I am writing a letter to a dispensationalist friend, who happens to be a Pastor at a Baptist Church. My basic theme is that the root of dispensationalism is heresy because of the way it promotes multiple Gospels, different programs for OT Israel and new covenant believers, as well as assortment of other distinctives. I am trying to show him that all dispensational distinctives must be thrown out since the root is rotten.

The essential point is that dispenstaionalism modifies the nature of the Gospel as well as misunderstands the nature of God in the covenants. I don't want to use any weaker language than needed, but I don't want to falsely call someone a heretic either.

NOTE: I am not saying that modern dispensationalist are all heretics, but if they hold to the classical form, I can't see a way around it.


If needed, I can unpack some of my thoughts on this matter later, but here is a sample. CI Scofield, in "Rightly dividing the Word":

5. Man under law. Again the grace of God came to the help of helpless man and redeemed the chosen people out of the hand of the oppressor. In the wilderness of Sinai He proposed to them the covenant of law. Instead of humbly pleading for a continued relation of grace, they presumptuously answered: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." The history of Israel in the wilderness and in the land is one long record of flagrant, persistent violation of the law, and at last, after multiplied warnings, God closed the testing of man by law in judgment: first Israel, and then Judah, were driven out of the land into a dispersion which still continues.
2.
6. Man under grace. The sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ introduced the dispensation of pure grace, which means undeserved favor, or God giving righteousness, instead of God requiring righteousness, as under law. Salvation, perfect and eternal, is now freely offered to Jew and Gentile upon the acknowledgment of sin, or repentance, with faith in Christ.

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by raderag]

__________________
Grace and Peace in Christ,

Brett Rader
Member
Redeemer Presbyterian(PCA)
Austin, TX

raderag:

I would be cautious in calling someone a heretic.

Before doing so, it is crucial to define what you mean by heresy and orthodoxy. I would suggest that orthodoxy is fidelity to the Bible as expressed in the interpretations that the universal church has affirmed through her creeds and conciliar decisions. These would include the Apostle's Creed, and the first four councils. This would mean people are orthodox if within the realm of proper Trinitarian teaching as well as the basic creed.

Anyway, if you disagree, what would you say the content of orthodoxy is? I hope that you don't believe that every minsunderstanding of the Bible or every mistake of doctrine makes one a heretic. If it is some lesser subset of doctrines, what are those doctrines?

A related question is: what entity is authorized to interpret the Bible and to proclaim others heretics? Is each individual charged with interpreting the Bible and pronouncing heresy on other people's interpretations? This is very egalitarian and common in America.

Or, is there some authorized body (like a court system) charged with this? I would affirm the latter and use Acts 15 as my model and hence, my agreement and approval of the conciliar decisions, which were likewise modeled on Acts 15.

Now, your friend is in error over what the Bible teaches on important matters. I would address those directly. I don't think heresy is necessarily appropriate w/o know more.

Scott

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

[quote:8e241a00e2][i:8e241a00e2]Originally posted by Scott[/i:8e241a00e2]
raderag:

I would be cautious in calling someone a heretic.

Before doing so, it is crucial to define what you mean by heresy and orthodoxy.
[/quote:8e241a00e2]

Certainly, I would be careful.
Actually, I say that it is hetrodoxy that contains heresy. Heresy because it alters the nature of the Gospel, and I believe the nature of God. If you really understand the classical dispensational view of the OT, one if almost forced to believe that God changed his nature in the NT.

[quote:8e241a00e2]
I would suggest that orthodoxy is fidelity to the Bible as expressed in the interpretations that the universal church has affirmed through her creeds and conciliar decisions. These would include the Apostle's Creed, and the first four councils.
[/quote:8e241a00e2]

That is a starting point, but I hardly think we can ignore the synods and concils of the reformation.

[quote:8e241a00e2]
This would mean people are orthodox if within the realm of proper Trinitarian teaching as well as the basic creed.
[/quote:8e241a00e2]

I am not sure why we must stop the definition in the ancient creeds. Why does the reformation not play a part here? If what you are saying is correct, Luther and Calvin probablay should not have left the Roman Church.

[quote:8e241a00e2]
Anyway, if you disagree, what would you say the content of orthodoxy is? I hope that you don't believe that every minsunderstanding of the Bible or every mistake of doctrine makes one a heretic. If it is some lesser subset of doctrines, what are those doctrines?
[/quote:8e241a00e2]

What you said is a good starting point, and I would say enough to discredit dispensationalism, but many times modern heresy would affirm ancient creeds while changing something just as vital, such as the Gospel. For example, Classic dispies say that Jesus preached a kingdom Gospel to the Jews, and that it isn't doctrine for the Church. Furthermore, they say that Jesus, Peter, and John all preached a jewish gospel of works. Only Paul preached a Gospel of grace.

