Featured THE NINTH COMMANDMENT

"You people." Show me a post where I've embraced dispensationalism.

 

You're not defending it on this thread, or just bashing those that are opposed to it? Which is it?

Want to take a solid stand one way or another?

 

When you start accounting for how sensitive people's feelings are than everything is going to seem like a 9th commandment infraction. One could consider "wrong", "inconsistent", "heretical", "incorrect", "illogical", and "foolish" labels and the only thing that will make people happy is always referring to them as "right", "consistent", "biblical", "correct", "logical", and "wise"...which in itself would be 9th commandment infractions.

 

I thoroughly disagree. Certain theological labels are handy descriptive devices. Many are ill-informed of where they stand biblically and historically. Even one thought to be theologically astute as Norm Geisler calls himself a moderate Calvinist. That is absurd. He is certainly Arminian/semi-Pelagian as it comes.
His beliefs line up with those systems much more than with Calvinism. There really is no such thing as moderate Calvinism anyway.

If you would just do an evaluation of where you stand you would recognize the accuracy of labels. Of course I realize abuse of terms exists also.

 

Labels are fine IF one is also understanding that one, not hold to every item associated with that label, are not being in the slightest deceitful or underhanded by stating that they are NOT that label.

For example, just because I am a believer in the literal second coming, followed by a literal millennial rule of Christ, and am also hopeful of a rapture, there are some who would automatically want to label me as a "Darby" dispensational thinker.

That label is inaccurate.

Because I am one who considers the church is NOT some "parenthesis," given ONLY to the gentiles as a totally separate group from the believing Israeli, it is wrong to be labeled as a "Darby Dispensationist." Rather, such (imo) unwarranted attempts to scorn and ridicule - to basically show contempt as another poster stated - to present some matter as lesser or unworthy is clearly unethical as well as not the character of a believer according t0 Philippians 2:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not [merely] look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus...​

Admittedly, there are times (far more often than I would care to admit) that I don't set that standard as I post.

To some, labels, such as New Covenant, Dispensation (even Darby Dispensation), Covenant..., are matters of doctrine that rise to the level of heretic and conspiracy. Imo, that type of thinking is askew from the reality of what each represent in this period of time.

Rather, as I posted earlier, various views can be held with the idea that there is some matter of overlap and even agreement; because, as stated earlier, views can be considered merely as a matter of outlining Scripture and presenting a thread of thinking that has both strong and weak points. This is important because ALL when modified by Scripture can be shown as accurate, yet without that Scripture modification can be seen as highly inaccurate.

There are some areas that should never be a point of argument and considered as not standing the test of Scripture. These areas should include (but not limited):

1) the typical replacement thinking - that is the church has replaced Israel and that God has no future plans for the national / political group.
2) the typical replacement thinking - that is the church is an interruption, a "parenthesis" in God's scheme brought on by Israel's rejection of the Messiah, or some other contrivance in which the church and the believing Israel are separated into two or more groupings.
3) the typical replacement thinking - that God has repented of, or no longer is held accountable for all His vows between He and the national/political Israel - that God has no regard for them as He once promised.
4) the typical replacement thinking - that God saves people in a different manner or ways at different "dispensations" according to His divine purpose.
​

None of those four items is Scriptural. To what extent or how much the Scripture is violated by each of those four items perhaps should be a different thread.

​

​

 

THERE ARE MANY CRIMINALS IN JAIL WHO CLAIM THEY ARE INNOCENT. SOME WHO ARE IN THESE CAMPS AVOID THE LABEL WHICH IF RIGHTLY EARNED BY THEM.

The Commandment is against "false witness"[/QUOTE]

Nailed!

 

What gets me is how there is this group here that come into threads ONLY to make snide comments. The behavior is also allowed and tolerated on this board.

These offer nothing to the discussion, nothing edifying. When this is what is seen day by day it falls under the πράσσω prassō category.

 

Not at all. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

There are many who would deny they are of _____________ theological position. They hold to the distinguishing theological tenets that describe the camp, then deny they are of that teaching or 'camp'. To do so is denying truth, self-deception, self-pride and ignorant behavior. It fits in the OP very well.

 

So you believe the observer reserves the ability to describe the beliefs of the adherent rather than the adherent describing their own beliefs. Interesting...

 

The difference is that some who are scornful toward "dispensation" will often lump any who may hold to a portion or a system of "outlining" the Scriptures that follow the same "dispensational" divisions are labeled as "DARBY dispensationalists."

That is not only wrong, but when a post is made stating that the one is NOT a "Darby Dispensationist" - even showing areas of difference - and the accuser continues to assign that label, THAT is not only using poor judgment, but may in deed be deceitful.

Darby is not the be all and end all of dispensational thinking, any more than Arminius or Calvin in the views assigned to them.

 

I would add that the same scorn of Darby dispensation holders ( that view the church as a parenthesis as separate from Israel) can also be found in the typical Covenant holders that view the church as replacing Israel.

Neither view is the teaching of Scriptures (imo), which clearly has the "gentile" believers grafted into the "Israeli" believers.

 

That is absolutely a balanced way of presentation.

For example, I may "outline" by social/economic ways, covenants, leadership type,... or any number of different schemes. Some that may or may not be in some manner aligned with one view or another.

Therefore, a "camp" label may or may not be an accurate identifier. When a poster clearly states that they are not associated with a certain camp, then is it not unseemly to be pressed back into that camp?

I would agree.

There is a time when the dispensational system can be used appropriately and one who is skilled in both typical dispensation and the typical covenant system can be very wise and discerning what "goes together."

The opposite is also true, too. There is, perhaps, an inappropriate blending together that is (imo) unrecognized when either scheme is held as the only right design.

To borrow from candidate Cruz, the focus of animosity should always be upon the enemy of the believer, never upon each other.

I fail, miserably so, in keeping the focus as it should be.

 

One cannot press someone back into a place they already are.

 

I think I will open a thread on dispensation and see what BB members have to offer.

 

I hear you Iconoclast. However it may not be that simple to just say "semi pelgians who say they are not" or any other of those statements. e.g. I deny that I am a calvinist but I am sure that some of my statements might be interpreted as calvinistic.
i.e. I have often quoted
Matthew 11: 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Which, to simply quote, could get one labeled as a calvinist.
But each of the semantic details of the acrostic components of TULIP I would take issue with if each was expanded to correspond to The Institutes.

I do admit to being a dispensationalist but have often qualified it by saying I am not a "cookie cutter" dispensationalist because some interpretations I just can't accept (e.g. the church is a parenthesis in God's plan of salvation, or - there is a gospel for the Jew another for the Gentile).

IMO that is why it is dangerous to adopt labels without qualifications both for oneself and others (to keep them from a "rush to judgment").

HankD