The Law and the Gospel: Different Dispensations?

[evangelist6589]

I picked up a used book on this topic and plan to give it a read soon. The book or this topic seems to be one which would be explored in a Biblical Theology course at the seminary level, as by looking at the book it appears to be of that nature. But I have to wonder if the moral law is relevant or to be applied to todays dispensation? I am aware I am a heavy advocate of the moral law in todays Dispensation, which may indeed not make me a Dispensationalist for advocating this view, of perhaps a confused Dispensationalist, but I am not alone for not fully understanding this topic.

Different views on this topic:

Non-Theonomic Reformed View
Theonomic Reformed View
Dispensational View
Modified Lutheran View

Can some explain to me why this issue is a debate in the Reformed and Lutheran camps, but not in the Arminian or Dispensationalism camps? A interesting article on the topic.

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj28/article1.html

People on this board have a view on this issue so lets hear it. Perhaps after I read the book I will come to a different conclusion on my view of the LAW in todays Dispensation.

 

[OldRegular]

My Viewpoint:

Holy Scripture is the story of the outworking of the Covenant of Grace in time and history. Though there is one Covenant of Grace [and many subsidiary covenants] there have been two primary administrations of the Covenant, one before the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and one after His death and resurrection. The first administration as recorded in the Old Testament dealt in types and shadows of things to come [Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1]; the second administration, as recorded in the New Testament, presents the spiritual reality of that which was promised. This second administration was instituted by the death of Jesus Christ [Hebrews 7:14-28] and is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of a New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-33, Hebrews 8:6-13]. The elect of God have, since the fall of Adam, received the blessings of the Covenant solely through the Grace of God.

 

[convicted1]

My Viewpoint:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbs:

 

[JamesL]

I am not alone for not fully understanding this topic.

Can some explain to me why this issue is a debate in the Reformed and Lutheran camps, but not in the Arminian or Dispensationalism camps?

My estimation might seem a bit barbaric for some, but I think I can give you the gist of it in very few words.

The Dispensationalist says - Look what God Did for me and in me

The Protestant or Lutheran says - Look what God Is Doing in me and through me

The Arminian says - Look what I am doing for God


I know, I know. A bit oversimplified, but that's a start


The Arminian, leaning heavily toward legalism, can see no distinction between Law and the gospel. YOU believe the gospel, and YOU endure in good works/obedience to the Law, or you're gonna burn.

The Dispensationalist, seeing the Law as distinctly for Israel, sees God as having set it aside for this Dispensation. The Law will resume in the Millennium, for Israel.

No real debate in either camp. 1) All of the Law we must do or face God's eternal wrath, or 2) none of the Law for the Church.


The Protestant and Lutheran (who are Protestants) disagree on the purpose of the Law as it relates to a believer.

Protestant says - the working of the Moral Law is barometer - evidence that God is working in you. In other words, the gospel of "fruit". We don't see no fruit, you don't got no grace

Lutheran says - the Moral Law is a means of convicting a believer of wrong-doing, without bringing condemnation upon the believer.

They both err in trying to chop up the Law into pieces - moral, ceremonial, civil, agricultural, and whatever. Neglecting that Jesus never once diced the Law. For Him, it was THE Law, period.


Hope that helps, and I hope I haven't horrifically misrepresented anyone's camp

 

[beameup]

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4

 

[evangelist6589]

My estimation might seem a bit barbaric for some, but I think I can give you the gist of it in very few words.

The Dispensationalist says - Look what God Did for me and in me

The Protestant or Lutheran says - Look what God Is Doing in me and through me

The Arminian says - Look what I am doing for God


I know, I know. A bit oversimplified, but that's a start


The Arminian, leaning heavily toward legalism, can see no distinction between Law and the gospel. YOU believe the gospel, and YOU endure in good works/obedience to the Law, or you're gonna burn.

The Dispensationalist, seeing the Law as distinctly for Israel, sees God as having set it aside for this Dispensation. The Law will resume in the Millennium, for Israel.

No real debate in either camp. 1) All of the Law we must do or face God's eternal wrath, or 2) none of the Law for the Church.


The Protestant and Lutheran (who are Protestants) disagree on the purpose of the Law as it relates to a believer.

