Is Dispensationalism Darwinism?

[Sparkey]

Do you or do you not see the parallels between evolution and dispensationalism?

Because if we see evolution in nature, that would mean dispensationalism must be true.

Your premise is flawed. One does not demand the other. The lack of one does not prevent the other.

 

[Ryan]

View attachment 4522

Just look at this chart, and the previous chart and see if there are any differences, or similarities.

This is not my teaching, but it hit me smack dab in the face I had to share it and see whether it does anyone else. You can find the tie in to the two charts here in part 6 of a 8 part series broadcasted originally on God's Learning Channel.

http://www.yah-tube.com/videos/scott/26_world_views_in_collision_p6/index.html

The whole point of dispy teaching is that in certain stages, God dealt with man in separate and distinct ways. But what has always upset this balance is for one, it's not true, and two in the different ages in the dispensational column, we have in say the era of "law" when grace still not abound, in these verses grace is found: Exodus 33:12; Exodus 33:13; Judges 6:17; Psalm 45:2; Ezra 9:8. But grace wasn't there until the Acts???

Like wise in the age of "grace", you also find law mixed among that time frame when it should have been nailed to the cross as many dispy's like to exclaim. Where do you find "law" in the era of grace? Romans 3:31; Acts 21:20; Acts 21:24; Acts 22:12; Acts 23:5; Acts 28:23; Romans 13:10; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 1:8; etc, etc. But how can the law now be in the era of grace?

The last two paragraphs are the same arguments evolutionists have when they see different species not being where they are supposed to be. Same thing with dispensationalism, you have what is now in the era grace, you find law. And likewise, in the era of law, you find grace. Another interesting tid-bit, dispensationalism teaching came on the scene the same time as darwinistic thinking. There is no evolution with God and how he treats different time frames of people. That is a false premise rooted in dispy thinking. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and always has been the good Father. If he was the good Father, he would surely have extended the same forgiveness, mercy and grace as he did to Adam and Eve 6000 years ago.

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION] What do sparrows produce? More sparrows. What do hawks produce? More hawks. Is nature not one everending cycle of life? God created the physical world to replicate what was happening in the spiritual world (Romans 1:20; 1 Corinthians 15:46; Genesis 1:11-12). Dispensationalism teaches one long linear time line, with different stages of how the Father dealt with man in a certain era. Dispensationalism teaches believers have evolved into the new wineskin, whereas believers before Christ were the old wineskin and has shed off the OT stuff and now has its own days, feasts, observances, laws, etc. (aka: evolution).

God does not teach dispensations or timelines, he teaches cycles. His days, his routines, his Sabbaths, his New moons, etc. Ezekiel 1-3 is saying to the people to get back into God's cycles. In Ezekiel 2:9 and Ezekiel 3:1-3 the symbolism is of one eating a scroll, which is round (circular), and in Ezekiel 3:4 to go tell the rebelious people what were written on the scrolls (God's ways). To support that, one has to look at Psalms 23:3 and James 3:6. I have provided the corresponding concordance number to reference for both verses in case you don't believe me:

H4570 me in the paths; G5164 the course

Both words express the same idea, a cycle that God created to walk in. It is like walking around in a circle over and over again, eventually a rut develops in the ground, and the more you walk in the same circle, the deeper the rut gets and the harder it is to get out. Kinda like in one of Conan the Barbarian movies. Same thing with God's cycles, he wants us to walk in them over and over again so it is harder for us to fall off the beaten path. There was only one way, has always been one way. Not multiple ways for one age to the next age.

The many prophets ministries were always about restoration back to God's ways. That was Elijah's ministry was restoration (Matthew 17:11), not transformation as is what is erroneously taught by dispensationalists.

Isaiah 42:9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

I have never read any prophecy about any new "way" or prophecy of how God wants us to live our life, only a restoration of his paths.

 

[Sparkey]

Your premise is flawed. One does not demand the other. The lack of one does not prevent the other.

Because if we see evolution in nature, that would mean dispensationalism must be true.

Think of other non-existent relationships; there are many examples to choose from. Your statement above is given without support or evidence. There is no relationship between evolution (natural or otherwise) and the concept of dispensationalism. There is certainly no cause and effect relationship. You assert that there is some link, or some connection, or contact, some form of touching, some tangible link between evolution and the intellectual construct called 'dispensationalism'. Frankly? I don't see the connection.

 

[Ryan]

Your premise is flawed. One does not demand the other. The lack of one does not prevent the other.

Because if we see evolution in nature, that would mean dispensationalism must be true.

