The dispensation of grace

[OldRegular]

I have been rebuked more than once by fellow dispensationalists for my open air preaching system and my use of the 10 commandments in my preaching. Some have argued for another dispensation and that I am back in an older one as in the one of law and I am wrong. Seeing things from their perspective is my attempt at this thread. So those of you fellow dispensationalists please tell me why open air preaching and using the 10 commandments in evangelism are "dated" methods?

I wonder who would agree that the law can be used in the dispensation of grace.

God has always dealt with [people from the standpoint of GRACE. If you are preaching anything else you are preaching a false message. If you are preaching the dispensational error invented by John Nelson Darby you deserve criticism!

 

[Iconoclast]

Did not Paul specifically state that one is to either be free from the law or enslaved and bound to the law?

The commandments are written upon the heart of every person (Romans 1) so, preaching the ten commandments is preaching to the choir. What the apostles did was preach Christ was crucified, risen and is coming again.

If folks respond to that message, it is the work of the Holy Spirit, and not some superimposed emotional wrestling with a broken commandment.

All have broken the commandments.

What is the solution is what should be offered.

Hello agm
Discussing the law is a large topic. What you are speaking of is Paul's response to the Judaizers.
Preaching the law is not preaching to the choir as most resist God, His word, and the laws demands on them.
Of course Christ is the solution.....but as it is explained in Romans 10
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

This shows that the broken law is what is the background for the good news to be given.

 

[agedman]

Hello agm
Discussing the law is a large topic. What you are speaking of is Paul's response to the Judaizers.
Preaching the law is not preaching to the choir as most resist God, His word, and the laws demands on them.
Of course Christ is the solution.....but as it is explained in Romans 10
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

This shows that the broken law is what is the background for the good news to be given.

Which is what I actually was stating.
I have never met an adult who did not know they broke at least one of the ten commandment. I didn't have to teach them the law, I didn't have to hammer them with the law, and I never met a person who wouldn't readily agree that the broken law was also a matter that God would hold them responsible.

What is suggested by those who would cover their sin, not desire their sin to be exposed is that in some manner God will not hold them responsible. That either by the good they have done, or minimizing the evil done, or suggesting the love of God will overlook the evil, are all excuse that we have all heard, often.

What then is the real confrontation?

It resides in submitting to God's plan and in none other.

That is the crux of the argument.

If one harps on the broken law, it matters little.

It is enough that folks know the law has been broken and that God has provided a redemption. The results are in God's hands.

 

[DHK]

Unless a person first admits he is lost (has sinned) he cannot be saved.

 

[JonShaff]

So when was the last time you explicitly shared the gospel and exactly what did you say?

Also something to consider...why did Philip EXPLAIN the scriptures to The Eunuch?

Agedman you never responded to this...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have never met an adult who did not know they broke at least one of the ten commandment. I didn't have to teach them the law, I didn't have to hammer them with the law, and I never met a person who wouldn't readily agree that the broken law was also a matter that God would hold them responsible.

Perhaps there is a difference between Britain and America on this matter, but over here the problem is convincing people that they are sinners. If they think at all about God, they think they are fine with Him. Most of tem don't know the 10 Commandments anyway. The WOTM approach can be helpful with such people. They won't go to the Doctor unless they realise that they're sick.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps there is a difference between Britain and America on this matter, but over here the problem is convincing people that they are sinners. If they think at all about God, they think they are fine with Him. Most of tem don't know the 10 Commandments anyway. The WOTM approach can be helpful with such people. They won't go to the Doctor unless they realise that they're sick.

It seems that here people know that they are sinners and take a bit of pride in that notion. They still believe that they are fine with God, if they believe in a god, because God is essentially like they are (he also finds humor in life's little sins). People here know that drunkenness and lust is a sin, yet they happily fill the bars and strip clubs because, well, you know...they are basically good people and God probably chuckles at such misadventure. That's been my experience anyway.... ....not my experience as in going to strip clubs and getting drunk, but listening to after the fact conversations.

 

[evangelist6589]

I hesitate to reply, brother, for fear of being misunderstood. But if you want to understand the “why,” then this may help from either perspective (I’ve been gone for a bit so I’ll risk it).

