Talk:Dispensationalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why was the link to the article on Progressive Dispensationalism removed?

In July, I posted an external link to an article by Tim Warner on Progressive Dispensationalism. It was recently deleted, and I'd like to know why. As a scholarly, in-depth criticism of traditional dispensationalism, it seemed altogether appropriate for it to be there as a reference for readers.

The article in question may be found at: http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html

I plan to return the link in a few days if there is no good reason why it should be omitted.

Phoenix1861 (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have since replaced this link with a better one. The old link was to a page that was somewhat difficult to navigate; the new one is to a page with a much better layout.

The new page is: http://www.pfrs.org/pd/index.html

These articles are scholarly, in-depth, and well-written. As such, I believe they add content to the discussion. Phoenix1861 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article from pfrs.org, is suspect. In their doctrinal statement, they state that water baptism is necessary for salvation. This can be seen at http://www.pfrs.org/doctrine.html. A better link is http://worldview_3.tripod.com/dispensation.html. Also, a wealth of information can be found at www.google.com and doing a search for it, but the best article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_dispensationalism Yruymi (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You removed the link because they disagree with your views on baptism? The link was added because the articles contained there are presented in a very scholarly manner (including a debate on the issue), which is beneficial for its informational content. The debate on baptism may have some relevance in terms of the question of how one enters into the new covenant, but it is distinct from the question of dispensationalism itself. If anything is "suspect" here, it's your editing criteria, which is clearly self-serving in that it is designed to protect your beliefs concerning a separate issue of doctrine.

As for the PFRS position on baptism, it is not be confused with baptismal regeneration. it is more nuanced than that. Their summary under the main baptism article is as follows:

Our position now is that baptism is the normal, tangible, mechanism for responding to the Gospel. Its intent is not to "save" in itself. But, neither is it meant to be a footnote to the salvation experience. It is intended to be the tangible step for receiving and obeying the Gospel (Acts 6:7, Rom. 6:17-18, Rom. 10:16, 2 Thess. 1:8, Heb. 5:9). Its prerequisites are faith and repentance. Baptism, then, acts as a physical aide to the new birth process. It is not the cause of the new birth. It assists us in finalizing our covenant relationship with God on the grounds of true repentance and belief of the Gospel message. It provides a physical token of God's covenant with us, and our commitment to Him to remain a pure virgin until He comes. Baptism has no saving or cleansing power in itself. This goes double for baptism in the absence of both faith and repentance, such as infant baptism or the baptism of one who has no intention of ceasing from his sinful life. Baptism is the point of sealing one's faith and repentance with a tangible act of obedience. It is the benchmark whereby one can rest in assurance of his salvation, because he not only gave mental ascent to the Gospel, but acted upon (obeyed) and received the Gospel. As Paul wrote to the Hebrews, "let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb 10:22 NKJV).

Regeneration (literally - "rebirth") is accomplished by God WHEN the repentant believer is baptized. But, baptism itself does not save. Salvation is God's work, not ours, and certainly not the work of a mediator, such as a priest. The new birth coincides in TIME with our submitting to baptism. Remission of sins is accomplished by God for us when we receive Christ by means of the act of baptism.

In the earliest post-Apostolic period, baptism was administered only to those who willingly repented and professed their faith in Christ and the Gospel. "Regeneration" (new birth) was seen, not as accomplished BY the water, but accomplished by God Himself as the repentant believer obeyed the command to be baptized. Remission of sins and regeneration were accomplished IN the water, but not BY the water. In other words, remission of sins and the new birth were coincident in time with baptism of the repentant believer. But, baptism was an act of obedience, not a mystical rite.

Phoenix1861 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Influence

Just have to say- & I am really not trying to get personal about someones good faith effort to provide information here... but I found the section Titled "Influence" to be almost unreadable. Grammatically a shambles, with loooong unbroken sentences- unlinked cross references- and so on. I read it twice trying to make out its ideas. FAIL. Granted, it could just be me. There are patches all through this Article that were rough going. I still have No idea what makes "Dispensationalism " distinctive. Other than it's some sort of documented source for the current vogue (my current perception- sorry) for the belief in sudden "Rapture". (Which in turn leads to the sale & application of those charming bumper stickers proclaiming "In Event of Rapture- This car will be Driverless" ... & also former Secretary of the Interior James G.Watt telling an interviewer that -Paraphrasing- He wasn't concerned about conserving natural resources when the Rapture could happen any day in the near future.) Being as these concepts have had Drastic repercussions in politics, environment, wars, economy, & global stability over the past 10 years or so, I would like to read a clear, brass tacks delineation of this subject. MY King-James doesn't have a clear definition WITHIN the Scripture itself. So I am looking for something written so that an outsider can follow a sequence- instead of constant trading of insider viewpoints. I was hoping the discussion page would help, but it seems more of the same. ... Just saying. 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)mbd

Anti-Catholicism

Isn't accurate to assert that several leading dispensationalists are anti-Catholic ? For instance, theologian John Hagee was criticized during the 2008 election campaign for having written some very nasty things about the Church, including the notion that Pius XII was Hitler's Pope and that the Catholic institution is the apocalyptic whore of Babylon. ADM (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't accurate. John Hagee is not a "leading dispensationalist" nor is he a theologian. He is a pastor who makes his own personal controversial statements and frequently retracts or revises them. Concerning the anti-Catholic statements, William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, accepted Hagee's apology and considered the "case closed." If Donohue doesn't consider it an issue, then its probably not an issue anymore. Now Jack Chick is anti-Catholic, but Chick is also on the extreme fringe. Lamorak (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there currently no section on criticism of dispensationalism? —SRP Weston (talk • contribs) 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispensationalism is a highly controversial doctrine. It is at odds with the history of biblical interpretation up until Darby. It treats the Bible's message as a puzzle to be solved, rather than Good News to be proclaimed. Its message of violent judgment and wrath is diametrically opposed to the message of love, mercy, forgiveness and peace that Jesus Christ and his apostles proclaimed. The opening sentence in the article ("Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical theology and an interpretive framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible.") is misleading in that it does not make clear that there are other "theologies" and "interpretive frameworks" espoused by other sorts of protestants. The article should at least make clear that dispensationalism is not normative or even typical of protestantism in general. —SRP Weston (talk • contribs) 04:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I continue to be disappointed that the article contains no summary of the criticism of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism only makes sense if one subscribes to strict inerrantism, which is itself a doctrine that's disputed by many faithful Christians. And even if one is a strict inerrantist, there are plenty of reasons to doubt its legitimacy. SRP Weston (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gregorik recently removed a clause I added to the effect that dispensationalism is a minority view among Christians worldwide, with the comment, "Stop readding your redundant biased factoid please. Excuse me, SRP Weston." Since when is the truth biased? Bias is exemplified by an article about a disputed, controversial doctrine that fails to cover the many reasoned critiques of it. SRP Weston (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything within Protestant theology is a minority view with Christians worldwide. The dispensationalism lede already defines dispensationalism as evangelical and protestant. So I agree with Gregorik, the sentence you added is irrelevant. Also in actuality and practice, dispensationalism and evangelicalism are so intertwined that one cannot claim dispensationalism as a "subset" of evangelicalism. Dispensational scholars have contributed to most modern Bible translations. Dispensationalist scholars were major participants in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. And missionary organizations and parachurch ministries such as Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ have always welcomed dispensationalists without controversy.

