Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannabee  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. |
As I recall, dispensationalism began in the Presbyterian church, and was a break from the commonly accepted covenant theology of the time. Classic dispensationalism was very different for CT, progressive dispensationalism is much more similar to CT than classic. Since dispensationalism seems to be in a state of flux, do think it'll eventually run full circle and end up as CT?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannabee 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. |
I think both sides agree Jesus fulfilled the law. I guess maybe the next question to ask, since Jesus fulfilled the law, how does that affect the Christian's relationship to the law, or the non-Christian for that matter? Are we expected to strive to keep the law (not to earn salvation or anything, but simply because God commanded it)? The verse is often quoted about us not being under the law, but under grace now. Is the dispensational and CT understanding the same here? How are they the same or different?