The Law was given to Israel, not to the world. Keep in mind that dispensationalists keep a stark distinction between Israel and the Church, but it really shouldn’t be much of a concern here. The Law had many aspects (moral aspects, ceremonial aspects, etc.) and it is indivisible. A person cannot take, for example, the Ten Commandments as being an authority as the Law but ditch the rest. The Law is the Law. It does not apply to us today as an authority. We are not under the Law.

This is not entirely accurate. The moral law was given and (besides the sabbath) is the way of life and how God will judge the world at the judgment seat of Christ. One can take the 10 commandments and ditch the rest because we are not under the ceremonial and other laws found in the Torah.

That said, the Law did represent God’s word, his instruction, and his nature. God is immutable. What is represented in the Law in terms of a moral standard is God’s own law, his moral standard. It does not change. If God tells Israel that it is wrong to commit adultery then it is wrong to commit adultery regardless of the Law (the Law revealed God’s nature). So I can accurately say that the Ten Commandments do not apply to me (as the Ten Commandments). But what is written as the Ten Commandments (insofar as a moral law is concerned) remains God’s moral standard and God’s moral law and are commanded of me today because they reveal God’s moral righteousness for men.

Are you teaching exegetical antinomianism here? Correct me if I am mistaken. Note there is a difference in practical antinomianism and exegetical antinomianism.

Here’s an example. My oldest son wants to go to the movie this Saturday. I tell him that he can if he obeys his mother, does not back talk, and does his homework. If my youngest son does not do his homework, can I justly punish him? Yes, of course I can. Is it because he is under the deal to go to the movies? No, he’s too young. But that deal with my oldest reflects what I require of all my children.

It is not only the dispensationalists who believe that we are not under the Law, but even dispensationalists should recognize God’s moral nature reflected in the OT. I hope this helps.

We are under the moral law. How can you conclude that we are not?

 

[evangelist6589]

Martin has a good point, Evan. Maybe you could explain that we are not under the Law and that the Law is not an authority over us (to include the 10 Commandments), but God's moral law is summarized in the moral aspects of the Law.

I disagree with you and your exegetical antinomianism. We are indeed under the moral law (the 10 commandments) and God will judge us on the basis of our rewards in Heaven. The degrees of punishment in Hell will also be based on the 10 commandments for the world.

 

[evangelist6589]

Correct....
I am typing on my phone....I should be more careful.Thanks for pointing it out.
I know you do not like my posting but you must understand. .
If you stay in the middle ground on every issue theologically you will get attacked from both sides...
On all areas....

I am a Dispensationalist but mostly in areas of eschatology. However I do see the error that Dispensationalism can lead to antinomianism.

 

[JonC]

This is not entirely accurate. The moral law was given and (besides the sabbath) is the way of life and how God will judge the world at the judgment seat of Christ. One can take the 10 commandments and ditch the rest because we are not under the ceremonial and other laws found in the Torah.

Under what authority do you divide the Law. Doesn't Scripture teach it cannot be divided? Was this not Paul's reasoning when he rebuked Peter, that he was upholding a Law that he had already broken and was guilty of breaking the whole?

Are you teaching exegetical antinomianism here? Correct me if I am mistaken. Note there is a difference in practical antinomianism and exegetical antinomianism.

No, brother. I am saying that Cain was guilty under God's law but not under the Ten Commandments. I am saying that Paul was correct in determining Gentile guilt for breaking God's moral law, but not under the Law of Moses. That's all I'm saying, that we are not under Torah but we are still commanded to obey God's moral law. Sorry if my initial statement was not clear (I've been busy...busted water heater).

We are under the moral law. How can you conclude that we are not?

I have affirmed that we are under the moral law. I have denied that we are under the authority of the Mosaic Law.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am a Dispensationalist but mostly in areas of eschatology. However I do see the error that Dispensationalism can lead to antinomianism.

Many of us learned that teaching first.
At first you do not question anything you just want to learn what is offered.
A new Christian does not know enough to question anything because they are new and lack scriptural command or any real biblical overview.
You should not be afraid to read the best views by those who hold that view.
No matter which view you hold you should never neglect all lawful duties because of the view you have adopted.
If your view leads to any failure to serve and worship God it is a wrong view.
Antinomian tendencies follow that view and strange as it seems leads to a legalistic bondage.
Some of us have posted a link to the 95 objections to that view. It is written in a caustic manner as the writer sometimes goes over the edge letting his emotions derail his thoughts.....but look more at the issues and questions raised.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is not entirely accurate. The moral law was given and (besides the sabbath) is the way of life and how God will judge the world at the judgment seat of Christ. One can take the 10 commandments and ditch the rest because we are not under the ceremonial and other laws found in the Torah.



