95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

Excellent post Marcia. Many of the statements you cite from previous posts are based on stereotypes and misinformation that have little relation to Biblical Dispensationalism.

JDale

 

So true...Thanks Humblesmith.

JDale

 

There way too many theses on that site to generalize everything as some sort of direct quote. As I have read through several of them it seems to me that they are forming a theses which would naturally be the author's viewpoint of the implications and outcome of dispensationalism. I do not see how the website even purports in its theses to first explain dispensationalism. It is a series of propositions to be proved or advanced WITHOUT PROOF. It is the very definition of a thesis.

No direct citation should be expected. Nor should any coventalists on this board be expected to know what their argument entails. I assume you have emailed the author of the claims? If not, why are you frustrated with people who did not author the claims?

I have never seen your quotes, et. So your whining is little tiresome.

RB

 

From a covenantal viewpoint, the Law is a rule of life. And I quote,

How does dispensationalism agree or disagree with this statement?

RB

 

Where are covenantal theologians denying that the rock was a real rock that gave real water? If you cannot cite this, then your point is moot.

It is the NT application of OT teaching and prophecy, explaining the meaning of such passages, that differs from dispensationalism. The clearest example I have seen so far is how dispys re-interpret Jeremiah 31 from how the author of Hebrews does. Frankly, it is startling to me how people do this.

 

Well, first off, he's NOT going to help you understand dispensationalism because he HATES it. His "job" is going to be to immediately turn you away from it which likely means that you will come out dispensing with The Revelation, Ezek 40-48, Dan 9-12, Isa 62-66, etc. altogether or stuffing it back into a preterist eschatology. But this is typical of the Reform movement.

Along the same lines as ignoring Israel's future, they "unify" the OT and NT into one "seamless" revelation in spite of the fact that 1) the religious ordinances have completely changed, 2) the focus of who is "elect" has completely changed to include, in fact is predominantly, the Gentiles, and 3) that the promises of the covenants (Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic) with Israel have NOT been fulfilled to them making God out to be One Who doesn't keep His covenants (isn't that comforting!).

Men who do not know God can, obviously, comment from their own "studied" opinions. I wouldn't take them too seriously, though -- "Let God be true and every man a liar."

BTW, this would be a huge part of the reason I distrust Reform/Calvinist theology as a whole. How is it possible to read the covenants of Israel into the church or the church covenant of grace into Israel as the 2 have been revealed so far?

skypair

 

I really appreciate a dispensationalist's desire to faithfully interpret scripture as literaly as possible. But the air of superiority that some of them (not you) have has got to go. After that, I only ask that each bible believer look at the totality of the evidence and apply a proper method of interpretation and then decide for themselves.

Technically it's not a false dichotomy. Perhaps a strawman. Let me rephrase it: It's my impression that too many people say "I'm under grace, not law" in a way that implies that we can just thumb our noses at the law.

Excellent! And we have this one: Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Yes, it is watering down if we say it the way I described.

That's what I said in a previous post. "the virtuous effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit" is how I said it I think.

Dispy's I know (EDIT: SOME dispy's, not all) tend to stress assurance of salvation to people than are living in open rebellion to God's law. The carnal christian doctrine. "Write down the date that you prayed the prayer in your Bible and any time you doubt your salvation you open your bible and point to that date and tell the Devil he's a liar". You've never heard anything like that? I have, many times. Dispy's carry "not under law" too far. As I said before, believers are not under the law as it relates to salvation, but they are under it as a measure of God's moral standards.

Okay, a strawman on my part, but I can tell you that that's the way I used to see it.

 

If I understand the quote correctly, it says that the law shows us our sin and that is behooves us to resist sin. The statement does not mention we need the power of the Holy Spirit to do this, that we cannot do this in the flesh. I would add that.

No disp. I know rejects the law or its importance as it reflects God's character and shows us our sinful nature and need for Christ. Galatians tells us that the law is a "tutor" to bring us to Christ. The Law points to Christ, who fulfilled it for us because we cannot.

But any good we do according to the law is done by the power of the Holy Spirit in us, as we yield to Him.

 

I see no shred of evidence of disp. fitting the caricature you describe. It all seems to be your impression or experience. For example you say:
It's my impression that too many people say "I'm under grace, not law" in a way that implies that we can just thumb our noses at the law.

Your impression? That's not much evidence! What if I say: "My impression is that Calvinists are legalistic and harsh." Does that make it true? Would it be okay for me to say that?

Too many people generalize base on maybe having encountered something negative in their past. What you describe is not what I know of dispensationalism nor dispensationalists at all. You have offered zero evidence of these claims. If I said things regarding Calvinism using words like "it's my impression," people would be throwing rocks at me here - verbally speaking.

 

It would be true that that is your impression.

It's okay with me if you want to express your opinion. I've got nothing against it. But let's stick to the subject, okay? Dispensationalism, not Calvinism.

