95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

[JDale]

A lot more than what some give them credit for. I find a lot of sterotyping and inaccuracy going on.




Isn't this a false dichotomy - if one is under grace then one is thumbing one's nose at the law? I really don't know any believers like this.

We have these passages, both of which are God's word:
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Rom. 3.31

AND

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. Rom. 6.14

Disp. I know maintain both. Also, it is true we are not under the law. So if we quote this passage, are we "watering down man's accountability to God's law?"




We can't obey the commandments without the power of the Holy Spirit. It's still not us obeying in our own strength. I assume you are not saying that but want to clarify.



Where is the evidence for this?





Plan B? No disp. I know believes this.

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

 

[JDale]

Dispensationalists tend to say this because covenentalists, such as the 95 Theses author, repeatedly make flatly false claims about dispensationalism, and when we point out that they are false, and ask for a direct citation, we never get any. I get increasingly frustrated trying to find out where these people get the idea that dispensationalists make these claims........when I ask for a direct source quotation, I get none. But then a few months later, the same accusations pop up in another thread, again without any source documentation.

So I am to the point where I must believe that many of the people who disagree with dispensationalism have some personal issue with it, or they wouldn't keep saying flatly false accusations.

For example, the 95 Theses, and others on this board, repeatedly claim that dispensationlists teach two ways of salvation, one for Israel and one for the church. Yet on another thread, I put a series of direct quotes from the most influential dispenationalists saying directly that there is only one way of salvation for all people.....faith in Jesus. And when I ask for a source quote for the two salvations idea, I get silence.

Twice in this thread there have been direct contradictions of covenentalist claims about dispensationalism, and no has responded. All we get is sidetrack issues about motivations, attitudes, and not-so-subtle comments about dispensationalists lack of response. Straw man is an accurate statement.

So true...Thanks Humblesmith.

JDale

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Dispensationalists tend to say this because covenentalists, such as the 95 Theses author, repeatedly make flatly false claims about dispensationalism, and when we point out that they are false, and ask for a direct citation, we never get any. I get increasingly frustrated trying to find out where these people get the idea that dispensationalists make these claims........when I ask for a direct source quotation, I get none. But then a few months later, the same accusations pop up in another thread, again without any source documentation.

So I am to the point where I must believe that many of the people who disagree with dispensationalism have some personal issue with it, or they wouldn't keep saying flatly false accusations.

For example, the 95 Theses, and others on this board, repeatedly claim that dispensationlists teach two ways of salvation, one for Israel and one for the church. Yet on another thread, I put a series of direct quotes from the most influential dispenationalists saying directly that there is only one way of salvation for all people.....faith in Jesus. And when I ask for a source quote for the two salvations idea, I get silence.

Twice in this thread there have been direct contradictions of covenentalist claims about dispensationalism, and no has responded. All we get is sidetrack issues about motivations, attitudes, and not-so-subtle comments about dispensationalists lack of response. Straw man is an accurate statement.

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Frankly, I do not want to spend valuable time going through each statement I read so far that I thought was unfairly stated. It would take me a good hour to do a good job and it's not worth it to me.

I can't tell you how many times at my church we've discussed God's law and how it is always good. It is a reflection of God's character. I don't know any disp. who believe that God's law is meaningless, though of course, the NT tells us we are no longer under the law. But God's law is eternal because it show us His righteousness.

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

Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace. 1689 LBCF, Chapter 19 Article 6

How does dispensationalism agree or disagree with this statement?

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Christ and the apostles use OT citations to make NT statements. In the context of the NT, they are taking OT quotes and making NT statements. They are most definitely not using NT contexts to change the original, literal meaning of the OT passage.

For example, the statement in the NT comparing Christ to the rock that gave Moses water in the OT. The NT is making a NT point about that rock, comparing it to Christ. But in the OT passage, it's still a literal rock, that gave literal water.

We just can't keep a consistent hermeneutic by re-interpreting OT passages to mean something different than when they were first written. Christ and the apostles never make a "NT interpretation of the Old" that changes the original OT meaning. That's all I was saying.

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.

 

[Reformer]

Anybody ever read this

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm

I have not yet read it but I intend to soon, I don't know on which side of the argument Mr. Pink stands on (being as I haven't read the book yet), but I highly respect his opinion on almost every other issue I can think of. As I am trying to understand dispensationalism I normally try to read the writings of people I already believe to be correct theologically on most other issues. And I stumbled across this while I was looking for something else, I though you could give me your opinion if you have read it and if you haven't read it, well, you might want to give it a look yourself.

Reformer

 

[skypair]

Anybody ever read this

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm

I have not yet read it but I intend to soon, I don't know on which side of the argument Mr. Pink stands on (being as I haven't read the book yet), but I highly respect his opinion on almost every other issue I can think of.

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

 

[J.D.]

A lot more than what some give them credit for. I find a lot of sterotyping and inaccuracy going on.

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.

Isn't this a false dichotomy - if one is under grace then one is thumbing one's nose at the law? I really don't know any believers like this.

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.

We have these passages, both of which are God's word:
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Rom. 3.31

AND

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. Rom. 6.14

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

Disp. I know maintain both. Also, it is true we are not under the law. So if we quote this passage, are we "watering down man's accountability to God's law?"

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

We can't obey the commandments without the power of the Holy Spirit. It's still not us obeying in our own strength. I assume you are not saying that but want to clarify.

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

Where is the evidence for this?

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.

Plan B? No disp. I know believes this.

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

 

[Marcia]

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



How does dispensationalism agree or disagree with this statement?

RB

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.

 

[Marcia]

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.

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.

 

[J.D.]

What if I say: "My impression is that Calvinists are legalistic and harsh." Does that make it true?

It would be true that that is your impression.

Would it be okay for me to say that?

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.

 

[J.D.]

Here are the crucial points:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted. [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]25. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]26. Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7). [/FONT]

[/FONT]

 

[JDale]

1. But the air of superiority that some of them (not you) have has got to go.

2. 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....

3. "The virtuous effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit" is how I said it I think.

4. 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.

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

 

[Marcia]

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.

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.

 

[Marcia]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

[/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]

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).

[/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=trebuchet ms,geneva]Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), [/FONT]

[/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]

 

[Humblesmith]

24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

"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.

25. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).

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=trebuchet ms,geneva]26. Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).[/FONT]

[/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?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Humble,

You have yet to understand the meaning of a thesis.

 

[lbaker]

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...