Is Dispensationalism a cult?

Please show me where the Bible contradicts anything that I believe..there is ample suggestion that Jesus is alive.

It is also the case that Jesus being alive is not a tenet unique to dispensationalism, so it is likely that you are not pointing to a point of contention.Surely you are aware of at least one of your beliefs that contradicts with what non-dispensationalists believe. Why not start there?For example I am curious why you think Jesus words in Matthew 25:31-32 don't apply to Gentiles. But pick your own belief.

quote:

---

Because the bible is explained in a way that makes more sense.

---

I sort of doubt that.Perhaps you can explain why it makes sense to say that Genesis was written for people BEFORE Moses. Traditionally authorship is ascribed to Moses. Scholars date it's final redaction to the Babylonian Exile.

quote:

---

I don't like the idea that Jesus was never born of a virgin and is likely not alive. I simply don't accept that.

---

Only liberal Christians doubt the virgin birth (although I can't see why it's important at all) and even they say that Jesus is alive. So neither is a reason to go to Dispensationalism.

quote:

---

While I may allow that God expects us to question things and think for ourselves, I believe that many people deny the need for Christ or the power. This world will never solve its problems through logic, reason, and reality alone.

---

I don't see how this has anything to do with specifically embracing Dispensationalism.So let's stick to "making sense of the Bible" because that's the only thing you attribute to Dispensationalism specifically.

That is pretty much irrelevant in a discussion of dispensationalism. But look at what you said when asked why you choose dispensationalism? There is absolutely nothing in your reasons related to dispensationalism and everything to do with Phat not wanting to take responsibility for what happens and Phat wanting someone else to step in and fix things.Isn't what you gave as your reasons all a matter of what Phat wants and will accept and nothing related to anything else?As I have said, dispensationalism is a great product to market and a far easier sell than "Take up YOUR cross and follow me."

That's pretty much what jar stated as a definition. But I think there is the implication that you hold tightly to tenets that come from non Biblical sources and that you are being led astray. So maybe definition 1(a) is closest.

I think that you start off with an idea about the Bible that makes it difficult to truly understand how the Bible should be understood. The Bible is a narrative of the story of God reaching out to mankind so that we slowly continue to gain understanding. It is an on-going narrative that will ultimately come to its conclusion when all things are made new. The Bible tells the story only up to the point of 2000 years ago but also leaves us some vague sign posts into the future.The climax of the narrative up to that point 2000 years ago is the resurrection. Christianity all hangs on that. If we conclude, as I have, that God bodily resurrected Jesus then we have a place to start to find out just what we can learn from the Bible. If we start with an inerrant Bible and then look at Jesus and the resurrection we lose the sense of the narrative and wind up with a skewed image of God and His message for us.I think that the biggest reason that Christians want to understand the Bible as being the Word of God as opposed to the word of God, (IMHO Jesus is the Word of God), is that we want definite answers and understanding. As humans we don’t like ambiguity. We want clarity and so if we can go to a passage in the Bible and come up with some statement that will give us an answer we can then erase all doubt and be done with it. Life isn’t like that and the Bible isn’t either.You mention that the virgin birth is important to you. It is after all really only in 2 of the Gospels and not even mentioned in the Epistles.I suggest that the reason it is important to you is that Christianity sees Jesus as being God in the sense of one substance with the Father. If Jesus is just conceived normally like anyone else then we again have a more ambiguous understanding of that, whereas if we have an immaculate conception then we can feel that we have now shown that Jesus is God.I’m not denying the virgin birth but let’s just say that it didn’t happen that way. Let’s take a minimalist view and say that Jesus was conceived normally. Matthew and Luke were anxious to establish within the Jewish community the sense of Jesus being the fulfillment of their scriptures and so it is quite conceivable that the account of the virgin birth is a legend that they wrote, not as a lie, but something that the Jewish community would have understood as being legendary. That would actually be pretty normal in that era.So if Jesus was conceived normally where does that leave us? In one sense Jesus tells us that we are in a sense to turn in love to God and creation and allow our lives to be touched by God’s Holy Spirit so that it becomes less about us and our selfish desires and more about Him and the job of reflecting His love into the world. In a sense we are called to be little Christs. John tells us that the Word of God was with creation from the beginning and that in Jesus this Word became incarnate. In that sense John essentially is saying that God’s Word is perfectly incarnate in Jesus. Now that certainly leaves a lot more ambiguity about the understanding of the Trinity but so what. As long as the bodily resurrection is an historical reality then does it really matter whether the virgin conception is historical or legendary? It only is important if you are intent on proving an inerrant Bible or if you are intent of having a clear cut picture of Jesus as God with no ambiguity. It is the resurrection that gives us confidence that we can take the message, (as it shows God the Father that Jesus prayed to has confirmed the life and teaching of Jesus), that Jesus espoused and gain an understanding of our lives and more specifically the Bible. It is then that when we read the Bible, understanding that it is written by human authors with both personal and cultural influences that I think that God can truly reach out to us through that Holy Book.The point is that we don’t need to have definite answers. It isn’t doctrine that is supposed to unite us. We are to be united with His love for us and by His love being reflected through us.