 

Here are the crucial points:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

[/FONT]

 

My Responses:

1. There are certainly Dispensationalists that are arrogant and prideful with regard to their theology. (That's because we're right...Just kidding! :laugh: ) I dare say Dispy's don't have a corner on that market! I can't tell you the times I've had Calvinists/Covenantalists look down their noses at me with contempt because I differ with them on soteriology and eschatology.

2. With regard to the Law:

• Dispensationalists that I know understand the Law to be the means by which we are convicted by agency of the Holy Spirit of sin (Romans 3:20; 7:9-12);
• That the Law is our "schoolmaster," leading us to Christ (Galatians 3:24);
• That the Law is the means by which we are informed of God's holiness (-- but that we CANNOT "keep the Law" apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit (Galatians 2:20-21; 5:22-24);
• That the Law is therefore a means of our moral guidance (II Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3;20; Romans 7:7; I Corinthians 10:11)
• The Law, however, is NOT a basis for our relationship, nor is keeping the Law the basis of staying in relationship with Christ (Galatians 5:1-6).

3. It is ONLY the "virtuous effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit" that will enable us to live a life pleasing to God (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:17).

4. An emphasis on Assurance of Salvation is not wrong, or a bad thing (I John 5:13; Romans 10:13). However, assuring someone who is living in open and continual sin IS wrong, and unbiblical (Hebrews 10:26ff; I John 1:6; 2:3,15-17, 24-25; 3:9) And yes, I've heard this from some who claim to be Dispensationalists -- but I've heard it mostly from those who are Calvinists that affirm the unconditional Perseverance of the Saints or the offshoot doctrine adopted by Southern Baptists, "Once Saved, Always Saved," or at least an unbiblical bastardization of these doctrines. This belief is NOT inherent in Dispensationalism itself (certainly not in my understanding of it!).

JDale

 

I think you missed my point. My point was that you are bashing those who hold disp. views based on no evidence except subjective impressions. That's not very credible.

 

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

[/FONT]

There is a literal prophecy in Is. 53 that shows Jesus is not a worldly king but a man who suffers and does not defend himself. Jesus also fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah by performing miracles - Is. 61 - but they rejected that literal prophecy. When Jesus read the first part of this in the synagogue (Lk 4) and said "today this scripture is fulfilled" they got mad! Disp. are literal about passages that are literal, not all passages. Just because some of the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah -- as it was prophesied they would -- does not mean Disp. are not interpreting the bible correctly.


[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

[/FONT]

This argument doesn't make sense. Does this guy really think disp. read everything in the bible literally? Were the Jews always literal in their reading of scripture? Did they read Psalms literally? Do the trees have hands to clap? Does God have wings? Besides, the Jews were not going to accept Jesus because they were hardened against Him, and to fulfill prophecy, not because they took things literally. Jesus did fulfill many prophecies in the OT - over 300 of them. But they rejected Jesus anyway.


[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva][/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]I never heard of interpreting the NT in light of the Old! I've heard of interpeting the OT in light of the NT, not the NT in light of the OT. But there are different levels - one is what did this mean to the hearers? Two is what did this mean at the time it was written? Three -- what does this mean for us today? It has to make sense in all 3 scenarios. This is a standard hermeneutic for the Bible, both OT and NT.[/FONT]

 

"Partial defense" and "so-called" appear to be backhanded ways of saying dispensationalists haven't done either. The author fails to prove this. The rest of this quote is a logical fallacy that attempts to say that because the Jews used a literal method, then all that use a literal method will make the same mistakes as they did. This is not a proper association. It's like saying someone is wrong for no other reason than because they graduated from a Jewish school. And he doesn't cite Pentecost, so we conveniently can't check the context.

These were all responses made by people who heard Jesus' comments in real time in a conversation. Who are we to know what they thought two minutes later, or the next day, when they had time to think about it? Who of us has never misunderstood someone in a conversation? However, in response, covenentatlists, after 2000 years of study and thought, will have us to believer forever is not forever, tribe of Judah is not tribe of Judah, the land betwen the Euphrates and the Nile is not the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, and Israel is not Israel. Sorry, I'll take the literal method any day of the week, even though it's misrepresented by the likes of the covenentalists.



[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

[/FONT]

Another quote without citation, which I cannot trust, given the other misrepresentations by this author. And "unfolding character" apparently means that what a text means changed from the old testament to the new, so that what God said in the OT has now changed.
The last part we both agree on.

Is this the best that can be done here?

 

Humble,

You have yet to understand the meaning of a thesis.

 

If we are supposed to be keeping the Law we are doing a miserable job of it.

I can't remember the last time I saw the church stone an adultress or adulterer, or kill a kid for reviling his/her parents, or make a grain offering, or sacrifice an animal , or banish someone from society for a skin disease, or for giving birth, and we better stop eating catfish and shrimp and crawfish, and bacon and ham, and cutting our hair at the temple and trimming our beards, and we had better get rid of any tattoos we have, and be sure we observe the Sabbath (Saturday) and...

I just don't get this we should observe the Law business.

BTW, I do agree with the Reformers on Dispism, just doesn't make biblical sense to me.

Now that I've made everybody mad...