I do agree that the dispensationalism article needs a lot of improvement, including the addition of a criticism section. Lamorak (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll grant that that sentence was irrelevant, but not that dispensationalism is uncontroversial. Intervarsity and Campus Crusade are hardly authoritative about what's controversial. Putting "dispensationalism" into my search engine yielded a plethora of sites critical of it, both from within evangelical protestantism (e.g., this one:[1]) and from outside (e.g.,[2]).

Another concern I have about dispensationalism is that it is, in a way, a stealth doctrine. It's a big word that people don't understand, and many of the famous preachers who embrace it don't use the word but merely lay out the teachings, so that a casual listener gets the impression that there are no major alternative frameworks for interpreting the Bible. At a recent gathering of about 3 dozen Christians, all of whom were familiar with, and some of whom had actually read, the Left Behind series, I asked if anyone had heard of something called "dispensationalism". All but two gave me blank looks. One said she had heard of it but couldn't explain what it was. Another said, "It's a heresy that was invented in the 1840s." (I told him I thought it was the 1830s.) It's the blank looks that tell the story. Dispensationalism is indeed controversial. One reason it may seem not to be is that lots of folks in the pews are not aware of what it is.

SRP Weston (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't grant that it's irrelevant that dispensationalism is a minority view among Christians worldwide. Redundant, perhaps, in that it's implied by the description of it as a "Protestant evangelical" theology, but not irrelevant. What's bothering me about the opening paragraph is that it does not make clear that dispensationalism is not unique in being "an interpretive framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible." There are in fact several such interpretive frameworks. I'd like to see the intro make clear that there are alternative opinions. Perhaps a link to pages such as Covenant theology could be included in the intro. (Unfortunately, the interpretive framework that's most persuasive to me does not have a handy label like that.) SRP Weston (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about all the possible "interpretive frameworks" - its an article on dispensationalism. You don't sound like you are familiar with Wikipedia's core principles, which are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The Roman Catholic Church article doesn't "suggest" Eastern Orthodox or Protestant denominations as "alternatives." That kind of suggestion of alternatives on every page would easily get out of hand and make articles hard to read. Its also clearly biased and against the neutral point of view principle of Wikipedia.

You also completely missed my earlier point. Its simply common knowledge that dispensationalism and evangelicalism are intertwined together. Its common knowledge that dispensationalists have made major contributions to evangelicalism, and that includes Bible translation work and the commonly definition of inerrancy already mentioned above. Intervarsity and Campus Crusade don't need to be "authoritative" - whatever that means - they are just two of MANY parachurch and missionary organizations that employ dispensationalists without any reservation. And they DON'T employ Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, whose organizations they do not perceive as Christian. Also a number of churches and denominations have statements of faith containing explicit dispensational beliefs or ideas. All of these facts can be verified, and together they show widespread acceptance of dispensationalists among evangelicals and fundamentalists. Lamorak (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And you're still missing my point. Dispensationalism is not a denomination. It's a doctrine. An encyclopedia article about a doctrine should strive to be helpful to someone who wants to understand it. To that end, it's useful to mention other doctrines with which it may be compared and contrasted. Moreover, the failure to mention alternatives may give the impression that there are none, which undermines the article's NPOV. And if dispensationalism is as integral to evangelicalism as you seem to be saying it is, then it may be helpful to explicitly state (with references, of course) that among evangelicals it's more or less a "standard" interpretive framework for understanding the Bible.

And then there's the fact that dispensationalism is controversial, if not among evangelicals then certainly among others. An article is improved when it makes clear why the topic is important and relevant. One reason a person might be looking in Wikipedia for info about it is that one has heard accusations that it's an ideology that has been distorting American foreign policy in recent years. Whether those accusations are fair or not, they're out there. In 2009, an article about dispensationalism is incomplete without a discussion of that fact, or perhaps a link to a separate article about it.

But then, I'm not a Wikipedia insider, so my opinions don't really count, do they? SRP Weston (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You show you are not familiar with Wikipedia's core principles, particularly neutral point of view and verifiability. Web sites are questionable sources. Also exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Lamorak (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "exceptional claim" you're talking about. The controversy about the alleged influence of dispensationalism on American foreign policy has been covered in major news magazines over several years. And it's clearly not "common knowledge that dispensationalism and evangelicalism are intertwined together." Perhaps it is among well-informed evangelicals, but not among the general public. Is the article trying to help evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike to understand dispensationalism, or not? SRP Weston (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

seems you say dispensationalists are not christians. esp "Its message of violent judgment and wrath is diametrically opposed to the message of love, mercy, forgiveness and peace that Jesus Christ and his apostles proclaimed" diametrically opposed?? no wiggle room on that. TKempis (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're reading a meaning into what I wrote that I did not intend. I believe dispensationalism is a pernicious distortion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the sincerely held views of those who are persuaded by it notwithstanding. However, holding a mistaken opinion about the gospel does not disqualify a person from receiving God's mercy. We are saved by grace through faith, not by correct doctrine. SRP Weston (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

the gospel is about Jesus atoning death on the cross and resurrection. its foundational to christian faith. those who don't believe the gospel aren't saved. they aren't christian. now Billy Graham is a dispensationalist. and he preaches the gospel. he is well known and respected by many christians. no one says the gospel he preaches is distorted. so what you are claiming about dispensationalism and the gospel is extremely confusing. TKempis (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Billy Graham preaches the gospel. He does not preach dispensationalism. Have a look at Philippians 2:1-11. The "mind of Christ" is an attitude of self-giving servanthood, not an eagerness to be fished out of the troubles of the world in the rapture while evildoers burn in the lake of fire. Nor is the mind of Christ characterized by endless speculation about what certain minute details of the Bible have to say about the end times or about how soon they might happen. To the exted that dispensationalist thought promotes those things instead of Christian love (see John 13:24-35; 1 Timothy 1:3-7) it distorts the gospel. It annoys me every time I'm leading a Bible study and the conversation is sidetracked by questions like, "Is it true that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?" or "Don't you think the U.S. should support Israel's claim to all of the promised land?"