[quote:8e241a00e2]
A related question is: what entity is authorized to interpret the Bible and to proclaim others heretics? Is each individual charged with interpreting the Bible and pronouncing heresy on other people's interpretations? This is very egalitarian and common in America.
[/quote:8e241a00e2]

A very interesting point, and I probabaly agree with you, but I think it isn't in the scope of this question.

[quote:8e241a00e2]
Or, is there some authorized body (like a court system) charged with this? I would affirm the latter and use Acts 15 as my model and hence, my agreement and approval of the conciliar decisions, which were likewise modeled on Acts 15.
[/quote:8e241a00e2]

Yes, it is the Churches responsibility, but certainly the church will and can err in this matter. Otherwise, what is the Church? Scripture is the final authority on orthodoxy. I do believe that orthodoxy will always exist somewhere as the true church never dies.


[quote:8e241a00e2]

Now, your friend is in error over what the Bible teaches on important matters. I would address those directly. I don't think heresy is necessarily appropriate w/o know more.

Scott [/quote:8e241a00e2]

To clarify, I am not saying that my friend is a hereitic, but that he believes a system of doctrine which was modified from heresy. I am showing that at best, dispensational teachers are schismatics that should be avoided.

Not all dispys are schismatic or heretics. Heresy damns. It presents another gospel. Many modern day dispys do not even know where dispensationalism came from or that it at one time did present two ways of salvation.

Further, as to the comment about his belief being modified from heresy.....is not reformed theology a modification (recovery) of truth from the heresies of Rome?

You need to take the word heresy out of the discussion altogether and strive to search the Scriptures with this pastor. '

And remember, he is a pastor! If he is not being heretical himself, do not fail to honor him and esteem him highly for his work in the Body of Christ.

A brotherly study of Scirpture is much more edifying than a hunt to destroy all remnants of a belief system!

Just my :wr50:,

Phillip

__________________
Pastor Phillip M. Way
[url=http://www.timeintheword.org][color=blue] Maranatha Community Church of Central Texas[/color][/url]
A Reformed Baptist Congregation and Member Church of the
Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals [url=http://www.firefellowship.org][color=red](FIRE)[/color][/url]

Blogging at: [url=http://pastorway.blogspot.com/][color=blue][i]pastorway[/i][/color][/url]
Sermons Online at: [url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/timeintheword][color=blue]TIME in the Word Ministries[/color][/url]

When all souls are saved and all mourners comforted we may venture to discuss recondite theories, but not while graveyards are filling with those who know not God. -- CH Spurgeon

[b]The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Luke 18:27[/b]

Brett,

Does your Pastor friend believe in [i:f2f9a59e40]classic[/i:f2f9a59e40] Dispensationalism (i.e. Scofield) or more of a modified, modern version that most dispies hold to now (i.e. calvary chapel)?

This is important in how you address the issue of heresy. If he holds to the [i:f2f9a59e40]classic[/i:f2f9a59e40] kind then you are correct, it does lead to denying the gospel if held consistently. John Gerstner in his book, [u:f2f9a59e40]Wronly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism[/u:f2f9a59e40], attacks the classical type and concludes, "The Dispensational Understanding of 'Dispensation' Denies the Gospel". But like I said most [i:f2f9a59e40]today[/i:f2f9a59e40] don't hold to the classic type. I am sure that you are already aware of this. It is just important to identify the opposition first before attacking it.

Hope that helped

__________________
^Brian Lanier^
Member: Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Santa Maria, CA
Attending: First Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Sunnyvale, CA
http://www.lanier-perspective.blogspot.com

Phillip must have been posting at the same time as me.


[quote:44766fb4dd]
And remember, he is a pastor! If he is not being heretical himself, do not fail to honor him and esteem him highly for his work in the Body of Christ.
[/quote:44766fb4dd]

Amen Phillip

"Yes, it is the Churches responsibility, but certainly the church will and can err in this matter. Otherwise, what is the Church? Scripture is the final authority on orthodoxy. I do believe that orthodoxy will always exist somewhere as the true church never dies."

Brett: I think this misses the point. I agree that churches can and do err (even in conciliar decisions). Still, individuals can and do err too. Both councils and individuals are using the scripture as the final authority. Yet, the question is which is authorized to make the final interpretations?

In one instance the individual uses the scripture as the final standard. Then the individual makes an interpretive mistake. He believes that his understanding is what the Bible teaches. This is a case where the individual has become a Pope over a jurisdiction of one.

In the other instance, the universal council acknowledges that scripture is the highest standard. The collective church is the "pillar and ground of truth" and the Bride of Christ. The collective mind on the church is less likely to be mistaken about what the Bible teaches than the individual. I think this is one reason we have the model of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. It is also why individual churches were obligated to accept the decision of the Council, as we see in Acts 16.

Now, the council could make a mistake. Issues of authority are always hazy. It is something like our court system. They are charged with interpreting legislation. They generally do a good job but sometimes make horendous mistakes.

Still, individuals have not been charged in an authoritative sense in the way courts have. If each individual was charged with making these decisions, we would just have anarchy (sounds a lot like the ecclesiastical terrain we face in America). Further, individuals are bound to follow the courts in most instances.

Scott

"I am not sure why we must stop the definition in the ancient creeds. Why does the reformation not play a part here? If what you are saying is correct, Luther and Calvin probablay should not have left the Roman Church."

As I understand the matter, they were forced out. They tried "reform" (hence Reformation) over schism.

They were unwilling to submit to papal tyranny and the false doctrines the church imposed on men. Men like Luther and Calvin had to set up their own ecclesiastical institutions in order to minister to the people of God. These institutions were provisional and were not intended to be permanent. The great hope was of "reformation" not "schism" or separation.

The situation of the Reformers is analogous to the situation of the French Charles de Gaulle in World War II. Germany invaded France and took over the government. French collaboraters, such as Marshal Petain, helped the Germans do this. French resistance fighters, led by Charles de Gaulle, refused to recognize German authority in spite of German occupation. They set up a shadow government to resist German tyranny and resist occupation. The great hope of de Gaulle and others was the liberation of France, not separation from it. Charles de Gaulle carried on much of his work from England. The French did not become complacent or happy in their new land. They did not separate from France and become reviled at the notion of returning.

Scott

[quote:3a2fa8ce17]
Both councils and individuals are using the scripture as the final authority. Yet, the question is which is authorized to make the final interpretations?
[/quote:3a2fa8ce17]

Well, I guess the individual either must decide himself, or decide which is the church that is correct. The problem is that there not even total agreement within reformed orthodoxy. Perhaps we could view it as the eastern church by looking at the mind of the historical church. Anyway, I am very interested in this subject, but I don't think it is relevant to the topic of dispensationalism, so I must bow out for now.

[quote:481583a63c][i:481583a63c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:481583a63c]
Not all dispys are schismatic or heretics. Heresy damns. It presents another gospel. Many modern day dispys do not even know where dispensationalism came from or that it at one time did present two ways of salvation.

Further, as to the comment about his belief being modified from heresy.....is not reformed theology a modification (recovery) of truth from the heresies of Rome?

You need to take the word heresy out of the discussion altogether and strive to search the Scriptures with this pastor. '

And remember, he is a pastor! If he is not being heretical himself, do not fail to honor him and esteem him highly for his work in the Body of Christ.

A brotherly study of Scirpture is much more edifying than a hunt to destroy all remnants of a belief system!

Just my :wr50:,

Phillip [/quote:481583a63c]

Points well taken, and am clear in the letter that modern dispensationlism is not itself a heresy. However, its root seems to be. Perhaps, I will not use the word heresy, but I don't know what to call the two Gospel theory.

You mentioned reformed creeds and decisions. These were not universal decisions. As I understand your situation, your friend is not under the authority of any of these creeds (such as by being a member of a reformed denomination, such as the PCA or OPC). So, I don't see those as binding him. It would be like using a law of France to bind a person in America. French laws have no jurisdiction over Americans ordinarily. The synodal decision of one denomination or group has no actual authority over another denomination or group. That is why universal decisions (which concern everyone) are accorded more authority. They also more closely reflect the actual situation of Acts 15.

BTW, it may be helpful to quote the WCF 31.2:

"It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word."

Note (1) controversies of faith are entrusted to councils and (2) the obligation to follow comes from the power by which they are made (in addition to being consonant with the Word).

I think this is exactly right.