The point is: are you encouraged to think for yourself? If dispensationalism as a whole or your congregation in particular is discouraging you from questioning them, telling you to "just have faith", then that might be a symptom of a cult.

Dispensationalism is not a cult; it is arguably the largest theological camp within Christianity these days. Its headquarters could be said to be Dallas Seminary but its tenets have pervaded most of the Christian schools in America. It turns out Biblically astute and godly preachers and teachers.Although I regard them as genuinely Christian and no cult, as a believer along Reformed lines myself, I've recently come to be more aware of the teachings of Dispensationalism and find myself at odds with them on many things, particularly their view that the nation of Israel is the object of most of the Old Testament promises and prophecies, rather than the Church. I believe there is still a role for earthly Israel to play based on the OT, but that most of the OT looks toward the Church, to which all believers belong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To start with, (and it is here that I want participants in this thread to know that I believe the words,phrases,and books that make up the Bibles that I use(KJV,NKJV,NIV,STRONGS CONCORDANCE,ESV,The Message) are not simply ideas that originated in the minds of men.)I am believing that the Bible is inspired teaching. GDR brings up the point that for him, Jesus is the living word and that He defines the book, rather than the book defining Him. I believe that Jesus is alive and that the Word is living and active.Given that, I agree with what is taught--although I DO question it, or I would never start a topic like this. As far as thinking for myself...yes, I DO think for myself within the context of my belief. One of my favorite scriptures is this one: Proverbs 3:5-6~Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I don't want to avoid responsibility at all--I simply believe that Gods wisdom is greater than my own wisdom. For the purposes of our discussion, I am willing to ask questions--but keep in mind that I do believe that my beliefs are an answer...otherwise I would be an atheist.

So how does Dispensationalism, particularly make sense of the Bible ?That's the question I was asking.And - at least as important - what sort of sense ?

I wasn't going to participate in this thread as, as far as I'm concerned, you're just counting angels on pinheads, but really, do you not think that those two statements contradict each other just a bit?

quote:

---

I wasn't going to participate in this thread as, as far as I'm concerned, you're just counting angels on pinheads, but really, do you not think that those two statements contradict each other just a bit?

---

Only if your belief lies in yourself as the source of wisdom and only if God was not real.

That's simply bizarre - the two statements are polar opposites.

When we look at a passage, we ask ourselves the following questions:1) Who said it?2) To whom was it being said?3) Which time period was it in?(for example...before or after the resurrection...)4) Circumstances and context.

quote:

---

When we look at a passage, we ask ourselves the following questions:

​

1) Who said it?

​

2) To whom was it being said?

​

3) Which time period was it in?(for example...before or after the resurrection...)

​

4) Circumstances and context.

---

That's hardly specific to Dispensationalism. And from your post in the other thread it seems that Dispensationalists (or at least some of them) have odd ideas about when Genesis was written and who it was written for.To point to another example, can you be a Dispensationalist and accept that Daniel was written (as a number of documents) during the period around the Maccabaean revolt, for loyal Jews to encourage them to defy their conqueror ? If not, then your description of Dispensationalism above is seriously misleading.