you say Billy Graham who is a dispensationalist preaches the gospel. you also said dispensationalists preach a "pernicious distorted" gospel. there is only one gospel. so your sentences are contradictory. TKempis (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're picking nits. I opined that the doctrine of dispensationalism is a "pernicious distortion of the gospel," not that those who hold dispensationalist views necessarily preach a false gospel. You seem not to understand the difference between preaching and teaching. One can be mistaken about doctrine and still preach the true gospel. Does any preacher preach the gospel perfectly? Of course not, but the Holy Spirit still arranges for the Word to get through. SRP Weston (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with SRP Weston on this, this article as it currently stands is terribly uninformative, vague, and needs an overhaul. Support and criticism should definitely be added. Many websites can offer valid analysis of doctrines without being "verifiable sources". Such nitpicking to the detriment of the usefulness of the article is one of the reasons wikipedia is losing support of the public, is why I have not contributed (monetarily), and is one of the reasons why most casual editors have stopped bothering. So please, quit abusing the wikipedia guidelines such as "NPOV" and "verifiable sources" as political tools. This article needs these sections, and would be better with them.128.61.81.197 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm mindful of this statement at the top of the page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." With that in mind, the above dialog should probably end. The point is simply this: if you think dispensationalism is uncontroversial, you need get out of your echo chamber and talk to some folks with differing opinions. Clearly the article needs a good section on reasoned criticism. That section, to be complete, should include criticism from both within and outside evangelicalism. SRP Weston (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's still no section on criticism of dispensationalism. SRP Weston (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Darby

I would like to raise an objection to the idea that Darby originated dispensationalism...I will readily admit that Darby popularized the idea, and may have even done some organizing of the topic but there were Christians of significance who were "dispensationalistic" in their outlooks prior to Darby... Most recent to (but before Darby) was Rev. George Duffield Sr. (the 5th) who was one of two men to serve as chaplain to the second Continental Congress, and the sole chaplain to the Pennsylvania Militia during the American Revolution. Duffield was a New Light Presbyterian Minister. The following is an exerpt from a sermon he delivered on Dec. 11, 1783 on a Congressionally declared day of prayer and thankgiving for a return to peace subsequent to the Revolution, and finds its text in Isaiah 66:8 ... "This passage, it must be confessed, has a manifest respect to that happy period, generally termed the latter day glory; when the various nations of the earth, formerly stiled gentiles, and yet in darkness, shall in a sudden and surprizing manner, be converted to the knowledge and obedience of Christ: And the Jews, so long rejected of God, shall by an admirable display of divine power and grace, be gathered home from their dispersion, as in one day; and being formed into a people in their own land, shall become the most remarkable and leading part of the christian church, in activity and zeal for their God, and for Jesus the Saviour, their then acknowledged Messiah." My source for this information is the following web site...the online Liberty Library. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=816&chapter=69299&layout=html&Itemid=27

Were I to be a more contensious person, I might point out that None of the prophecies re: Israel make any sense unless there is an Israel around which the discussion might have relevance, or that the concern of the church in Thessalonica was that the rapture had already occured leaving them in the tribulation (the Holy Spirit thereby missing an oppurtunity to set them and us straight on the topic)...Not only does the Apostle Paul not correct them on this issue, but he also goes on to make several other points regarding the topic, and putting them in rememberance of that fact in 2Th 2:5 "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?". The Apostle Paul was in Thessalonica for three weeks, nuturing that young church...and apparently thought this topic of enough importance to mention in their early discipleship.

So, it can reasonably be argued that the early church, and the Apostle Paul were dispensationalists, as well. Predating Darby considerably. The only escape from this conclusion is to take a non-literal interpretation of scripture which reduces the entire conversation to arguments within subjectivity, and thereby making any knowledge of the scriptures a self canceling equation of human opinion rather than crediting the author with having coherant intent at the time of writing.

Additionally Ezekiel 38 (vs.8)and 39 certainly point to this understanding, as does Daniel which is referenced in Matthew24:15 in both direct mention, and the assumption of the end time existence of a people/nation dispersed in 70 A.D.

At the beginning of this video clip (please, no criticism of Missler, I don't agree with everything he says, and will not therefore defend him on those issues), Chuck Missler details, several examples of pre-Darby occurences of the dispensationalist view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFuRQsobdqU&NR=1

Furthermore, a non-literal, amillenial position is at odds with the clear teaching of scripture with regards to the immenency of Christs return for the church.

But since I'm not contenscious I won't bring it up...(much humor intended)

With respect to any who disagree, And love for those who don't,--Knightly Sir James (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightly Sir James (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Error in History-UK section? In reading the article, there is a section under History - United Kingdom that discusses Darby's views, then abruptly discusses a set of views but attributes them to Scofield. If this is a typographical error, then someone needs to change "Scofield" to "Darby" in that section; otherwise, if it is regarding Scofield's views, it needs to be moved under History - United States. 173.51.166.11 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rev 17 and anti-Roman Catholicsm and/or interpretations of the woman as "false religious systems"

I would suggest removing or heavily editing the section dealing with Rev 17 and the relatively common interpretation associating the woman of this chapter with the Pope/Roman Catholicism and/or false religious systems. This is not a distinctively dispensational belief, though it is common in dispensational churches. The notion of Babylon the Great as representing Roman Catholicism dates back at least to Luther, who, although he didn't think especially highly of Revelation, encouraged this interpretation. The view of the chapter as a reference to false religion in general is strongly related, and though often interpreted this way in dispensational circles, isn't actually a contribution of dispensationalism as much as it is an outside element dispensationalism has incorporated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolewr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed. Done.Lamorak (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (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)

Well, this is basically a lie and you really have no evidence to prue such an idea

The article is on the belief of Dispensationalism. This belief truly exists, it is not an urban legend. The article contains factual information. There is no reason it should be removed. There are perhaps many things you do not know about on Wikipedia, but they exist, so they shouldn't be removed. Gaandolf (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Flow? What flow?

I take issue with the opening sentence of this article, on two counts.