Are you teaching exegetical antinomianism here? Correct me if I am mistaken. Note there is a difference in practical antinomianism and exegetical antinomianism.



We are under the moral law. How can you conclude that we are not?

Why do you say......besides the sabbath?
The Sabbath was made for man.

 

[evangelist6589]

Why do you say......besides the sabbath?
The Sabbath was made for man.

Are you a seventh Day Adventist or a 7th Day Baptist?

 

[evangelist6589]

Many of us learned that teaching first.
At first you do not question anything you just want to learn what is offered.
A new Christian does not know enough to question anything because they are new and lack scriptural command or any real biblical overview.
You should not be afraid to read the best views by those who hold that view.
No matter which view you hold you should never neglect all lawful duties because of the view you have adopted.
If your view leads to any failure to serve and worship God it is a wrong view.
Antinomian tendencies follow that view and strange as it seems leads to a legalistic bondage.
Some of us have posted a link to the 95 objections to that view. It is written in a caustic manner as the writer sometimes goes over the edge letting his emotions derail his thoughts.....but look more at the issues and questions raised.

Have you read any of John MacArthur's defenses of Dispensationalism in his books?

 

[evangelist6589]

Under what authority do you divide the Law. Doesn't Scripture teach it cannot be divided? Was this not Paul's reasoning when he rebuked Peter, that he was upholding a Law that he had already broken and was guilty of breaking the whole?
No, brother. I am saying that Cain was guilty under God's law but not under the Ten Commandments. I am saying that Paul was correct in determining Gentile guilt for breaking God's moral law, but not under the Law of Moses. That's all I'm saying, that we are not under Torah but we are still commanded to obey God's moral law. Sorry if my initial statement was not clear (I've been busy...busted water heater).
I have affirmed that we are under the moral law. I have denied that we are under the authority of the Mosaic Law.

I do not know why we fail to understand each other, but I am in agreement that we are under the moral law and what I have always believed.

 

[agedman]

Agedman you never responded to this...

look back at post #15

I think that answers the question.

If not, let me know what more you would desire.

 

[blessedwife318]

Are you a seventh Day Adventist or a 7th Day Baptist?

No and you know he is not. But he was quoting you saying that we are under the 10 commandments which does include the Sabbath, so do you follow the Sabbath and if not, why do you say we are under the 10 commandments?

 

[evangelist6589]

No and you know he is not. But he was quoting you saying that we are under the 10 commandments which does include the Sabbath, so do you follow the Sabbath and if not, why do you say we are under the 10 commandments?

Does not include the sabbath I meant

 

[JonC]

I do not know why we fail to understand each other, but I am in agreement that we are under the moral law and what I have always believed.

We were born under different signs. Ninja Ninja


Where we perhaps disagree is that I believe God’s moral law is reflected in the Ten Commandments but are not the Law itself. God’s moral law existed from eternity past, even before we were created, because it reflects God’s own nature and as such is the ontological duty of us as creatures in obedience to our Creator. Then Ten Commandments….actually, the moral aspects of Torah as a whole…were binding on Israel in a particular way because they constituted a significant portion of God’s Old Covenant with Israel. For them, they were guilty of breaking God’s moral law but they were also under a greater guilt for transgressing Torah as a special revelation of God. Gentiles were not under the Law, not even the Ten Commandments. That does not mean that Gentiles were free to murder, steal, lie, or commit adultery. They were guilty as well. But they were not guilty of breaking the Law of Moses (they were not in danger of forfeiting promises that were not for them to begin with) because the Law was never an authority over them. They were, however, guilty of breaking God’s law.

Essentially, if you took the Law of Moses and wrote out God’s moral commands to us, we would both agree that that was how we should live. You may suggest it is because the Ten Commandments are an authority over us. I would suggest that it is because of God’s moral law which transcends the Ten Commandments. But we would get along just fine.