Protestant says - the working of the Moral Law is barometer - evidence that God is working in you. In other words, the gospel of "fruit". We don't see no fruit, you don't got no grace

Lutheran says - the Moral Law is a means of convicting a believer of wrong-doing, without bringing condemnation upon the believer.

They both err in trying to chop up the Law into pieces - moral, ceremonial, civil, agricultural, and whatever. Neglecting that Jesus never once diced the Law. For Him, it was THE Law, period.


Hope that helps, and I hope I haven't horrifically misrepresented anyone's camp

Thank you so much brother. I still do not quite understand as this one is a very technical one. Yes I saw a class on this topic at a Reformed seminary for the PHD student so I believe we have hit a complicated one.

Are you saying that relying on the Law as a way to show someone they have sinned against God is not necessary for this dispensation? So when Paul speaks of the Law in the verses in my signature he is not talking about the moral law but the law of sin or something else?

This is the book that I got used.

http://www.christianbook.com/the-la...de=WW&netp_id=173332&event=ESRCG&view=details

 

[evangelist6589]

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4

Yes I do believe that if I stood before God and told him that I was going to Heaven because I kept the moral Law I would not go there, as Christ is the ONLY ENTRANCE to Heaven. However cannot the moral law show someone they have sinned against God?

 

[Revmitchell]

M


The Dispensationalist, seeing the Law as distinctly for Israel, sees God as having set it aside for this Dispensation. The Law will resume in the Millennium, for Israel.

This is incorrect. The dispensationalist does not see God setting aside the law for this dispensation. The dispensationalist sees the law set aside for eternity. Israel does not currently see the law set aside at all. After the church age it is not that God re-establishes the law or sacrifices it will be that Israel will. Two completely different things. Abd they do this because Israel rejects the idea that the Messiah has actually come yet.

 

[Aaron]

Martin Luther on Galatians 2:14

No one except Paul had his eyes open. Consequently it was his duty to reprove Peter and his followers for swerving from the truth of the Gospel. It was no easy task for Paul to reprimand Peter. To the honor of Peter it must be said that he took the correction. No doubt, he freely acknowledged his fault.

The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. If it is a question of works, then lift high the lantern of works and the righteousness of the Law. If your conscience is oppressed with a sense of sin, talk to your conscience. Say: "You are now groveling in the dirt. You are now a laboring ass. Go ahead, and carry your burden. But why don't you mount up to heaven? There the Law cannot follow you!" Leave the ass burdened with laws behind in the valley. But your conscience, let it ascend with Isaac into the mountain.

In civil life obedience to the law is severely required. In civil life Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, Christ Himself, do not count, but only Moses with the lawbooks. If we bear in mind this distinction, neither Gospel nor Law shall trespass upon each other. The moment Law and sin cross into heaven, i.e., your conscience, kick them out. On the other hand, when grace wanders unto the earth, i.e., into the body, tell grace: "You have no business to be around the dreg and dung of this bodily life. You belong in heaven."

By his compromising attitude Peter confused the separation of Law and Gospel. Paul had to do something about it. He reproved Peter, not to embarrass him, but to conserve the difference between the Gospel which justifies in heaven, and the Law which justifies on earth.

The right separation between Law and Gospel is very important to know. Christian doctrine is impossible without it. Let all who love and fear God, diligently learn the difference, not only in theory but also in practice.

When your conscience gets into trouble, say to yourself: "There is a time to die, and a time to live; a time to learn the Law, and a time to unlearn the Law; a time to hear the Gospel, and a time to ignore the Gospel. Let the Law now depart, and let the Gospel enter, for now is the right time to hear the Gospel, and not the Law." However, when the conflict of conscience is over and external duties must be performed, close your ears to the Gospel, and open them wide to the Law.​

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is incorrect. The dispensationalist does not see God setting aside the law for this dispensation. The dispensationalist sees the law set aside for eternity. Israel does not currently see the law set aside at all. After the church age it is not that God re-establishes the law or sacrifices it will be that Israel will. Two completely different things. Abd they do this because Israel rejects the idea that the Messiah has actually come yet.

:thumbsup: Great post, Rev. Couldn't have said it better myself.

James, you've been reading too many Covenant Theologists who don't really know what Dispensationalism is, or what the doctrines are that it embraces.