First, it presumes that there is something about the Bible that might accurately be referred to as a "flow." Second, I’m not sure dispensationalism succeeds in providing an adequate "interpretive framework" for understanding said "flow."

As I understand it, dispensationalism is an attempt to harmonize certain apparent discrepancies between various parts of the Bible that depict God interacting with human beings in seemingly inconsistent ways. However, dispensationalism actually negates any purported "flow" by asserting that God relates to human beings differently at different points in history, moving from one dispensation to another in an apparently capricious manner. The discontinuity in the movement from one dispensation to another amounts to chopping the history of God and God's people into several pieces rather than presenting a unified whole.

Considering the criterion of Occam's Razor, I would think that historical and literary criticism do a better job of explaining these inconsistencies. Different parts of the Bible, written at different times in history, by different people, for different purposes, and with different intended audiences, reflect an evolution in human understanding of the divine. It’s not that God deals with humanity in disparate ways, but that people's perceptions of God's nature have undergone profound changes at certain key points in history (most notably at the coming of Jesus Christ). This is a perfectly adequate explanation of the variety of viewpoints one finds in the Bible. The only reason not to accept such a view is the dogmatic adherence to the distinctively modern doctrine of inerrancy.

If the opening sentence reflects the way prominent dispensationalists think of dispensationalism, then it should be stated as such, with appropriate citation of relevant sources. As it stands, that sentence represents an opinion, not a fact. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Dispensationalism is a Protestant, evangelical tradition and theology. Lamorak (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to omit mention of what dispensationalism aims to do, lest the reader be left wondering what's distinctive about it. Also, I'm not sure "tradition" is an accurate descriptor, since Darby himself understood it to be a new thing less than 200 years ago. And then there's the question of whether it's a full-blown "theology" (like trinitarianism) or merely an "interpretive framework" for understanding the Bible. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tradition refers to a religious movement with specific leaders, ideas, even internalized conflicts. Many religious traditions, such as the Pentecostal tradition, are far less than 200 years old. Certain theological views are also core in the history of dispensationalism - particularly distinctives in eschatology (i.e. premillennial, pretribulation, etc). Its common for many scholars to refer to dispensationalism as both a tradition and a theology. I'm not sure "interpretive framework" is a very helpful description for the average reader. What do you think when you read that? All protestant evangelicals have an "interpretative framework" for understanding the Bible, so its not really unique. It seems to me to be a shorthand way of saying someone has a certain hermeneutical approach that leads to specific interpretations of Scripture. Or in other words, a process that results in a distinctive theology. Lamorak (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You understand "tradition" and "theology" more broadly than I do, but that's no big deal. I agree about "interpretive framework." That phrase strikes me as synonymous with "hermeneutic." Maybe it would make sense to rework the first two sentences into something like this: "Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical tradition and theology [1] based on a biblical hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically successive 'dispensations' or periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways." What do you think? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good opening sentence to me.Lamorak (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess everyone has a right to their opinion, but the fallacy of a Darby origin is easily addressed historically, even if it was wrong biblically (which I don't happen to be of that opinion...however). Even if Darby was under the impression that it was a new idea...it might've been new to him, but historically it CAN in fact be traced back to the first century right, wrong, or indifferent. So, stop with the the Darby stuff...read my comments on it.--76.226.1.177 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite any reputable scholarship about that? I haven't seen any convincing evicence that dispensationalism predates Darby. The evidence I've seen is all of the sort that would be convincing only to folks who are wanting to be persuaded. If you go looking for reasons to believe what you already believe, or would like to, you tend to find it-- like Dan Brown finding "evidence" that Mary Magdale was married to Jesus Christ and carrying his child when he died. The reason it might seem that dispensationalism goes back to the patristic era is that there are a few points of overlap between Darby's ideas and the teachings of the early church fathers. Thus, when one goes looking for examples of pre-Darby dispensationalist thought, one can latch onto these commonalities and say, "Aha! Here it is!" It's a bit like looking at Jude 6 and inferring that the apostle must have known about black holes (where else could rebellious angels be kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness?).

SRP Weston (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Book Lists

The page has two separate book lists, the first under "bibliography" and the second under "External links, suggested book list." Most of the sources in the first list at least relate to dispensationalism as a whole. Most of the sources in the second list are at best tangentially related to dispensationalism, or quite frankly not even related at all. I say the second list needs to be deleted. Lamorak (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You assert that "most of the sources in the second list" are really not related -- implying that some are related. I would suggest we weed out those that are not related and keep a couple of related books for additional reading. WBardwin (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I affirm removing the list. I think the bibliography list should be paired down too, retaining the highest quality works that cover the topic generally. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How many of the books left on the list are critical of dispensationalism? Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of the 12 on the list, 6 were written by non-dispensationalists.Lamorak (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotations Needed

In the section 4.2 on Antichrist, several of these quotes appear misleading. We need to directly quote the sources and texts used. It is a bad habit, especially, when there could be multiple interpretations. While some people might feel the urge to go out and do additional research, most may likely not (research is time consuming) and to simply exclude reference to key quotations that dispensationalists use to justify their belief that Jews are going to produce the Antichrist seem to be a POV issue. The objective scholar will not hesitate to cite his sources by listing direct quotations of what others say when it is high controversial. This section lists a dialog between both parties and exemplifies there exists a difference of opinion. These quotations should be listed. I'm posting here to create a discussion on the matter, instead of simply making arbitrary changes to the article based upon my beliefs in academic writing.

The article reads like someone whom believes in Dispensationalism and is writing as a defense, not as an objective observer. These broken quotes ignore the logical modifiers of the original article. I'm not citing original research, simply observation of fact. The article does not indicate an "if..., then" modifier that exists and specifies that two opinions exist, it only cites a chapter (specifically John 5:43) and says this is used by dispensationalist scholars to justify their opinion that "Jews" will bring forth the Antichrist. This puts a highly controversial issue on the side of one party instead of letting the reader decide for themselves through direct observation.

I'm listing the quotes here from the RSV edition (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/) although, any text would work (i.e. http://bible.cc which has several texts).