Scott

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by Scott]

[quote:0a51f21be1][i:0a51f21be1]Originally posted by BrianLanier[/i:0a51f21be1]
Brett,

Does your Pastor friend believe in [i:0a51f21be1]classic[/i:0a51f21be1] Dispensationalism (i.e. Scofield) or more of a modified, modern version that most dispies hold to now (i.e. calvary chapel)?

This is important in how you address the issue of heresy. If he holds to the [i:0a51f21be1]classic[/i:0a51f21be1] kind then you are correct, it does lead to denying the gospel if held consistently. John Gerstner in his book, [u:0a51f21be1]Wronly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism[/u:0a51f21be1], attacks the classical type and concludes, "The Dispensational Understanding of 'Dispensation' Denies the Gospel". But like I said most [i:0a51f21be1]today[/i:0a51f21be1] don't hold to the classic type. I am sure that you are already aware of this. It is just important to identify the opposition first before attacking it.

Hope that helped [/quote:0a51f21be1]

Right, he is a modern, even leaning toward the John MacAuthor side of the fence. The point is that the root of dispensationalism has no orthodox lineage, and therefore should be rejected. Anyway, I am going to rethink all of this.

[quote:b603b38a17][i:b603b38a17]Originally posted by Scott[/i:b603b38a17]
You mentioned reformed creeds and decisions. These were not universal decisions. As I understand your situation, your friend is not under the authority of any of these creeds (such as by being a member of a reformed denomination, such as the PCA or OPC). So, I don't see those as binding him.
[/quote:b603b38a17]

Well, that may be true, but they are still as valid for determining orthodoxy as the ecumenical creeds. Besides, most modern baptist don't consider any of the creeds or councils to hold any authority.

"Perhaps, I will not use the word heresy, but I don't know what to call the two Gospel theory."

I think it would ok to just call it error, or a mistake. I doubt calling it heresy is more likely to change his mind anyway. And you are not acting in a judicial capacity, but in an individual capacity.

It might be helpful to trace out the practical differences that dispie beliefs entail or have entailed in the past. Contrast them to covenant views. This can show him the practical importance of deciding between the two.

Scott

"Well, that may be true, but they are still as valid for determining orthodoxy as the ecumenical creeds."

Why?

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by Scott]

Couple thoughts.

1. I've not in 50 years known of a "dispy" that holds to two gospels. I would like to read the quoted book to see the context before agreeing that Scofield believed in two. I have heard this charge a number of times and have asked for evidence of such and this is the first attempt I have seen and it seems somewhat lacking at this point.

2. Remember you aren't "the" authority, the Word is the authority. The "dispy" looks to the word and sees dispensationalism as the truth as you look to the Word to find your system to be truth.

Thus the advice is very wise that you have been given. You can declare him a heritic, but it is just as easy for him to view you in the same manner and he has the same authority to do so - none. :roll:

I have an associtate question I will post later as it has been of interest to me to watch the transformation of the reform/dispy schism over the years.

Later.

I NEVER said that my friend was a heretic. Rather, I said that classical dispensationalism is a heresy.

[quote:5b093f9f94][i:5b093f9f94]Originally posted by exscentric[/i:5b093f9f94]
Couple thoughts.

1. I've not in 50 years known of a "dispy" that holds to two gospels. I would like to read the quoted book to see the context before agreeing that Scofield believed in two. I have heard this charge a number of times and have asked for evidence of such and this is the first attempt I have seen and it seems somewhat lacking at this point.

[/quote:5b093f9f94]

If you want evidence, then I suggest you read CI Scofield, Chafer, Pentecost, etc. If you want an easy way, go to the discussion boards at carm, look on the theology board, and do a search for multiple gosples, two gospels, etc. Or turn on the Radio sometime and listen the Chuck Swindoll preach about the kingdom Gospel. Or you could also read somethink contemporary by Zane Hodges, J Dillow to see how they deny sanctification.


[quote:5b093f9f94]
2. Remember you aren't "the" authority, the Word is the authority. The "dispy" looks to the word and sees dispensationalism as the truth as you look to the Word to find your system to be truth.
[/quote:5b093f9f94]

I never suggested that I was an authority, or the authority, but dispensationlism strays from much of historic orthodoxy.


[quote:5b093f9f94]
Thus the advice is very wise that you have been given. You can declare him a heritic, but it is just as easy for him to view you in the same manner and he has the same authority to do so - none. :roll:
[/quote:5b093f9f94]

You should read my post more carefully, as I never said that I was declaring him a heretic. Rather, I am suggesting that classical dispensationalism, which he doesn't hold to, is heresy. The two Gospel theory is not a straw man, it is firmly planted in their theology.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by raderag]

This is why I don't post much, many reform folks take me incorrectly, I was not coming down on you nor accusing you of anything, I was agreeing with the other posters and was adding some information for consideration as you approach the situation you mentioned. These are general observations from watching Reform/dispy discussions - humm discussions doesn't seem to be the right word :-)

Now, a little of what I found last night. A kind gentleman at Dallas Seminary told me that Scofield made a very blunderous (blunderous is my word, not his :-)statemtent in his original refernece Bible (which I had not heard of before) but it is corrected in the New Scof. Ref. Bible

The comment was: from the Old Scofield Reference Bible on John 1:17 note: "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of

salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, (Joh 1:12,13 3:36 Mt 21:37 22:24 Joh 15:22,25 Heb 1:2 1Jo 5:10-12)

The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile (Ac 4:27)"

The New Ref Bible states: From page 1124 (Note on Jn. 1:17) of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "Under the former dispensation, law was shown to be powerless to secure

righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 3:21-22); now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteoudness are received by faith in the crucified and

resurrected Savior (Jn. 11:12-13; 5 :24; I Jn. 5:11-13), with holiness of life and good works following as the fruit of salvation (Jn. 15:16; Rom. 8:2-4; Eph. 2:8-
10; Ti. 2:11-14)."

By the way I've read Chafer - no two gospels I've ever seen - but then I might have been sleeping through that part - if you know a page or could post a quote it would be good.

Now, crawling back under my rock to get out of your space :-) Sorry if I caused any stir in the continum :-)

I also found some quotes that might assist you in understanding Scofield if you are interested.

From page vii of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "As a further aid to comprehending the divine economy of the ages, a recognition of the dispensations is of

highest value, so long as it is clearly understood that throughout all the Scriptures there is only one basis of salvation, i.e. by grace through faith; and that strict

limits cannot be placed upon the terminations of all the dispensations because (1) there is some overlapping, and (2) the divinely-given stewardship may continue

after the time-era of special testing has ended."

From page 3 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "Before the cross man was saved in prospect of Christ's atoning sacrifice, through believing the revelation thus

far given him. Since the cross man has been saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in whom revelation and redemption are consummated."

From page 19 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "In the continuance through the centuries of this stewardship of truth, believers of the church age are called

upon to trust god as Abram did (Rom. 4:11, 16, 23-25; Gal. 3:6-9), and thus enter into the blessings of the covenant which inaugurated the dispensation of

Promise."

From page 94 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "...the law is not here proposed as a means of salvation ...."

---
From page 1211 of the New Scofield Reference Bible: "The Hebrew and Greek words for salvation imply the ideas of deliverance, safety, preservation, healing,

and soundness [wholeness]. Salvation is the great inclusive word of the gospel, gathering into itself all the redemptive acts and processes, as justification,

redemption, grace, propitiation, imputation, forgiveness, sanctification, and glorification. Salvation is in three tenses: (1) The believer has been saved from the

guilt and penalty of sin (Lu 7:50; 1 Co 1:18; 2 Co 2:15; Eph 2:5,8; 2 Ti 1:9) is safe. (2) the believer is being saved from the habit and dominion of sin (Ro 6:14;

Php 1:19, 2:12,13; 2 Th 2:13; Ro 8:2; Ga 2:19,20; 2 Co 3:18) And (3) The believer is to be saved in the sense of entire conformity to Christ. (Ro 13:11; Heb

10:36; 1 Pe 1:5; 1 Jo 3:2) Salvation is by grace through faith, is a free gift, and wholly without works (Ro 3:27-28, 4:1-8, 6:23; Eph 2:8) The divine order is: first

salvation, then works (Eph 2:9,10; Tit 3:5-8)."

[quote:12967cc2a0][i:12967cc2a0]Originally posted by exscentric[/i:12967cc2a0]
This is why I don't post much, many reform folks take me incorrectly, I was not coming down on you nor accusing you of anything, I was agreeing with the other posters and was adding some information for consideration as you approach the situation you mentioned. These are general observations from watching Reform/dispy discussions - humm discussions doesn't seem to be the right word :-)
[/quote:12967cc2a0]

Hi,

I really do appreciate your thoughts, and I'm sorry if I came back a bit angry sounding. Mostly, I was just suprised that you would ask for evidence. I have personally spoken with more than 3 dispies that believe in more than one Gospel. Anyway, I certainly want to hear dissenting views, so I don't mind. Anyway, perhaps, I'll get back once I am done with the letter.

