Quote:
Originally Posted by tcalbrecht  So you don't disagree with what I said, you just don't think that dispys will like the way I said it. Fair enough. The comment was not for dispys. |
Doesn't matter if the comment was for the dispys or not. Our private language or intra-Calvinistic jabs at times will come out when we're in discussion with those who aren't Calvinists. It slips. We need to be on guard with our speech ALL the time.... you don't know who's listening....or reading.
I point people over to PB on a regular basis (non-reformed folks) who have all these inane notions of what it means to be a Calvinist and they are too 'scared' from their interactions with the few 'high calvinists' they've met and are used to people dealing with them more graciously, kindly (even in disagreement) and tenderly.
Christ always reserved his anger for those in clerical office who taught false doctrine. He never blasted the laity that was simply caught up in the teachings of the day, but instead was merciful to them. He didn't condone their sin, always told them the truth, but never treated them the same way He did the Pharisees in John 8.
In addition, with specific reference to you, the bulk of your comments regarding dispensationalism have always been against classic dispensationalism - and most modern dispies aren't classical at all. Whereas the original Scofield Study Bible inconsistently taught in some of the notes that salvation was by works in the OT (other places it taught that it was by faith), every modern dispensationalist from Ryrie (who overlaps the modified period of 1950-1990 and the present time) will all agree with the reformed (and biblical) viewpoint. Even as a dispy, that's what I was taught.
Much of the polemical material against dispensationalism from the reformed side is out of date. And whether you choose to believe it or not, representing someone's viewpoint correctly when interacting with it (even if it is wrong) is a mark of Christian charity. Snide comments in an ungracious tone combined with a caricature of what they believe..... feeds right into Dave Hunt-esque and George Bryson-esque misrepresentations of Calvinism.
People are
humans, not just automatons that intake doctrinal positions and assent to truth or not. I've learned (once I got outside of hanging in a 'reformed ghetto') that we can sit on PB or in our churches all we want and critique false teaching from afar by reading the works of every polemicist that God has blessed the church with and that won't teach us to deal graciously and patiently with people (2 Tim. 2). When you're trying to point people to truth, great patience, graciousness and kindness are needed. One former non-Calvinist who now holds to the doctrines of grace once told me that the 'process' is akin to major surgery....especially if you're dealing with someone with more of an emotive-bent to them (which is most of the US church today). Jabs, jokes and such - in private speech - eventually slip out in public and show the true condition of our hearts.
Calvin didn't 'jab' back at Servetus though Servetus sent back his letters marked up with all kinds of blasphemies and insults scribbled in margins. Luther's "Here I stand, I can do no other!" was probably a lot more humble than the movies have made it appear....
So it's both what you've said AND how you've said it that are disturbing.
Quote:
|
BTW, are you saying that you view dispensationalism as a damnable heresy?
|
What have I said that made you ask that question ?