"I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. " (John 5:43)

[Note the "if..., then" modifier. This either needs to be noted, or (more easily) the quote needs to be directly stated, as it is on the higher quality pages. i.e. Bhagavad Gita)]

"For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night./When people say, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3)

"By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall magnify himself. Without warning he shall destroy many; and he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes; but, by no human hand, he shall be broken." (Daniel 8:25)

"In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." (Daniel 11:21)

"He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all." (Daniel 11:37)

Please take these concerns seriously. I appreciate your time reading this. Dragoon91786 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Francisco Ribera

Why isn't his work from the counter-reformation in originating this belief discussed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism

This article should note that Dispensationalism is a major part of Mormonism, with its notions of Apostasy and Restoration.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The LDS use of language around apostasy and restoration is related to dispensationalism, but the language of apostasy and restoration was widely used in American and British Christianity in the early 19th century--and even the term "dispensation" was used by many different groups. Atterlep (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I know about LDS theology, the Mormons are most definitely dispensationalist. The Jehovah's Witnesses are too.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Atterlep is correct. A group or person is not dispensationalist simply because they divide history into different dispensations. Pierre Poiret and Isaac Watts were drawing up dispensations long before dispensationalism was systematized. Also dispensationalism is a subset within evangelicalism. The LDS and JW organizations are not subsets of evangelicalism. Therefore the proper place for LDS and JW schemes should be within Dispensation (period) and not dispensationalism. Lamorak (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations for Early History

I'm not sure what to do with the citations on the early history of dispensationalism. I added some of those lines; since then I've published a dissertation with references to the primary sources on those points. I wasn't sure whether it was OK to reference my own dissertation, and the primary sources are not very accessible. However, if it's better for me to reference obscure 19th-century journals, I can do that. Atterlep (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think citing your own dissertation as a reference is fine. Lamorak (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons with "Roman" Catholic

Catholics mostly believe the same thing: those based in Rome, Anglicans/Episcopals, Orthodox Christians, and often Lutherans, when it comes to general stuff like "dispensationalism." Not sure why "Roman Catholics" are singled out here. Student7 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The churches you just mentioned do not subscribe to dispensationalism. --Confession0791 ^talk 14:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why I just removed Catholics from the article. Catholics believe the same as most Christians on this issue: They don't subscribe to dispensationalism. Nor should they be singled out for treatment on this issue, one way or another, without involving all the other churches, as well. Nor did the reference(s) support that idea. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Certain statements have recently been added which appear to be interpretations of the Bible by the editor without support from a reliable source.

"However, this view and others following do not agree with Stephen's inspired and authoritative statement (Acts 7:38) that the 'church', as the 'assembly' of God's people has been in existence from, at least, the wilderness wanderings - the same 'God's people' brought out of Egypt."

The only support offered for this statement is the following statement which also appears to be the work of the editor:

"Stephen’s defence before the Sanhedrin. Notably, the Scriptures indicate that Stephen did great wonders and miraculous signs, and was a man full of God's grace and power of the Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3, 5, 8, 15). Given Stephen’s character and spiritual disposition his inspired understanding of the nature of the Church remains authoritative and unassailable by any ancient or modern theories of the Church’s origin and make-up. Consequently, the idea of a post-resurrection 'start of the church/church age' remains a misnomer to those who hold to Stephen's perspective."

The problem is that there is only a primary source, the Bible, and this interpretation of it by editor. The Bible itself is not a reliable source for anything except it's exact wording. Any interpretations of the Bible such as the authority of Stephen or whether the statements of Stephen even relate to Dispensationalism, require a reliable source that interprets the bible in this way. Editor's own opinions and interpretations of primary sources, i.e. original research, are inappropriate.

Unless someone can provide reliable secondary sources that make these interpretations of the Bible, these edits should be removed. Jojalozzo 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for plain english in introduction

The introductory sentence is unintelligible... "Dispensationalism is a nineteenth-century evangelical development based on a futurist biblical hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically successive "dispensations" or periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants."

I plugged it into an online Flesch-Kincaid Reading test at readability-score.com. A good score is 90-100. A bad score is 30 or below. This sentence got a readability score of *negative* 28. Anyone want to rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.41.254 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Russophobia

A lot of dispensationalists seem to be very strongly Russophobic (and in addition, many are also Europhobic as well, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent). The fictional works of Joel C. Rosenberg and Tim LaHaye, for instance, portray Russia, Russians and Russian Orthodoxy in an extremely negative light (as Gog). Considering that the Cold War has been over for several decades now, it's quite remarkable that dispensationalists continue to hold these types of views. Is this worth mentioning in the article somewhere? The books by Rosenberg, LaHaye, etc., could be used as our sources. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The basis of the alleged Russo-phobia is an interpretation of the Biblical term "Gog and Magog" to mean "the land north of the Black Sea". Ezekiel refers to Magog as being from the north. Josephus, for example, indicates that the term was interpreted as applying to the Scythians, who lived north of the Black Sea. Thus, various dispensationalist interpretations of Biblical prophecy will project a role for Russia in the future fulfillment of prophecy.

Dave-c-anderson (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "Start of the Church Age" and Dispensationalism History Chart

One needs to read R.A. Huebner' works on Darby to see that Darby started the church at Pentecost. Darby may not have used the term "dispensation" consistently and he did not correlate the beginning of the church with the beginning of a new dispensation necessarily. His notion of dispensations is not the same as Scofield and later dispensationalists and this will cause confusion for those who don't see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.186.122 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Darby showing he held to the church beginning at Pentecost (Acts 2):

In the Ephesians, however, when the body is fully spoken of, the apostle refers to the elect saints, who are created again in Christ Jesus, and are sealed for the day of redemption; that is, united to the Head, as God knows it; quickened, raised, and seated in heavenly places in Christ the Head. That which was wrought this unity is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, under which the elect and manifested remnant were brought on the day of Pentecost. (The House of God; The Body of Christ; and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 14, pages 24-25 (1860).