Peeking from my rock

I had to take my wife to work and forgot to add a couple thoughts - I'm taken incorrectly mostly due to the atmosphere on boards as well as the way I communicate - or my lack of the ability to do so

The Dallas man mentioned that Ryrie in his updated book on dispensationalism page 107 discusses Scofield's note if anyone is interested.

Hey, I found out stuff last night - I found there is a Neo-dispensational movement - never heard of it - have no idea what they teach - how do I get behind so quickly?:shocked:

exscentric,
Welcome. Glad you could join us.

[b:2b43d625fc]exscentric wrote:[/b:2b43d625fc]
1. I've not in 50 years known of a "dispy" that holds to two gospels. I would like to read the quoted book to see the context before agreeing that Scofield believed in two. I have heard this charge a number of times and have asked for evidence of such and this is the first attempt I have seen and it seems somewhat lacking at this point.

I can think of at least one reason why I think its valid to say that classic dispensationalists believe in two gospels: However, one is the gospel of salvation and the other isn't.

During Jesus' ministry, he preached a message about the gospel of the kingdom.

Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

To the dispensationalist, when Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom, he was offering the Jews the kingdom that was promised in the OT, rejected, and postponed to the future millenial kingdom. It was the good news that the kingdom was going to be established. Dispensationalists differentiate this gospel from the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15.

Bob

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Any system of theology that promotes two or more ways of salvation is heresy. Plain and simple. Dipsensationalism promotes two way of salvation.

Ps a good book on Dispe'ism is by Kieth Mathison. "Rightly Dividing the People of God?"

PS, what really is the bottom line differenmce between classical dispies and the modern ones? (I used to go to a calvary chapel which is definitely a dipsie church albeit a seeker sensitive church started by a date setter)

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:99d86f4ed6][i:99d86f4ed6]Originally posted by raderag[/i:99d86f4ed6]
The point is that the root of dispensationalism has no orthodox lineage, and therefore should be rejected. Anyway, I am going to rethink all of this. [/quote:99d86f4ed6]

You sure about that?

This is one of the main criticisms against dispensationalism.

The fact that dispensationalism was not taught in the first century does not necessarily make it wrong, for many things taught in the first century are quite obviously heresy. Likewise, just because it wasn't taught until the nineteenth century (in a more proliferated manner) doesn't make it wrong either; these are both logical fallacies. Though Darby was among the first to fully systematize dispensational thinking, its roots and origins run much deeper than most people realize. Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 110-165) was well-known for holding a concept of "differing programs of God." In [i:99d86f4ed6]Dialogue with Trypho[/i:99d86f4ed6] he mentioned different administrations between Abraham and Moses. Later in this work he also speaks of the "present dispensation and the gifts of its power." Iraeneus also wrote of dispensations and the present "dispensation of God", labeling four different dispensations (those being under Adam, Noah, Moses, and the Gospel). Clement of Alexandria distinguished between the patriarchs and dispensations relative to them as well, (though I usually take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt due to his Alexandrian allegorical method of interpretation).

Even the cherished Augustine echoed such sentiments by speaking of different administrations of God over man:

"The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable creator of mutable things...if it is now established that that which was for one age rightly ordained may be in another age rightly changed, -the alteration indicating a change in the work, not in the plan, of Him who makes change, the plan being framed by His reasoning faculty...those things are simultaneously present which cannot be actually done at the same time because the ages succeed each other."

No, friend, dispensationalism finds its roots all the way back into orthodoxy.

[quote:99d86f4ed6][i:99d86f4ed6]Originally posted by exscentric[/i:99d86f4ed6]
Remember you aren't "the" authority, the Word is the authority. The "dispy" looks to the word and sees dispensationalism as the truth as you look to the Word to find your system to be truth.

Thus the advice is very wise that you have been given. You can declare him a heritic, but it is just as easy for him to view you in the same manner and he has the same authority to do so - none. [/quote:99d86f4ed6]

I'd say more concerning this, but I don't think I could state it any more clearly or truly than that.

[quote:99d86f4ed6][i:99d86f4ed6]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:99d86f4ed6]
Any system of theology that promotes two or more ways of salvation is heresy. Plain and simple. Dipsensationalism promotes two way of salvation.[/quote:99d86f4ed6]

This is probably the biggest misunderstanding of dispensationalism. From what I've studied and observed, the only dispys who act