How is dispensationalism counter-confessional to credal orthodoxy of WCF/LBCF?

I can imagine the particulars on eschatology, but does anyone know of any articles that surmises how dispensationalism is specifically counter-confessional? Any thoughts?

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

I don't know Ryan. Aren't the majority of Baptists dispensational though?

Here's a question. Isn't the idea of dispensations pretty much the equivalent of the different covenants? Both refer to how God deals with man. I have a hard time believing that either side can be heretical (as another brother said), when both sides get their beliefs from Scripture. I don't even know if I'm going to take the time to decide one way or the other. There is a verse that says "we see through a glass darkly". Maybe this is a case of when we do that.

P.S. I know many Baptists that make use of the Confessions. That doesn't mean they have to agree with every specific thing in there though.

I don't know any dispensational Baptists that affirm the 1689 Confession.

You're welcome to visit my church anytime Ryan.

Ryan,

I think your question is very timely. I like your suggestion of pointing to other resources such as articles, as I would readily defer to those who are my superiors in the study of these doctrines.

That being said, I can tell you that I was a dispy until I studied the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. The upshot was I saw a unity in the two testaments of Scripture that I had not seen while being a dispy.

According to G. I. Williamson, in The Confession of Faith for Study Classes, "The basic error of dispensationalism is the tendency to teach an essentially different way of salvation in different periods of history." (p. 280).

This error opposes, for instance,WCF VII:5-6 (you have to navigate once you're there), which basically emphasizes that the way of salvation is the same for all the elect in all ages, except that the way in which God sovereignly administers the covenant of grace changed from the OT to the NT.

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
disabled - cancer
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

zzzzzz ...

Jay, I believe that is a misunderstanding of dispensationalism. Never have I thought there were two ways of salvation. We are saved by faith the same way in the NT as people were in the OT. By faith. They were to believe in the coming Messiah, we believe in the one who already came. The only difference is in the ways of working it out. They had many laws to follow whereas God has written His laws onto our heart.

I dare say that we don't "try" to obey the Ten Commandments but what we do is focus on loving God and loving our neighbour and in the process of doing that, we would be obeying the Ten Commandments.

What about King David? His famous sin was NOT covered under the sacrificial system - it was stoning for adultery as well as murder.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hey Meg, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Can you clarify please?

Alright, at risk of starting an argument...
I agree with you that the OT saints were saved by grace as we are. The law, however, was never meant to be a way for sinful man to work out salvation - then, or now. It drove them to Christ, just as it drives us to Him.

Also, I don't know about you, but I haven't succeeded in loving God or my neighbor anywhere near well enough to say I'm keeping the ten commandments.

Thanks Meg, I see now. I agree with you. I didn't state my case very well then because yes, the law drove people to Christ. What I meant about "working out their salvation" was that the things they were required to do had to be done in faith. Without that faith, the actions were meaningless.

No, I haven't succeeded in keeping the Ten Commandments either. I haven't always loved God and loved my neighbour the way I should. I don't believe any of us always do. Which is why I find it hard to understand why people are always saying we have to keep the Ten Commandments. I don't even know why people want them on courthouse walls because I believe they have no place on courthouse walls. But that is another debate...

I tried to add the handshake emoticon too but it wouldn't work.

That is certainly reassuring. I did not know there were forms of dispensationalism that believed that way. I had a Scofield Reference Bible at one time and also had studied materials that left me with the other impression.

I would qualify the last statement by saying they had to follow the ceremonial law. The civil law passed with the passing of Israel as a nation and there is still the general equity. As for the heart issue - think again -

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."
Psalm 119:11

On a side topic - off to a church picnic now and probably won't be back here till tonight.

For some reason I can't get the handshake emoticon to work. But I would have put it here Jay.

There are dispensationalists who believe the way you talked about, but I don't and many others I know don't as well.

I don't know what you are trying to say about the heart issue. David hid God's Word in his heart. That's not the same as God writing His Word on our hearts. God even says that in the new covenant He will write His Word on men's hearts.

Have a great time at the picnic.

Perhaps the problem Brian is that Dispensationalism is evolving, in part due to the several criticisms of CT advocates. Classic dispensationalism does in fact argue for two different ways of salvation, works for Jews, grace for the Church. Progressive dispensationalism however seems to be modifying that over time, which is probably the brand you have been exposed to.

__________________
Patrick
MDiv, RTS Jackson
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church (OPC), Lisbon, NY

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
"Let us not please ourselves that we have deep understandings, but let us shew our understandings by our practice." Richard Sibbes

I think what makes it unconfessional is that dispensationalism denies the unity of the covenant of grace. This would apply to at least some forms of NCT as well.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

But could one really say dispensationalism is explicitly contrary to the tenor of WCF 7 ( Of God's Covenant with Man ) or the LBCF 7 ( Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant )? Be specific. What aspect of dispensationalism, is counter credal here to the confessional teachings on the covenant?

Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic which enables interpreters to explain away moral norms of the OT as merely historical or eschatological, and hence inapplicable to the NT. It includes traditional dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, so-called NCT, and even certain forms of modern redemptive-historical "reformed" thought. It is contrary to the Bible because it makes Christ a minister of sin, teaching that men can be saved by Christ and deliberately ignore moral requirements of God's word. It is contrary to the Confession, which speaks of one covenant of grace for substance, and of the moral law as perpetually binding.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

But can this statement be said of the Lordship Salvationists and followers of John MacArthur as well?

Yes, insofar as there are moral norms in the OT that they deliberately ignore on the basis that they think these merely pointed forward to Christ, and are not regulative of Christian life.

You are probably correct. I in no way agree with Classic dispensationalism.

I disagree. It recognizes Christ as the fulfillment of the OT law and as the Saviour of the world. We could never obey the law; the law was given to drive us to Christ. However, now, the Lord has written His law upon our hearts and as we surrender to Him He lives His life through us and we are increasingly able to keep the moral law. Thus, the moral law is perpetually binding.

And as I said earlier, something may be contrary to a Confession but still be biblical as the Bible is our final authority. The Bible teaches the same grace in the OT as in the NT.

The law was written in the hearts of the Old Testament saints as well, Ps. 1:2; yet the law still regulated how they lived as the saints of the most high -- Ps. 119. If we cut through all the verbiage, dispensational teaching annuls the moral norms of the OT, and only allows it to be binding insofar as it is repeated in the NT. This effectively relegates the OT to a history book.

Matthew, Psal 1:2 says, "But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night."

This is just saying that he delights in the law of the LORD, not that the law is written on his heart.

Psalm 119 also talks about David hiding God's Word in his heart. This is different than God writing it upon our hearts.

Jeremiah 31:33 says, "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

I don't see how dispensational teaching annuls the moral norms. The Old Testament is theological, poetic, narrative, and historical. It is profitable but the New Testament is where we should look first. It is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, no? We interpret the OT shadows by the NT fulfillments, not the other way around.

The only difference is in the manner of stating it, one describing the effect, the other the cause. How did the law come to be within David's heart if the Lord did not write it there?

The OT is more than shadows. It includes moral norms. This is the basic point which dispensationalism abandons.

Do you believe David accomplished this by his own power? Do you acknowledge that David was regenerated?

When you hide the word in your heart, is it of your own doing, or by God's grace?

Who is afraid of the NT? I am only concerned that the OT is being abandoned as the revelation of God. "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." In fact, the apostle's statement referred primarily to the holy Scriptures Timothy had known from a child, which would have been the Old Testament.

I don't need to prove dispensationalism abandons moral norms. It is a well attested fact. If the Bible teaches that God requires men to cease working for one day in seven, and men teach that commandment belonged to the OT and is no longer applicable, they deliberately ignore the commandment, and thereby abandon moral norms.

[Edited on 9-5-2006 by armourbearer]

Hi Brian:

Reading this thread has me confused as to how you define "Dispensationalism"? I would like to know how you define it before responding to you.

I believe that Historic Dispensationalism, as promoted by Scofield and others, you would deny believing. The teachings of Historic Dispensationalism are contrary to all of the Reformed Creeds and Covenant Theology.

If you think that Dispensationalism is the same as Covenant Theology, then why would you call yourself a Dispensationalist?



Grace and Peace,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

Hi Calvin. I already said that I deny Classic Dispensationalism. It teaches two ways of salvation.

I never said that I was a covenant theologian. I said that I am open to it, but it won't be a walk in the park for you covenant theologians to convince me of it.:bigsmile:

As a genuine question, could you quickly point out some moral laws that appear in the OT but are never repeated in the New? (apart from the sabbath as you have already mentioned.)

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore

Puritan Sailor,

They believe and teach falsely as Hebrews 11, specifically teaches the OT Jews believed BY FAITH and not works.

By Faith Abel
By Faith Enoch
By faith Noah
By Faith Abraham

And on and on...

When we get to Verse 13-16 it says (NIV)

"All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not recieve the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."

Granted the religious leaders may have taught salvation to the Jews was by works, and keeping the Ten Commandments, but that is NOT what the OT teaches at all.


And don't we also feel the same way, especially the closer we draw to God, that we are strangers in this world?

And don't we also continue to look for the Land God promised?

It's like if we went to live in another part of the world, from America, we would be Ambassadors of America in those countries, as we would respresent our Country to those people. And they would get an idea of (even if a false idea) of what ALL American's are like based on OUR actions while in their country.

We as Christians live on earth, but we are born of God's Spirit and thus Citizens of Heaven. We are Ambassdors to Heaven while living on this earth.

Our actions while on this earth should be representative of what the People Of Heaven are like, but like many American's who live and visit other countries they give American's a bad name, many times the actions of Christians give Heaven a bad name.

Why would people want to come to America if ALL American's acted horrid in other countries? The same would apply towards Heaven would it not? why would people want to go if the people who are born from there act the same way as they do here on earth? What is the difference? Other than the ruler in Heaven (they assume) is a tyrant.