Therefore Darby cannot be regarded as a "Mid-Acts" proponent. The statement and the chart should be changed to reflect this. Lamorak (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read Darby's (admittedly, as always, rambling) writing (my bolding added). "The first great element promised in scripture, and given after the exaltation of Jesus, was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The assembly being now formed, the Lord added to it daily the remnant of Israel whom He was sparing from judgment. Hereafter they will form the body of Israel itself". "the assembly of God was ... not yet brought out ...that Jews and Gentiles should form one body without distinction." "They are together as stones in a building, and as a priesthood; but it is not a body growing in itself with joints of supply." [The House of God; The Body of Christ; and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 14, pages 24-25 (1860)] "Stephen formed the link between Jewish rejection and the position and state of the church which followed...Stephen was the closing of the Jewish ‘possibility of the dispensation.' But a new scene now opens—the regular Gentile form and order of the dispensation in the hands of the apostle Paul, the apostle of the uncircumcision, the apostle of the Gentiles. Did he then derive it from the apostles? or was he indeed a successor to our Lord by earthly appointment and derivation? No; in no wise." [Collected Writings Of J. N. Darby, Ecclesiastical No. 1, Volume 1: The Character Of Office In The Present Dispensation]. The chart should be changed to reflect this Duke Ganote (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The quotes don't really address the issue. A Mid-Acts advocate would never say that the church began on Acts 2 and the day of Pentecost. Yet Darby's quote is quite clear in stating that the beginning of the church is in Acts 2. Its not the only quote - Darby stated this Acts 2 view multiple times in his writings. Also scholars and writers on the history of dispensationalism do not think Darby originated the Mid-Acts view. They think Bullinger originated the Mid-Acts view, since he was clearly the first to write about it. Lamorak (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the fine grained distinction, the difference between the then-church/"body of Israel" (Matthew 16; Acts 2) and the now-church/"body of Christ" (mid-Acts) wherein conversion to Judaism is neither presumed nor essential. Do you have references for the "scholars and writers on the history of dispensationalism" you're thinking of? I've read a few; the Larry V. Crutchfield quote is the clearest; the others I've read are vague on the point. (I'm beginning to be skeptical that many people have read Darby; not that I blame them, Darby certainly makes the apostle Paul look like the epitome of brevity.)Duke Ganote (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First understand that many believe that all Darby did, was to examine a belief system that was taught by the Lord through Paul and believed upon by many throughout all generations. So to presume that it started with Darby, is an error and a bias in the article. 2602:306:255B:9C59:5CA9:AC91:27E7:DDF4 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say. – Confession0791 ^talk 22:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

All ultradispensationalists that I know consider Darby an Acts 2 dispensationalist and I have been associated with the Grace Movement for some 25 years. No ultradispensationalist goes to Darby for any teaching. Also, the Mid-Acts position began independently with J.C. O'Hair, not Bullinger. Bullinger was Acts 28 as far as Mid-Acts folk are concerned and their are many disagreements between the two unique positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.186.122 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Royerton

Any sources for the claim about Jack Royerton in the article, or even that he is notable? A Google search for his name gives only sites that mirror Wikipedia (including this entry, but also the ones about Jerry Garcia, of whom he was apparently a childhood friend, as well as several rock and hip-hop albums by Led Zeppelin and other artists which he apparently helped produce). If the statement is true then it'd certainly be interesting to read about it in more detail (one of the key promoters of dispensationalist doctrine is a hippie folk-poet and rock'n'roll producer? Far-out, man). But if no sources can be found to back it up then it should probably be removed as per WP: BLP and WP: N. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting; the bit about Royerton was added by an IP who geolocates to Flagler College, where Royerton is apparently on staff. So it might be Royerton himself adding that, or one of his students. The same IP has also been editing other articles to insert unsourced mentions of Royerton as well. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I had been in the Grace Movement for twenty years and in touch for some 7-8 years since and have all their major works and many minor writings and I have never heard of Royerton or seen his name anywhere. He can hardly be considered "notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.186.122 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the History sub section United States of America

The statement "As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove his bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation." not only lacks citation but is historically inaccurate. In addition, the purposeful use of double quotes in the statement is biased and unnecessary.

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ephraem of Nisibis Pre-Dates Darby

Ephraem of Nisibis was the most important and prolific of the Syrian church fathers and a witness to early Christianity on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the late fourth century.

He was well-known for his poetry, exegetical and theological writings, and many of the hymns of the early Byzantine church. So popular were his works that in the fifth and sixth centuries he was adopted by several Christian communities as a spiritual leader and role model.

A particular sermon of his is deemed to be one of the most interesting apocalyptic texts of the early Middle Ages. The translation of the sermon includes the following segment:

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins." This text was originally a sermon called On the Last Times, the Anti-christ, and the End of the World. There are four existing Latin manuscripts (the Parisinus, the Augiensis, the Barberini, and the St. Gallen) ascribed to St. Ephraem or to St. Isidore . Some scholars believe this text was written by some unknown writer in the sixth century and was derived from the original Ephraem.

The sermon describes the events of the last days, beginning with the rapture, the Great Tribulation of 3 1/2 years duration under the Antichrist's rule, followed by the Second Coming of Christ. In Ephraem's book The Book of the Cave of Treasures, written about 370 A.D., he expressed his belief that the 69th week of Daniel ended with the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah.

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Scare Quotes and Sneer Quotes

The use of double quotes for the word rapture and the phrase secret rapture seem intentional on the part of the original author(s) to somehow discredit the rapture doctrine. The method of using double quotations in this manner is sometimes known as scare quotes or sneer quotes. The article entitled Scare Quotes in Wikipedia under the section Negative has this to say about scare quotes and sneer quotes "The effect of using scare quotes is often similar to prepending a skeptical modifier such as so-called or alleged to label the quoted word or phrase, to indicate scorn, sarcasm, or irony. Scare quotes may be used to express disagreement with the original speaker's intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement or disdain, or without even explicitly acknowledging it. In this type of usage, they are sometimes called "sneer quotes".

Examples:

Liberal: We've heard about these conservatives and their tax "relief". Conservative: The liberals have proposed yet another form of "common-sense" gun control.

Political commentator Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic that "The scare quote is the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it, or even necessarily making clear what you're insinuating."

The quotes then need to be removed as do all scare quotes and sneer quotes in this article.

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Other Sources Pre-Dating Darby

Crude, but clear, schemes of ages and dispensations are found in ante-Nicene fathers such as Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (130-200), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Methodius (d. 311), and Victorinus of Petau (d. 304). Dispensationalist, Larry Crutchfield concluded that,

Regardless of the number of economies to which the Fathers held, the fact remains that they set forth what can only be considered a doctrine of ages and dispensations which foreshadows dispensationalism as it is held today. Their views were certainly less well defined and less sophisticated. But it is evident that the early Fathers viewed God' s dealings with His people in dispensational terms. . . . In every major area of importance in the early church one finds rudimentary features of dispensationalism that bear a striking resemblance to their contemporary offspring

Crutchfield charted these Fathers' schemes in the following chart which I have reproduced in an abbreviated form.

Justin Martyr - Enoch/Noah to Abraham to Moses to Christ to Millennium.

Irenaeus - Noah to Moses to Christ to Eternity.

Tertullian - Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to Christ to Millennium.

Crutchfield outlined the early Fathers' views on Israel and the church, which is another feature important to dispensationalism.

