Dispensational Theology teaches God reveals truth to man

Would also be good to note that God's Grace is active in all dispensations and that salvation is by grace through faith in all of the dispensations. However, the object of faith is always God, but the content of the faith varies. Men were not saved on the basis of faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus until after He died. Salvation was not by works in ANY dispensation. This is a common charge that is falsely charged against dispensationalism.

 

However, with the exception the ones that espouse Reformed soteriology, in the next breath they will teach openly that Jesus died for all our sins, except the sin of unbelief. In fact, I understand that is the word for word stated position of Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

I don't think Dallas teaches that.

 

Regarding faith and the object that it is place in. I have always believe that saving faith is trusting what God has said to be true. When God said to Abraham leave Ur, he went because he trusted. Salvation was not based on works, but on faith in the Word of God. When Christ said You must believe on me, you take Him at His word for salvation.

 

Frankly, I believe that all the above are a figment of Darby's vivid imaginadion. However, item 6 above is in direct conflict with the teaching of Jesus Christ and is therefore a gross error.

Jesus Christ tells us in Matthew 16:15-18:

15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If Jesus Christ states that the gates of Hades or death shall not prevail against His Church, how can the Darbyites claim that apostasy shall destroy it?

Jesus Christ also tells us in Matthew 28:18-20:

18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Was Jesus Christ making meaningless promises to the Church for which He died? Was He conning His disciples? Please note that He told the Church: I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It seems to me that you Darbyites are questioning the veracity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. All I can say is that your doctrine is unbiblical and grossly erroneous.

 

I have only gathered this from my interaction with dispensationalism, which prevails in the area in which I live. I also attended a dispensationalist IFB church and school from first grade through graduation from high school, and this teaching was mentioned. However, I do not have a direct citation. I do, however, believe I know somebody that does, and I have emailed him for it, since he writes about dispensationalism and mentions this with this remark:

"Unfortunately this view leaves an island of righteousness in man to be able to believe the Gospel without the aid of the regenerating grace which Christ purchased on the cross. It follows that those who hold to an general atonement believe the one sin for which Christ did not die is rejection of His person and work (they will cite John 3:18,36)Some readers have claimed that I am setting up a straw man here but this is actually the position (word for word) currently being taught by such institutions as Dallas Theological Seminary. Anyone wishing to take issue with me here I have evidence of this and will gladly provide it upon request."

If and when John emails me, hopefully over the weekend, I will post back here and let you all know what he says. Basically I told him I'd like to read his evidence.

 

Bob,

Dallas Theological Seminary DOES teach general atonement. They call themselves 4 Point Calvinists. As you know, I am Reformed (5 points) myself. I did not say Reformed folks taught this, but perhaps I will clarify...Some dispensationalists that wear the label "Calvinist" also teach that the atonement paid for all our sins except the sin of unbelief. (If so, that should make you question dispensational soteriology. Some get the rest correct...others do not). This, I believe, is, however the word for word statement of those representing DTS on the worldwide web.

John emailed me, but I also just did some research on my own, and found this quote from them on this issue from:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1316

From this section:

A Note on Johannine Theology:

From John’s perspective, a person does not go to hell because he/she is a sinner. The death of Christ has changed all of that (1 John 2:2). All sin is atoned for except the one (unforgiveable) sin of unbelief. A person goes to hell because he/she does not possess the life of heaven—eternal life. And this person does not possess it because he/she has rejected it as God’s free gift. To reject Jesus is to reject this gift of eternal life, which is (in other words) to commit the (unforgiveable) sin of unbelief.

That site represents Dallas Theological Seminary according to my friend John, who runs www.monergism.com . I've spent the last little while reading through their site, and it teaches that the Reformed postion on the atonement is in error. It also cites Zane Hodges view of eternal security.

There are many truly Reformed dispensationalists, like MacArthur, but DTS is NOT truly Reformed soteriologically. This should not surprise you, Bob, since Norm Geisler taught there before moving to Southern Evangelical in Charlotte, NC, and you (and I) both have critqued Chose But Free in your thread on free will. On the other hand, I did read an article there teaching regeneration preceding faith which is certainly from the Reformed understanding, and Norm teaches regeneration through faith, so it would appear not all DTS professors, present or past, are on the same page soteriologically.

My point, however, is that dispensationalism tends, even when from a Reformed perspective, more often than not, to affirm general atonement, at least in my own experience with dispensationalists like Geisler who predominate my part of the country and those who write for Bible.org.

 

John just emailed me with his exact quote from DTS and noted that the one above this one makes two...

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=180

about halfway down the page we find:

[ December 18, 2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Apology Accepted. I remember the days you remember, Dr. Bob, or, rather, the transitional days. When I was in high school, I can remember our principal and vice principal talking about how great Spurgeon was. In 6th grade, we even had to learn the Westminster Cathechism. All through high school they showed us films of Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse teaching. However, at the same time, the Bible College also attached to the church was shifting into the direction that DTS is now in today, so the church and school that I grew up in is a much different place.

 

I think this is a good illustration of a different kind of limited atonement. Spurgeon makes a good point when he says that Arminians also limit the atonement (but in a different way). Only universalists have a truly unlimited atonement, but they are wrong anyway.

 

HERE IS A RADICAL THOUGHT COMING FROM A DISPENSATIONALIST!

OK. Instead of breaking down God's progressive revelation in terms of the Dispensations, break it down in the terms of the BIBLICAL Covenants! (Only three dispensations are mentioned specifically in the Bible – the dispensation before grace, the dispensation of grace, and the dispensation of the fullness of times). If we approach the BIBLICAL COVENANTS (berith) from a contextual literal grammatical historical context, the transitions in God’s dealing with mankind becomes readily apparent using terms that cannot be denied to be BIBLICAL!

I have started speaking more of the covenants than of the dispensations (the Biblical covenants, not the imaginary covenants of CT, covenant theology). I am finding that this forces greater precision in my restatement of my theology and that it leaves CTs somewhat disarmed in their charges that my position is without Biblical support. The wording of the Biblical covenants clearly indicate that the Nation of Israel is a chosen people, elect by God the Father and distinct from the other nations of the earth – and distinct from the Church!!! This is one of the foundational premises of dispensationalism and the most serious flaw in CT.

 

Cannot you understand the purpose of Calvary is all about??

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!