In defense of the Gospel or Legalism

[Jarthur001]

This thread is a look at indefenseofthegospel blog to show they in fact supply legalism

At the website you will find a list of "Recommended Sites". One would have to think that in defense of the gospel supports the words of the links, or they would not be recommended.

One link I want you to look at..."John MacArthur and Dispensationalism".

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/jmacdis.htm

In it you will find that this group is calling for MacArthur to separate based on eschatological doctrines.

Is eschatological doctrines something to fight over?
Is eschatological doctrines "the gospel"?

Yes we can have a good little debate of it, but to go to extremes of the recommended link is error. The error is legalism.

What is terribly puzzling, however, is how MacArthur takes such a solid stand on Israel on the one hand, and on the other hand he participates in Bible Conferences with R. C. Sproul and other Reformed men who despise dispensationalism. These Reformed men strongly teach that Israel has no future at all, that there will be no millennial kingdom, that most prophecies were fulfilled in 70 A.D. and that we should approach the prophetic Scriptures in a non-literal way. MacArthur is to be praised for his solid stand on the truth that Israel has a wonderful future in the plan and purpose of God. But who are the Bible teachers in our land today who are heralding this truth about Israel and who are insisting on consistent literal interpretation? Are they not the dispensationalists? Why is MacArthur reluctant to identify himself with them?

It seems to me that MacArthur is showing the higher ground where the GOSPEL is what matters more.

Why would indefenseofthegospel blog recommended legalism?

 

[Dale-c]

Sadly, it is the norm today to confuse the legalism for the gospel.

 

[J.D.]

Not sure if this is legalism but over-zealous separation. I think a local church has to define whether it's teachings are going to be dispy or covenant because they are systematically different, but it should not bind the conscience nor fellowship beyond that. But you know, many historical premillinialist believe in a future blessing of national Israel, but not in a future return to the old covenant. So is it dispensationalism or premillinialism they want us to split up and fight over? I think we've got too much time on our hands when we start condemning each other over eschatological fine points.

 

[Jarthur001]

Not sure if this is legalism but over-zealous separation. I think a local church has to define whether it's teachings are going to be dispy or covenant because they are systematically different, but it should not bind the conscience nor fellowship beyond that. But you know, many historical premillinialist believe in a future blessing of national Israel, but not in a future return to the old covenant. So is it dispensationalism or premillinialism they want us to split up and fight over? I think we've got too much time on our hands when we start condemning each other over eschatological fine points.

I just think its something that Lou the owner of that blog claim that LS is legalism but when you look on his site he shows he supports a legalist level of separation and many other things.

If they are no be deal, then why separate? So it must be a big deal to Lou and company.