The Fathers (1) distinguished between the church and national Israel, (2) recognized distinctions among the differing peoples of God throughout biblical history, and (3) believed in the literal fulfillment of covenant promises in the earthly kingdom. . . . The contemporary dispensational position on Israel and the church is primarily a refinement and not a contradiction of the position of the ante-Nicene church

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On The Word Rapture Not Being In The Bible And It's Relationship To Dispensationalism

Often opponents of the doctrine of dispensationalism will attempt to further discredit it by citing that the word 'rapture' is not found in the Bible. It's true, the word 'rapture' is not found...in the English Bible. That's the whole problem with the argument because the Bible wasn't originally written in English. The New Testament was taken from primarily Greek sources. The word 'rapture' is taken from the phase "catching up" which is the Greek word 'harpazo'. The word "rapture" itself comes from the Latin word "rapturo," from the Latin Vulgate which in turn was a translation of the Greek verb "caught up" (harpazo) found in 1 Thes 4:17. You can call it the pre-trib rapture, the pre-trib rapturo, or the pre-trib caught up--it's all the same thing. The rapture, the "catching up" (harpazo) was revealed by Paul the apostle. It is a mystery that originated with the Apostle Paul, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 and 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18. The Rapture was not the concoction of John Darby, who picked up this teaching, and gave it improved order of presentation centuries after the doctrine was believed and taught by the early church fathers (first two centuries AD) just as Darby did with dispensationalism.

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Modern Dispensationalism vs. Ancient Dispensationalism

Darby should be cited as the father of 'modern dispensationalism' as it can be shown that he simply improved upon what the ancient forefathers taught starting with the Apostle Paul. There is a major difference between saying Darby is the 'father of dispensationalism' and the 'father of modern dispensationalism'. It is further bias to state that Darby is the 'father of dispensationalism' and also historically inaccurate. Detractors of dispensationalism and the rapture which accompanies it attempt to cause these doctrines to be viewed as new pitting them against older doctrines. The idea is that if they can somehow prove that Darby is the originator of dispensationalism and the rapture then Christinity as a whole should regard it as a view that is suspect and not as dependable as doctrines such as: the virgin birth, the resurrection, and salvation through faith alone. If the article then on dispensationalism ever hopes to be truly unbiased then not only should Darby be cited as the father of 'modern dispensationalism', but it should become necessary to develop a whole new article on ancient dispensastionalism such as that which was held by men like Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (130-200), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Methodius (d. 311), and Victorinus of Petau (d. 304) all of them centuries before Darby.

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

This article needs to be corrected and updated with as much as biased information removed as possible or totally rewritten to show an unbiased view of dispensationalism. Exoucia1 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Exoucia1 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Jehovah's Witness chart used under the Influence section

By using the Jehovah's Witness chart/image it is further biasing this article. The concept of 'guilty by association' will be made to further discredit the doctrine of dispensationalism by associating it with a cult of Christianity. Dispensational division of history varies among its adherents from three periods, to four, seven, and eight dispensations. Seven is the most common.

If the person(s) who posted this chart/image wished to state that dispensationalism has influenced the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witness then it should have been noted. It has not and therefore will cause further biased view of this doctrine.

Exoucia1 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I deleted the superfluous phrase "rooted in Scripture" in the 2nd paragraph because hopefully all Christian theology is so rooted. The Jehovah's Witnesses constantly claim THEIR doctrines are "Bible-Based" but that doesn't necessarily equal "True to Scripture". Mecuryus (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)mecuryus

"The true people of God?"

The "Influence" section currently states "Dispensationalism...sees the Jewish people as the true people of God." The wording gives the impression that the Jews are the "true people of God" as opposed to Christians. That's potentially misleading. The New Testament calls all Christians people of God: "for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God" (1 Peter 2:10, NASB). It would be more accurate to say that Dispensationalists believe Jewish people are still God's chosen people - that the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham has not been revoked. It's not a big deal it's just slightly confusing. I'll tweak the wording slightly to remedy this.Sadiemonster (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"The true people of God?"

The "Influence" section currently states "Dispensationalism...sees the Jewish people as the true people of God." The wording gives the impression that the Jews are the "true people of God" as opposed to Christians. That's potentially misleading. The New Testament calls all Christians people of God: "for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God" (1 Peter 2:10, NASB). It would be more accurate to say that Dispensationalists believe Jewish people are still God's chosen people - that the unconditional covenant God made with Abraham has not been revoked. It's not a big deal it's just slightly confusing. I'll tweak the wording slightly to remedy this.Sadiemonster (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Does the "In US Politics" section belong here?

A section on US politics seems out of place here - a place to lodge grievances against dispensationalists rather than examining the topic. The cited works are POV polemics, not neutral, and don't really add anything to the discussion on what dispensationalism is. The thesis of "American Theocracy" is best discussed on a page for that book, not in the pages related to every theological term that author might utilize in making a tendentious argument. At best, this section reads like a publicity hook for these works rather than a discussion of how dispensationalism has actually influenced US politics, which frankly should be a separate subject even if approached properly and seriously rather than superficially and pretextually as it is here. "Author X has claimed" is a suspect qualification for relevance to any given topic, and its use in this section is a textbook example of how these kinds of citations are just being used as a dog whistle, ideological red flag or tribal signal for "dispensationalists are bad people we don't like." The whole tone of this page toes that line (e.g. "judeophilia?") but this section clearly steps over. Calawpro (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispensationalism/Apostolic Age/Cessationism

What is missing in these Wikipedia articles is the interrelationship of the idea of the Apostolic Age to those that believe in Hard Cessationism. Hard Cessationism has created another Dispensation that they call the Apostolic Age, a distinct Dispensation. In this period of the Church Age God is confirming the Gospel through the Sign, (Chrismata), Gifts that are recorded in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Hard Cessationism state that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as recorded in Acts, and 1 Corinthians cease at the end of the Dispensation of the Apostolic Age. The Apostolic Age they consider to be ended by the death of the Apostles and the close of the writing of the Canon, (Bible). Cessationism states that the Scriptural proof that the Gifts have ended is found in 1 Corinthians 13:10, "But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." This creates a distinctive way that God worked from the death of Christ until around 100 AD + or - to be different. Cessationists, like Pastor John MacArthur, ("The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit"), state the Sign Gifts from 1 Corinthians 12-14 operating today to be, "All Lies, All False, All Deception." This creates a separate Church Age that should be called a separate Dispensation of the Church.Easeltine (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mid-Acts dispensationalists speak of a transition period in Acts form Acts 9 to the end where the old dispensation fades out and the dispensation of Grace comes up fully online. Acts 28 actually has an intermediate dispensation of the Holy Spirit in which the church is Jewish. During this dispensation, the Acts 28 position sees water baptism and the Lord's Supper as new Jewish ordinances which cease at Acts 28 along with the gifts.71.90.33.41 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

History of Dispensationalism chart image

I have improved the accuracy of this chart and would like to upload and replace the current image. It modifies the current image showing Pauline Dispensationalism's relation to Darby and was in fact the original American form of Dispensationalism. Also the development of American Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is more accurate as opposed to British Acts 28 Dispensationalism.71.90.33.41 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dispensationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207223246/http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/bdisp/bd0.html to http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/bdisp/bd0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No Christian teaching of a "rapture" before ~1830? Not according to...

See Raputre#Doctrinal_History which describes the Cotton family preaching a similar doctrine in the late 17th, about 150 years before Darby. 76.126.137.85 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an article on Dispensationalism, which as a system was developed in the 1830s. There is no evidence for any historical connection between Darby and the Cottons, and Darby repeatedly insisted that dispensationalism needed to be treated and accepted as a complete system. Thus the statement is accurate. Atterlep (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if you can push the doctrine back 150 years (which I would question), the system as a whole is still a novelty in the overall scheme of church history. This article seems to avoid that critique.63.155.106.197 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. It is a relatively recent novelty that was invented in the US, and was therefore never a part of Christianity prior to about 1830, and is not part of the major tradional denominations - Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc., and is peculiar to the recently concocted evangelical denominations found mainly in rural areas in the mid-western parts of the US (and spilling northward into mid-west Canada). Although most of the US media equate US evangelicalism with Christianity itself, thus notably giving a false impression that is often parroted by those non-Christians who hate Christianity, it is a fact that the vast majority of Christians worldwide dismiss dispensationalism as absurd nonsense, if they have heard of it at all. This article seems to have been written by proponents of dispensationalism, and therefore does not reflect the fact that dispensationalists are a modern fringe element that is far away from traditional Christianity.77Mike77 (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Novelty is not a problem for dispensationalists. It is seen merely as the most recent recovery of truth begun during the Reformation. The Reformation began with a recovery of soteriological truth and continued with Dispensationalism's recovery of ecclesiastical and eschatological truth.71.90.33.41 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this article only about Protestant dispensationalism, or is it intended to have greater scope?

After a discussion on Christianity.stackexchange.com, it became apparent that this page is very specifically about Protestant dispensationalism developed in the early 1800's and not about dispensationalism expressed or beleived in any other church. Most notably (because I am a member), the LDS Church is dispensational, but not believing in the Tribulation and Rapture as Protestants do and having different names for the dispensations we don't exactly match the article as presented. If the article is intended to only be about dispensationalism developed in and promulgated through Protestantism, may I recommend the article be reworded appropriately to narrow its focus. If the article is intended to address dispensationalism universally, in what way should we incorporate the variations within different sects?JBH (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I reject dispensationalism.) You are correct that this article represents an extremely narrow denominational focus re dispensationalism, and fails to mention that (a) there are a variety of versions of it, and (b) it is not a part of traditional mainstream Christianity.77Mike77 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dispensationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203075745/http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/notwrath.html to http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/notwrath.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719142144/http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PDChallenge.pdf to http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PDChallenge.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719142144/http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PDChallenge.pdf to http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PDChallenge.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Harmony" not Encyclopedic

"Dispensationalists demonstrate the harmony of history as focusing on the glory of God and put God at its center"

This just sounds awful; like it was lifted directly from some cheesy brochure you find stuck to your door on Sunday morning. Flowery, dramatic and overblown, like the Article's intended audience are the adherents, or believers, of this. I came here to find out what a "dispensational christian" is, and got smacked in the head by this phrase, pretty much derailing any motivation to continue reading. I note that one of the primary objectives of the Lede is to inspire the Reader to continue to read. This word choice, and it's early placement in the Lede, has the exact opposite effect. Besides that, it's totally meaningless; one of those flowery "jargon phrases" that require you to read even more flowery jargon later on in the work in order to have some idea of what meaning is intended to be conveyed. I don't read those Sunday morning brochures, either. Please fix this.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Influence on US foreign policy

The article lead currently states "Dispensationalism has had a strong influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially with regards to the modern state of Israel." This is unsupported by the article body. The relevant section includes sourced claims that evangelicals broadly support Israel and that Ronald Reagan read a book. There are no sources demonstrating that dispensationalism has actually had an influence on US foreign policy with regard to Israel. I understand that this is considered "common knowledge" in some circles, but common knowledge doesn't belong on Wikipedia without a source. In fact, one of the sources specifically says that administration officials -- you know, the people making foreign policy decisions -- denied that they were influenced by evangelical ideology! At best, this is a controversial claim that should not be stated as fact; at worst, it's unsourced POV-pushing. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:9507:6781:DBBF:1A96 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So really it's not so much that it's "unsourced" but rather that it really needs to be reworded/reworked to more accurately reflect what is in the article (since that's what the lead is supposed to do). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure. When I tried to reword it to "Critics claim", which I think is more accurate, it was removed due to weasel-wording, so I'm not really sure where to go from there. At the risk of WP:SYNTH, the sources seem to support two ideas: (a) evangelical leaders broadly push for political support of Israel on religious grounds, and (b) opponents of evangelicals believe that this push has had undue influence on American foreign policy. Perhaps something like

Dispensationalist beliefs have caused prominent Christian leaders to call for political support of the state of Israel.

and if you like

Critics assert that this has influenced US foreign policy.

To be honest, I'm not in love with the body of the article either... the phrasing "Israel has allied [...] to influence U.S. foreign policy" isn't present in the sources and also seems like a pretty controversial thing to just flatly state. This article should focus primarily on the beliefs and actions of dispensationalists, and the subsection is supposedly about US politics, but the text almost exclusively talks about Israel. But, well, one thing at a time. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:9507:6781:DBBF:1A96 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Opposing views

Lutherans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Anglicans neither subscribe to Dispensationalism nor Covenant theology, but to Law and Gospel. How should we go about inserting that into the article, and should we have a seperate section for opposing views? —Confession0791 ^talk 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The only reason that covenant theology is mentioned in contrast is that dispensationalism emerged from previously covenantal/confessional groups (such as Baptists and Presbyterians). If there is no specific relation other than "we don't teach that" then there's no reason to mention it. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The history section could use expansion. A lot has happened since 1928. —Confession0791 ^talk 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)