Andy Stanley wants to "Unhitch" the O.T. from the N.T.

[Reformed]

Don't know what you mean by "Dispensationalism run amok." Properly understood, dispensationalism does not divorce the OT and NT, but carefully considers God's plan through the ages.

John, having been a Dispensationalist for over 20 years I have a pretty good understanding of the system. My theological education began in Dispensational strongholds. I say this to establish a bona fide of sorts when commenting on Dispensationalism.

The reason I wrote "Dispensationalism run amok" is because the bifurcation of Old and New Covenants has, at its root, the separation of Israel and the Church. This is in keeping with classical Dispensationalism. I believe Andy Stanley has this in mind when he downplays the significance of the Old Testament in "the church age". For all that is new with Progressive Dispensationalism, its root is still in Darbyism. The Dispensationalism I was educated in had a high regard for the Old Testament. Perhaps this indicates just how off the reservation Stanley has wandered.

 

[Iconoclast]

He is not a Calvinist, so its a given you will like very little he says.

No....he does not really preach at all so he is useless to me....He does not know what he is talking about.....I have heard several non cals who can open portions of the bible and speak to edification....Not him however....

Many like entertainment and a smooth speaker, rather than a God called preacher of the word.

 

[Reynolds]

Not be bound to it anymore

It is not binding in a legal sense.

 

[John of Japan]

John, having been a Dispensationalist for over 20 years I have a pretty good understanding of the system. My theological education began in Dispensational strongholds. I say this to establish a bona fide of sorts when commenting on Dispensationalism.

Consider your bona fides established.

The reason I wrote "Dispensationalism run amok" is because the bifurcation of Old and New Covenants has, at its root, the separation of Israel and the Church. This is in keeping with classical Dispensationalism.

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that the bifurcation of the OT and NT has at its root a literal hermeneutic. My grandfather was certainly not a dispensationalist, but occasionally wrote against it. But he saw a clear difference between Israel and the Church. So IMO that distinction depends on your hermeneutic, not your theology per se.

I believe Andy Stanley has this in mind when he downplays the significance of the Old Testament in "the church age".

I know very little about Andy Stanley, and knowing more is not in my plans for the near future. Don't really have time to listen to the link.

For all that is new with Progressive Dispensationalism, its root is still in Darbyism. The Dispensationalism I was educated in had a high regard for the Old Testament. Perhaps this indicates just how off the reservation Stanley has wandered.

Assuming the view of his theology on this thread to be true, yes, he has wandered off the dispensational reservation.

Concerning Progressive Dispensationalism, IMO it has wandered completely off the dispensational reservation. Having read the book by Blaising and Bock, I consider it a new theology and not dispensationalism at all. Just try to track down what they think a dispensation is and how many they think there are (2 different lists in the book)/

 

[Reformed]

Concerning Progressive Dispensationalism, IMO it has wandered completely off the dispensational reservation. Having read the book by Blaising and Bock, I consider it a new theology and not dispensationalism at all. Just try to track down what they think a dispensation is and how many they think there are (2 different lists in the book)/

PD's have this in common with classical Dispensationalism: both systems hold to a pre-wrath rapture of the church and a literal 1000 year millennial reign of Christ. PD is an attempt to bridge the gap between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. The late Reformed theologian John Gerstner recognized the inherent flaw in PD and was an often critic of it.

 

[John of Japan]

PD's have this in common with classical Dispensationalism: both systems hold to a pre-wrath rapture of the church and a literal 1000 year millennial reign of Christ. PD is an attempt to bridge the gap between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

You are exactly right. And the fact that the theology was born of compromise rather than strict exegesis is why it is unreliable. "From 1986-2000 the main focus was to seek rapprochement between traditional Dispensational and Covenantal theologies, especially over matters related to hermeneutics and eschatology" (Dispensational Study Group | The Evangelical Theological Society).

The late Reformed theologian John Gerstner recognized the inherent flaw in PD and was an often critic of it.

It is hard to take Gerstner seriously about any aspect or form of dispensationalism, since he was so bitter in his attacks. Ryrie points out: "John Gerstner labeled dispensationalism 'a cult and not a branch of the Christian church,' associating dispensationalists with 'false teachers' and 'heretics'" (Dispensationalism, by Charles Ryrie, p. 15).

 

[Reformed]

It is hard to take Gerstner seriously about any aspect or form of dispensationalism, since he was so bitter in his attacks. Ryrie points out: "John Gerstner labeled dispensationalism 'a cult and not a branch of the Christian church,' associating dispensationalists with 'false teachers' and 'heretics'" (Dispensationalism, by Charles Ryrie, p. 15).

John, Gerstner's exegetical critiques were scholarly and represented an accurate Covenant Theology response. I try to separate his critiques from his personality. He was not a warm and fuzzy theologian. He was a mentor of the late R.C. Sproul, Sr. R.C. was nothing like Gerstner in his demeanor which is a good thing.

 

[John of Japan]

John, Gerstner's exegetical critiques were scholarly and represented an accurate Covenant Theology response. I try to separate his critiques from his personality. He was not a warm and fuzzy theologian. He was a mentor of the late R.C. Sproul, Sr. R.C. was nothing like Gerstner in his demeanor which is a good thing.

Sproul is certainly much easier to read that Gerstner, I'll grant you that.