 

[Don]

My estimation might seem a bit barbaric for some, but I think I can give you the gist of it in very few words.

The Dispensationalist says - Look what God Did for me and in me

The Protestant or Lutheran says - Look what God Is Doing in me and through me

The Arminian says - Look what I am doing for God


I know, I know. A bit oversimplified, but that's a start

And completely incorrect as regards true arminianism.

The Arminian, leaning heavily toward legalism, can see no distinction between Law and the gospel. YOU believe the gospel, and YOU endure in good works/obedience to the Law, or you're gonna burn.

Which completely ignores the fact that true arminianism agrees with "once saved, always saved," just as calvinism does.

Hope that helps, and I hope I haven't horrifically misrepresented anyone's camp

Yeah, you kinda did.

 

[Iconoclast]

any who suggest the ten commandments are not in effect are offering an unbiblical teaching known as antinomianism

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

any who suggest the ten commandments are not in effect are offering an unbiblical teaching known as antinomianism

The question is, "To what effect?" I'm not disputing they are in effect. But to what purpose?

 

[Yeshua1]

I picked up a used book on this topic and plan to give it a read soon. The book or this topic seems to be one which would be explored in a Biblical Theology course at the seminary level, as by looking at the book it appears to be of that nature. But I have to wonder if the moral law is relevant or to be applied to todays dispensation? I am aware I am a heavy advocate of the moral law in todays Dispensation, which may indeed not make me a Dispensationalist for advocating this view, of perhaps a confused Dispensationalist, but I am not alone for not fully understanding this topic.

Different views on this topic:

Non-Theonomic Reformed View
Theonomic Reformed View
Dispensational View
Modified Lutheran View

Can some explain to me why this issue is a debate in the Reformed and Lutheran camps, but not in the Arminian or Dispensationalism camps? A interesting article on the topic.

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj28/article1.html

People on this board have a view on this issue so lets hear it. Perhaps after I read the book I will come to a different conclusion on my view of the LAW in todays Dispensation.

Are we , who are under the grace of the Lord jesus, now under the provisions of the Law as in 10 Commandments, or under the moral aspect of it?

Do we need to obey and observe the law , or doe we walk in the holy sirit, and thus fulfill the Law, as he will enable us to live as we should now?

 

[beameup]

Yes I do believe that if I stood before God and told him that I was going to Heaven because I kept the moral Law I would not go there, as Christ is the ONLY ENTRANCE to Heaven. However cannot the moral law show someone they have sinned against God?

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another) [ie: the direct work of the Holy Spirit on the Conscience]
Romans 2:15

Matthew, Mark & Luke are "old covenant" and not applicable to the Body of Christ for doctrine -
(John is the exception, as it was written in 90AD after the destruction of the Temple and John witnessed to many Gentiles in Patmos).

BTW, there are 613 Commandments. Either obey all of them or live under Grace, the choice is yours.

 

[OldRegular]

Matthew, Mark & Luke are "old covenant" and not applicable to the Body of Christ for doctrine -

That is hyper-dispensational nonsense! That is not my opinion that is Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[evangelist6589]

any who suggest the ten commandments are not in effect are offering an unbiblical teaching known as antinomianism

Well said. Perhaps you did not notice that the vast majority of Christians believe in antinomianism. To me its a deception of Satan of which most have been deceived. How often do you hear the 10 commandments being preach din churches these days? Almost never...

 

[beameup]

That is hyper-dispensational nonsense! That is not my opinion that is Scripture.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke will become extremely relevant during the Tribulation, but the Body of Christ will be long-gone by then.
The Gospel of the Kingdom will again be the message - during the Tribulation.

As well, Hebrews through Revelation will become extremely relevant during the Tribulation.

"rightly dividing"

 

[OldRegular]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke will become extremely relevant during the Tribulation, but the Body of Christ will be long-gone by then.

So you believe the apocryphal gospel of Paul but obviously nothing else he wrote.

The Gospel of the Kingdom will again be the message - during the Tribulation.

Just how many gospels do you have?

As well, Hebrews through Revelation will become extremely relevant during the Tribulation.

"rightly dividing"

Splintering is more like it.

 

[convicted1]

That is hyper-dispensational nonsense! That is not my opinion that is Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup: