Quote:
Originally Posted by blhowes  Quote:
Originally Posted by tcalbrecht When you ask a question like this it is almost impossible to get a useful answer since there is no Dispensational Confession of Faith. Are you taking classic or progressive? | That's very true. We've had some pretty good discussions on the board about dispensationalism in the last year or so in which the defender(s) of dispensationalism pointed out that the dispensationalism being argued against isn't what dispensationalists believe any more. It kind of takes some of the wind out of your sails when you argue against something most don't believe any more.
Classic dispensationalism was the only dispensationalism I've ever know until recently. I'll admit I'm lazy at times academically, but I can't see myself putting in the time to learn what makes progressive dispensationalism different - in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "Will this eventually be something that "nobody believes anymore"? |
This is really a good observation. Dispensationalism really isn't confessional, creedal or apt to being put in a box. Many have tried to systematize it or relegate it to a hermeneutical approach, with little success. In fact, when asked if he was a dispensationalist, MacArthur recently stated that he really didn't know what it meant. If it means a separation of the church and Israel, sure. But there's a whole lot more to the picture.
One thing to be more clear on, Jesus fulfilled the law, He didn't abolish it. It's a very important distinction and one that should help those who truly attempt to understand where dispensationalists are coming from. Those dispies who do claim that Jesus abolished it haven't really worked out their own understanding of the law.
And in light of dispensationalism being difficult to nail down, to be fair, much of the same thing can be said about covenantalists (Anabaptist, paedo, credo, anit-paedo, baptismal regeneration, paedo-communion, pre-mil, post-mil, a-mil, etc.).
It is in light of this that I have often been guilty as charged for stating that "this isn't what dispies believe anymore," or "the brush is too broad - you can't include all dispies."
In answer to the original question, I've never heard of such a thing. But that doesn't mean that some dispensationalists wouldn't subscribe to such teaching. I've heard some say stranger things. Heh, I've said stranger things.
I imagine everyone reading this can relate to one degree or another.
Several broad brushes have been applied here. For instance, though the Jews were under the law, salvation is through Christ alone. I've never heard of a dispie sabbatarian, though I suppose there could be a few out there. It's hard to say that it's inconsistent with their theology because it's so hard to nail their theology down. However, I would agree that it would be inconsistent with the hermeneutical principles espoused by what I would call more exegetically sound dispensational theologians. Those who bite into a system without submitting themselves to sound hermeneutical principles can get caught up in a host of errors. This is why we have the dispensational sensationalism that fills our Christian radio stations and bookstores.
Try to understand why some are somewhat defensive. There are many dispensationalists who hold to TULIP. Many have a strong understanding, appreciation and respect for church history, including the reformation. Many embrace the solas of the reformation with strong conviction. Many, though they are strong in their convictions regarding eschatology, rarely teach on it because there is so much more to teach on in regard to the Christian walk. So when dispensationalists are slammed by those claiming that dispensationalism teaches against any of these it shows a lack of understanding and graciousness on the part of those making such statements. It would be akin to me making a statement such as, "all paedos instill a false sense of security in their children," or "without tradition or Westminster covenantalists would have no source of theology." At least one of these statements would rankle with almost every person on this board; the second with almost all. And yet we all know that there are some within paedos and covenantalists who fit the bill.
Galatians 6:2-10
2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For each one shall bear his own load.
6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Titus 3:3-7
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.