Think of other non-existent relationships; there are many examples to choose from. Your statement above is given without support or evidence. There is no relationship between evolution (natural or otherwise) and the concept of dispensationalism. There is certainly no cause and effect relationship. You assert that there is some link, or some connection, or contact, some form of touching, some tangible link between evolution and the intellectual construct called 'dispensationalism'. Frankly? I don't see the connection.

Have you looked at the chart of the geologic columns, and the dispensational columns? Do you see the same model or theme arising between the two? I am in no way advocating evolution, merely the principles of each one mirroring each other. I am further saying the idea of dispensations in our theology came out in the same period as darwin thinking. Is it any coincidence?

The reason why evolution and dispensationalism don't harmonize together, which I think you think that is what I am trying to do, but it is impossible because both are based on untruths. What would happen if I continue to assert dispensationalism is darwinism is we would have a never ending cycle of circular arguments. That is the same idea here in 95% of the threads here, they ineveitably become circular, and I will assert the problem that in most cases, people have forgotten the beginning of the book which is foundational for everything else, which instead of having 35+ pages of what is holiness, it could be answered with a simple go look in Leviticus. Boom, done onto the next thread, thanks for asking the question. But man has created a theology, based in large part by dispy thinking, that separates the OT from the NT. As a result, the same arguments over and over again here will never get answered or understood because the foundation has been lost, or that was for the old wineskin, the Jews in the OT. There are major holes in our teachings that people want to either ignore and shovel underneath the carpet and spiritualize away whatever doesn't harmonize with what we have been taught, or will just gladly go on accepting whatever our favorite preacher has to say without doing our own homework as well.

Simpler explanation I guess is having to go back to post number 1 and start from there.

 

[Sparkey]

Is it any coincidence?

Show me where is it not. I fail to see the direct link. You've said there are parallels that may be observed. Not one to quibble, let's give you that.

The conclusion you draw, that evolution in nature demands that dispensationalism must be true, is what I challenge. It's that statement that gives me pause. Do you really want to assert this? I understand that you're actually trying to argue the inverse, but because primary relationship does not exist the inverse can not be asserted either. Your reasoning is convoluted, that's what I'm pointing out, or at least, trying to.

 

[Ryan]

Is it any coincidence?

Show me where is it not. I fail to see the direct link. You've said there are parallels that may be observed. Not one to quibble, let's give you that.

The conclusion you draw, that evolution in nature demands that dispensationalism must be true, is what I challenge. It's that statement that gives me pause. Do you really want to assert this? I understand that you're actually trying to argue the inverse, but because primary relationship does not exist the inverse can not be asserted either. Your reasoning is convoluted, that's what I'm pointing out, or at least, trying to.

Let's get back to what the Word of God says:
1 Corinthians 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

OK, I will try and be clear. To understand what is spiritual, we have to understand the natural things in the world. It is of no wonder why throughout the Word imagery of nature, water, birds, trees, vines, wheat, tares, weeds, etc point to the deeper truth. What is embedded in the physical, points to the spiritual matters we cannot see.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

What I am pointing to is nothing in the natural world, points to what dispy says is a new wineskin that is to usher in the age of "grace". Instead of trying to imagine evolution and dispy teaching as being in a box and the two pieces must match up perfectly to make my argument, think of what the function is of each. Evolution teaches an upward progression of primitive man eventually making way for 20th century man, dispy does the same thing with man now being an evolved, NT believer. Dispensationalism teaches that before Christ, believers were devoid of the church, grace, apostles, Holy Spirit, new birth, salvation by faith, baptism, tongues, healing, etc. The bible teaches otherwise though.

So if we go back to the natural aspect, if 1 Corinthians 15:46 is true and IF dispy lines up with this passage, and many other passages about the world and nature in the bible, then our natural world would have likewise improved or must now be more refined. But that is false, the same giraffes that produced the same giraffes have not changed in the last 2000 years. Abraham produced the same fruit as any other believer today. If anything, we are in a state of entropy and have continued that way since the fall of Adam and Eve (Isaiah 51:6; Hebrews 1:10-11).

 

[Sparkey]

It seems a stretch to me, but Ryan, you may discount my opinion, that's okay. Continue on. No problem here, you've just lost me when you draw the conclusion that if certain aspects of evolution are found untrue then it necessarily means that no part of what you label as dispensational thinking may be true. Again, although I see nothing to show that one follows another, it doesn't matter; I have disrupted your thread too much, pardon me for that and do continue.

 

[Ryan]

It seems a stretch to me, but Ryan, you may discount my opinion, that's okay. Continue on. No problem here, you've just lost me when you draw the conclusion that if certain aspects of evolution are found untrue then it necessarily means that no part of what you label as dispensational thinking may be true. Again, although I see nothing to show that one follows another, it doesn't matter; I have disrupted your thread too much, pardon me for that and do continue.

Hmmm...maybe I didn't explain it better with the limited space here. Maybe the title was misleading saying is dispy darwinism and trying to form each one into squares and putting it into a square hole, when the reality is both change shapes and evolve over time.

Let's say you were the bad guy, and you were a passenger on a train and at the destination, you were to meet a man with a black hat at the station and he would give you a message, and the bad guy knows that. How would you distort that message? What would you do to make sure that person didn't get that message, or make it really hard to find that person? You would plant many, many people with a black hat at the train station (Matthew 7:15). I believe the function of evolution is obviously take us away from the real Creator of the universe. It is nothing more then to pervert the truth about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and it has worked very well. Same thing with dispensationalism, I believe is nothing more then an attempt by the bad guy to keep the passenger from getting the message at the train station. The bad guy has planted many different people with black hats at the station, with a variation of the truth, enough to tickle the ears of the unsuspecting passenger.

Here are the main ways dispensationalism draws people in:
1. Distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel gets all the curses and tribulations, and the Church gets all the grace.
2. Pre-trib rapture. Church gets to be miraculous removed, and Israel has to deal with the anti-christ.
3. The Torah is not for today (What are you trying to do, put us back under the law?) as we have shed off those appendages of Jewry and evolved into the refined Church

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

Sounds an awful lot like dispensationalism. No longer associated with Israel, whisked away before the tribulation and no longer having to be obedient to the commandments of God because to do so would be putting us back under the law. It's been a good plan by the bad guy so far, and the same model that functions in the idea of organic evolution, is the same model that is played out in theological evolution. Both serve to separate us more and more from the Creator.

 

[JLB]

1 Corinthians 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

God uses the natural things to teach us the spiritual meanings as he first revealed them in Genesis.

Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, plants each yielding its own kind of seed, and trees each producing its own kind of seed-bearing fruit; and God saw that it was good.

We have apples producing apples, oranges producing oranges, horses making other horses. No where do we see the evolutionary process at work in nature, so why have we accepted the evolutionary process in our doctrine?

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.John 1:14

We have God producing God.

Jesus is the Lord God, who because flesh and dwelt among us.

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH, The Lord God?


JLB

 

[Ryan]

Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God

I ask you [MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION] if one who is born again has the Word of God planted in them like a seed, and Jesus is the seed, what fruit should they produce? Should they not be producing the same fruit Jesus did? Jesus said follow me, Paul said to imitate me as I imitate Christ, why doesn't dispy teach we should walk in the same manner as Jesus?

 

[JLB]

Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God

I ask you @JLB if one who is born again has the Word of God planted in them like a seed, and Jesus is the seed, what fruit should they produce? Should they not be producing the same fruit Jesus did? Jesus said follow me, Paul said to imitate me as I imitate Christ, why doesn't dispy teach we should walk in the same manner as Jesus?

Based on your premise that We have apples producing apples, oranges producing oranges, horses making other horses, do you believe this is true of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ?

Do you believe Jesus Christ is Lord?

There is only One Lord, and He is God.

Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; 'For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation.' " Isaiah 12:2

and again -

For your Maker is your husband, The Lord of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth. Isaiah 54:5

If you don't believe "your premise" of kind producing after it's own kind, on the most important and principle element of this premise, then how do you expect us to follow the very logic of your own premise?


Do you believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh? Do you confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,YHWH?

I personally don't believe you do, however that is my opinion, if I am wrong please tell me so.

Thank you, as I await your answer.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

Of course @ JLB to distract from the premise of the argument, you make it about me. I am surely not above reproach and need a Saviour just like you to wash away the sins of my life by the cleansing of Jesus's blood. If you would like to discuss THIS thread with THESE arguments, have at er. If there is something more personal, maybe a PM would be more suitable.

 

[JLB]

Of course @ JLB to distract from the premise of the argument, you make it about me. I am surely not above reproach and need a Saviour just like you to wash away the sins of my life by the cleansing of Jesus's blood. If you would like to discuss THIS thread with THESE arguments, have at er. If there is something more personal, maybe a PM would be more suitable.

The premise of your argument entails the fact that kind produces after its own kind.

as you said - apples producing apples, oranges producing oranges, horses making other horses...

So it is in that context I ask you about this same exact principle that involves God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

You however chose to change the subject of the thread, and discuss the following - I am surely not above reproach and need a Saviour just like you to wash away the sins of my life by the cleansing of Jesus's blood.

