including Gentiles, who would partake in his offering through faith. Thus began the Church age (dispensation of grace).

We understood that it was the Jews' rejection of Christ that opened the door to the salvation the Gentiles, and that had the Jews accepted Christ, the Gentiles would not have had that opportunity, and there would have been no Church Age (dispensation of grace). Furthermore, the primary purpose of the Church Age was to provoke the Jews into accepting Christ. In that respect, we subscribed to Olive Tree theology, understanding that our salvation as Gentiles was a step in God's plan for the salvation of the Jews.

On the other hand, we believed that there was no salvation in the Mosaic law per se, that breaking the law resulted in condemnation, whereas keeping the law did not necessarily result in salvation, which brought us into disagreement with mainstream Judaism. Rather, we believed that salvation always has been, and always will be, contingent on faith in God, although this may entail different behaviors in different dispensations. In the present dispensation of grace, there is "no difference between the Jew and the Greek" with regard to salvation. Consequently, seeing that obedience to Mosaic law is not sufficient for salvation, and that without the Temple and proper sacrifices obedience to Mosaic law is effectively impossible today, we advocated proselytization of Jews.

If Olive Tree theology, the purported theology of Messianic Jews, teaches that Jews have some sort of special position with regard to salvation at the present time, then this is where it diverges with our version of dispensationalism, and presumably mainstream dispensationalism. Otherwise, I see no conflict between mainstream dispensationalism and Olive Tree theology. I recognize that some variants of dispensationalism preach replacement theology and would thus disagree with OTT, but IMHO, replacement theology is independent of dispensationalism, and is certainly not part of mainstream dispensationalism.

We also believed that God's special protection of the Jews (whoever blesses the Jews will be blessed and whoever curses them cursed) is still in effect at this time. We did not condone anti-Semitism in our ranks, although there is a visible streak of anti-Semitism in the Baptist faith as a whole, though I don't think it is emblematic of dispensationalism.

We understood the Kingdom of God (Millenial dispensation) to be a time when God would rule visibly on earth, with Jews in a pre-eminent political position. This dispensation would begin with Christ's second coming.

So, to summarize, our form of dispensationalism took a position of respectful disagreement with Judaism, active proselytization of Jews, and a generally positive attitude toward Zionism and Jewish concerns.

Additional sources

Whoever is trying to keep this article biased is missing the point - please stop removing the links to Preterism or explain why you are calling it "spam" before you remove it. --Virgil Vaduva 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]