And Gerstner was a scholar, I'll grant you that. However, I believe he abandoned his scholarship in his book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. You can't write a book and expect it to convince anybody but your disciples by insulting the very people you are trying to convince. Were a scholar to use such language as Gerstner's in a paper presented to a peer-reviewed journal or even to the ETS, it would normally be rejected out of hand. If the content was good enough to publish, he would be told to clean up the language or have his paper rejected.

 

[Yeshua1]

Consider your bona fides established.

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that the bifurcation of the OT and NT has at its root a literal hermeneutic. My grandfather was certainly not a dispensationalist, but occasionally wrote against it. But he saw a clear difference between Israel and the Church. So IMO that distinction depends on your hermeneutic, not your theology per se.

I know very little about Andy Stanley, and knowing more is not in my plans for the near future. Don't really have time to listen to the link.

Assuming the view of his theology on this thread to be true, yes, he has wandered off the dispensational reservation.

Concerning Progressive Dispensationalism, IMO it has wandered completely off the dispensational reservation. Having read the book by Blaising and Bock, I consider it a new theology and not dispensationalism at all. Just try to track down what they think a dispensation is and how many they think there are (2 different lists in the book)/

There does seem to be gathering steam a middle meeting point for progressive Dispy and premil Covenant Theology going on now...

 

[Yeshua1]

What is interesting is that there are those who hold to a Reformed viewpoint to the scriptures. like myself and you, but also hold to CT premil position, as IO hold to now.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sproul is certainly much easier to read that Gerstner, I'll grant you that.

And Gerstner was a scholar, I'll grant you that. However, I believe he abandoned his scholarship in his book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. You can't write a book and expect it to convince anybody but your disciples by insulting the very people you are trying to convince. Were a scholar to use such language as Gerstner's in a paper presented to a peer-reviewed journal or even to the ETS, it would normally be rejected out of hand. If the content was good enough to publish, he would be told to clean up the language or have his paper rejected.

We can agree to disagree on DT/CT, and other theology view, but need to regard those teaching such views as not all being "hjeretics/false teachers"..
I can and do say that someone like a Scofield was wrong in some of his theology, but he was not a heretic!

 

[Yeshua1]

John, Gerstner's exegetical critiques were scholarly and represented an accurate Covenant Theology response. I try to separate his critiques from his personality. He was not a warm and fuzzy theologian. He was a mentor of the late R.C. Sproul, Sr. R.C. was nothing like Gerstner in his demeanor which is a good thing.

I think John's point would be that we can criticize what others believe, but do not do it to the extreme of seeing them not part of the redeemed. Some here take Calvin to task a lot, but would not say he was lost, for example!

 

[John of Japan]

We can agree to disagree on DT/CT, and other theology view, but need to regard those teaching such views as not all being "hjeretics/false teachers"..
I can and do say that someone like a Scofield was wrong in some of his theology, but he was not a heretic!

Agreed.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is a real slippery slope to accuse others are heretics/not saved, as Calvin, Luther, Scofield, darby, Augustine, et all have been labelled as such through church history by some!

 

[Stephen Downey]

Dear Andy Stanley,
You want to unhitch the OT from the NT? Just exactly WHAT did the Disciples preach then? I could go thru every OT book and show you Jesus.

Detatched you have to put aside Creation. The fall of man. The oneness of God, scores and scores of examples of faith, sin, repentance. To do away with the OT you actually open the NT up to false teaching.

But this is not a new suggestion folks. This nonsense has been around at least since the 1700s, and likely before. But here is a warning... once you detach the OT from the NT, it will not be long before you are taking the black marker to your NT as well.

 

[Reformed]

Sproul is certainly much easier to read that Gerstner, I'll grant you that.

And Gerstner was a scholar, I'll grant you that. However, I believe he abandoned his scholarship in his book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. You can't write a book and expect it to convince anybody but your disciples by insulting the very people you are trying to convince. Were a scholar to use such language as Gerstner's in a paper presented to a peer-reviewed journal or even to the ETS, it would normally be rejected out of hand. If the content was good enough to publish, he would be told to clean up the language or have his paper rejected.

John,

Civility is a rare commodity these days.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[SovereignGrace]

No....he does not really preach at all so he is useless to me....He does not know what he is talking about.....I have heard several non cals who can open portions of the bible and speak to edification....Not him however....

Many like entertainment and a smooth speaker, rather than a God called preacher of the word.

"A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats."

Charles Spurgeon

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Civility is a rare commodity these days.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

How true, how true.

 

[John of Japan]

Welcome to the BB.

Dear Andy Stanley,
You want to unhitch the OT from the NT? Just exactly WHAT did the Disciples preach then? I could go thru every OT book and show you Jesus.

Amen.

Detatched you have to put aside Creation. The fall of man. The oneness of God, scores and scores of examples of faith, sin, repentance. To do away with the OT you actually open the NT up to false teaching.

Amen again.

But this is not a new suggestion folks. This nonsense has been around at least since the 1700s, and likely before. But here is a warning... once you detach the OT from the NT, it will not be long before you are taking the black marker to your NT as well.

Try Marcion (died c. 160). He certainly ripped apart the whole Bible.

But please elaborate. What about the 1700's?

 

[Yeshua1]

"A time will come when instead of shepherds feeding the sheep, the church will have clowns entertaining the goats."

Charles Spurgeon

He must have prophesied about the modern Charismatic Movement!