Can you confess Jesus Christ as Lord, YHWH.

It would be a one word answer, either Yes or No.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION] I will not answer your question solely because you are trying to place yourself in authority over me. I will not allow myself to bow down before you, and submit to your wishes to exclaim Christ is my Saviour.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Your questions are nothing but badgering. I answer to Christ sir, not JLB.

That being said, have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread?

 

[JLB]

@JLB I will not answer your question solely because you are trying to place yourself in authority over me. I will not allow myself to bow down before you, and submit to your wishes to exclaim Christ is my Saviour.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Your questions are nothing but badgering. I answer to Christ sir, not JLB.

That being said, have anything to contribute to the topic of this thread?

Based on your premise that We have apples producing apples, oranges producing oranges, horses making other horses, do you believe this is true of God the Father who begat the Lord Jesus Christ?

This is a question that is very much a part of the context of this thread.



JLB

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION], yes. Carry on to make your point please.

 

[JLB]

@JLB , yes. Carry on to make your point please.

So then you agree that God produces God.

That Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh. John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16

That Jesus Christ is YHWH the Lord God of The Old Testament as well as the New. Isaiah 45:5. Revelation 1:7

The He is the creator of the Heavens and the earth. Isaiah 45:18, Colossians 1:16, John 1:3


JLB

 

[Ryan]

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory put forth by scientists to explain away a significant problem with the theory of organic evolution. Evolution states that there was a slow gradual change over many years for life to evolve upward. As there are no transitional fossils to support this bogus claim, instead of just giving God credit for where credit is due, they thought up another theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. Essentially evolution happened very rapidly over a very short period of time. So one day a woolly mammoth gave birth to a chicken. Again, there is little evidence, if any to support such a claim. Wait till I try and explain panspermia. That is a crash course in Punctuated Equilibrium, so how does this relate to dispensationalism?

Well, a common phrase, slogan, or cheer that many use is Jesus nailed the law to the cross and use Ephesians 2:15-18 and Colossians 2:14 to support this. But is that really what Paul was saying? Because Jesus was the walking Torah, it is no longer necessary for us to use it as our blueprint to live our life? Or in short, the cross was the Punctuated Equilibrium theory saying adieu to "Jewish" stuff, and giving rise to Christian stuff in an instant. Jewry gave birth to Christian man.

So is that what Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 is telling us? Paul tells us that the Messiah has abolished in His flesh the enmity. The context of verse 14 and 15 tells us 'what' has been abolished. The answer is the wall of verse 14. Everybody studying scripture should ask themselves, "Is the wall that is being abolished, Torah?" The word 'abolish' is the Greek word katargeo. This word means to 'make useless', to 'waste', or to 'make idle'. Paul uses it in Romans 3:31 in the same way Jesus uses it in Matthew 5:17.

"Do we then make void (katargeo) the law through faith: ’Elohim FORBID; yea, we ESTABLISH the law."

The primary use of this word is harmonious with the 'old man' and the 'body of sin' that Paul taught us was slain in Romans chapter six. Here are a few other examples of katargeo in context with that which Jesus abolished, destroyed, or put to death.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [Him], that the body of sin MIGHT BE DESTROYED, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

2 Timothy 1:10 "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior, Messiah Yeshua, who hath ABOLISHED death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

1 Corinthians 15:26 "The last enemy that shall be DESTROYED is death."

Paul says many times in places that the death and resurrection of the Messiah in the flesh has abolished sin and death and that THEY are the enemies. Paul also says Jesus has abolished the enmity or the enemy 'in His flesh'. Where in all of scripture is Torah the enemy of mankind? From the very beginning there has been a very well established historical enemy of the Messiah and mankind. The enemy has always been satan. It is more than interesting to me to witness the Torah, which is good, righteous and holy, being turned into the enemy. But this too was prophesied to happen (Isaiah 5:20). Satan and death, the penalty for sin, have always been partners. The epistles are replete with teaching that it is sin and death that have been destroyed by the Messiah. It has always been sin that has separated us from the Father, never his laws. The record of our sins was what was nailed to the cross, not his laws.

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, that He will not hear."

The evidence suggests that the traditional interpretation is sadly off the mark and no Punctuated Equilibrium happened at the cross. Another classic dispy teaching laid to rest.

 

[Sparkey]

Ryan, thanks for the last post.

I am weighing various thoughts that occur to me while reading the thread and understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you are saying is that we need to understand Ephesians 2:15-18 correctly.

I would like to ask you to discuss the decision made early in the ministry to Gentiles regarding the Law. Specifically, the passages found in Acts 15:28-29.

Cordially,
Sparrow