He has all these laws and all these rules, and the only way you can get there is by believing someone died for you to get there and then you must die to the things of this world, why would people want to go there?? I mean, the things of this world are FUN, they don't want to give them up.

Many Citizens of Heaven live that way here on earth, they become attached to the things of this world. It's like a story I heard recently.

A group of nurses came over to America from Communist Russia on a work program to one of the local Hospitals. When one of them first came she was scared and wasn't sure what to expect, and once she saw all the things she could have here, she didn't want to go home. She wanted to stay, she started to forget why she was here to begin with, to go about the business she was sent here to do. She no longer wanted to toil doing the daily tasks of working in the Hospital, she wanted to go out into the world and enjoy the fruits of what was offered.

Don't many Christians do the same after awhile? They get tired of doing what they were sent to do, and get attached to the things of this world, and eventually begin to lose sight of our homeland?

And there are some who lose sight of our homeland, but at some point are reminded this all lies and false hopes of happiness, and they turn back and repent, and seek forgiveness of falling prey to the empty promises of this world. And go back to their first love and begin to desire to go home.

Maybe that is why they are modifying their teachings, because they are being called back, and are remembering why they are here to begin with?

__________________
Bobbi Clark
Covenant Member
Pinewood Pres. (PCA) Middleburg

When I kept Silent, My bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. Psalm 32:3

The founders of Dispensationalism explicitly reject the Covenant of Works, and also the active obedience of Christ as being a form of salvation by works, and therefore contrary to the nature of the gospel dispensation.

There is a dispensationalist website with an article 'The Danger of Teaching the Erroneous Doctrine of "Vicarious Law-Keeping"' with some quotes showing this.

For example; "Romans 5:19 is often misinterpreted by Reformed men who say that the obedience of Christ mentioned in this verse refers to His obedience throughout His life in keeping the law perfectly. And while the Lord Jesus Christ did keep every jot and tittle of the law perfectly, the obedience spoken of in Romans 5:19 is the same obedience referred to in Philippians 2:8, namely Christ's obedience to the Father's will by going to the cross (Phil. 2:8). It refers to His one act of redemption."

Note that on this point the dispensationalists take the same view as does the Federal Vision.

The dispensationalist article continues:

"In the late 18th century a group of intrepid British Dispensational leaders began to raise their voices in uncompromising opposition to, what seemed to many, an established doctrine of the church. This doctrine was called the "œImputation of the Active Obedience of Christ."� This doctrine was so accepted at the time that few imagined that it could be challenged. It was a doctrine that grew out of the Reformation period and was first articulated in the writings of Reformers John Calvin and Martin Luther. But when British Dispensationalists such as John N. Darby and William Kelly opposed this doctrine on Biblical grounds, they were bitterly denounced as unorthodox and even heretical. At that time, a book by William Reid called Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren was issued as an attack on these Dispensationalists; and Dr. Robert Dabney set forth a similar attack in a work called Theology of the Plymouth Brethren in 1891. However, in the years to follow and up to the present day, leading evangelicals have concluded that this Reformed doctrine of imputation was not based upon the bedrock of the Word of God, but rather on the shifting sand of human reason. Today, this doctrine is not generally accepted among evangelicals; in fact, there are few serious-minded Christians who would even be familiar with it. Reformed writer Dr. R. C. Sproul laments that among present-day evangelicalism this doctrine is largely unknown and overlooked [R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), p. 103]. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in this doctrine due to the popularity of Reformed theology."

This article is quite extensive, with a lot of supporting quotations. I would urge people to look at it because of the timeliness of the topic, and to understand the exact nature of this error, which is spreading again today.

You can google for it, or go to the web site in my signiture, follow the About the Federal Vision link, and the links on that page.

__________________
T.E. Wilder
Independent Reformed Church of Maplewood
Oakdale, MN
[url]http://www.contra-mundum.org[/url]
[url]http://secondscreenings.wordpress.com[/url]

So you have David delighting in God's commandments as one in whom the grace of God dwells; but the law is not written on his heart as per the promise of Jeremiah. Then you will need to expound what the law written on the heart actually means; because I am at a loss to know what it is, if it is not God graciously transforming the heart to delight in His law.

Nevertheless, the apostle's statement is true as far as the OT is concerned.

Good evasive technique. We all know the dispensationalist does not believe the fourth commandment is binding on the church. Why not simply deal with the fact so the discussion can move on? Blessings!

It is not that they are not repeated, but that they are not so clearly delineated, seeing the New Testament presupposes the morality of the Old Testament, as per Eph. 6:1-3. Some examples where the moral requirements of the OT are called into question, besides the Sabbath, are, the duty of the civil magistrate towards religion, degrees of consanguinity, cross-dressing, and many more. Once the OT commandments are relegated to mere history, the moral backbone of the NT is broken.

I'm not going to make anymore inquiries about dispensationalism for a good little while.