I am a "Covenant" man, and only briefly was a Dispy a little while, while I agree that some extreme elements distort Scripture. I no longer wish to "bash" them all together. My reason? Not because I agree with them, but a Historical understanding of what they were aiming at, I will put the US marker at 1917 (Scofields second edition of his study Bible.) The "aim/goal" of these people was simple, they were fighting a rising tide of Liberal Theology, which at this point had hopped from Germany to England, to the USA. The cause was noble, and I can see why people were attracted to it. SADLY, it was by and large based on poor exegesis. I state my "sympathy" in the Historic context, that is to say: Had I been around in 1917, I might well have bought me a Scofield Study Bible, to do my very small part in stemming the tide of Liberalism. In summation, while I do NOT agree with this Theology, if understood in the crucible in which it was developed, I at least am a little more understanding. (That said, everyone, this Christmas, give a nice Reformed Study Bible to a Dispy you LOVE!) My Grace and Peace my beloved Brethren.

__________________
et

puhlease, they get no sympathy from me. They had all the reformers preceding them and they created an ignorant hodge podge of a theology than engulfed Christianity with light weight superficial preachers and followers.

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

The graciousness and love of Christ followed by elitism. Nothing new under the sun. It is the greatest of foolishnesses and arrogant pride to take credit for understanding truth and denigrate others for misunderstanding. Generally such elitism is permeated with error. Does not the God of heaven work in man to will and to do?

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

I hope that contained a little sarcasm. I grew up in a dispy background, with parents from a dispy background, with grandparents from a dispy background, etc. How was I to believe anything else? And my family were not followers of light-weight, superficial teachings. Although I am no longer dispy, all of my family and most of my friends are.

Although many teachers of dispy-ism have created a hodge podge theology, don't blame those who sit under the teachings and know nothing else.

__________________
Kim G
Non-denom church (holds to the WCF)
Zion Community Church, Greenville, SC

Teach me Your way, O LORD;
I will walk in Your truth;
Unite my heart to fear Your name.
Psalm 86:11

I think the point Keon was simply trying to make was that most teachers of dispensationalism have ignored Christian history. The ones I sat under did. They flat out ignored history, and if you weren't a dispensationalist then you were some branch off of Catholicism. My dispensational teachers at least, were very much elitists as well.

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
Student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary - B.D.

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton

Ah, yes, aren't we all when we are at our worse?

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

So a distinction should be made between laymen and ministers/teachers.

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

Okay, I see where you're coming from. However, my Bible teachers at college were all dispy, but I thought they seemed fairly balanced and actually explained other positions without seeming (to me) unfair or elitist.

The men they had speak at chapel, on the other hand . . . !

I guess it depends who you talk to.

Perhaps. Many laymen will pick up of the tendencies of their minsters, be it dispensationalism or Reformed theology.


I was simply attempting to temper post three. Reformed theology is not the only school of thought that turns out elitists. I don't believe that is what wannabee was trying to say, but just in case anyone read it that way.

It does depend on who you are studying under. I studied under some pretty hard-core dispensationalists that taught some pretty crazy things. See Peter Ruckman. That doesn't mean they are all that way though. Praise the Lord for that.

Thanks for the clarity. My post had nothing to do with theological positions, and everything to do with the pursuit of theological understanding with godliness and humility.
Elitism knows no bounds. It was prevalent from the Romans to the Sanhedrin and back to Rome again. It exists today in every facet of humanity. It is a blight in our churches that has no place in godliness, especially for those who profess God's sovereignty (How could someone who understands, embraces and professes God's sovereignty possibly be elitist?!).
Just the other day our SS class turned into a "bash the guys who are doing it wrong" session. It was arrogant and a horrible example of what we are to do be doing. As the (about 10 or so) bullet points came up someone pointed to errors around us, culturally and within "christendom." After this I took the time to show them how we would be much better served to take each of these bullet points and examine the planks in our own eyes rather than standing with the Pharisee and thanking God that we aren't like those other churches. While some didn't get it, the challenge didn't completely fall on deaf ears. May God break our hearts, crush our pride and turn us fully to Him.

Boy, is this not the truth.

Roman Catholics, with the Pope leading them, still believe themselves to be the true apostolic church, although they don't publicly state this anymore. To my knowledge, they have never formally renounced the anathemas from the Council of Trent against Protestants.

The Campbellites (Church of Christ), as mentioned on a previous thread, have long thought themselves to be the true church, with anyone outside of their walls being damned. Fortunately, a much smaller number of them actually believe that today, but they still are a very reclusive group, being somewhat suspicious of "outsiders."

In the 1890s, a vast number of SBC churches adopted a teaching called "Landmarkism," which essentially taught that baptism outside of immersion and outside of the SBC was not legitimate baptism - thus possibly endangering one from not entering the pearly gates if that were not the case.
Some SBCers told me in the early 90s that Landmarkism would be gone by now, but unfortunately, it still exists in some pockets.

But more unfortunately, the nastiness of the dispensationalists is still out there, with arrogant and hostile attitudes towards those who will not accept their system. Don't believe me? Then read "The End Times Controversy," edited by Tim LaHaye, which came out in early 2005. See also the other threads on this board dealing with MacArthur's challenge of "wayward Calvinists" to return to the dispy fold.

So, if we are really counting, my experience is 1 reformed elitist to every 10 catholic/arminian/dispensational elitists.

__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage PCA Church
Oklahoma City, OK

Well said, Etexas!

Personally, I have more than sympathy for them, however. In the battle for the Bible during the 20th century, the dispensationalists stood tall for truth while more educated Reformed leaders were doing the leftward hustle. Even in my "evangelical" seminary, the most left-leaning profs (e.g., James Daane, Jack Rogers, etc.) were from the Presbyterian and Reformed camps. They almost took delight in debunking the naive faith of seminarians who "foolishly" came into the place with a belief in an inerrant Bible. And, in the better dispi schools (e.g., Dallas), many of the profs were at least 4 pt. Calvinists (e.g., S. Lewis Johnson). John MacArthur, to cite but one more example, has held fast for truth in an environment when most of his peers were running off getting purpose driven or seeker sensitive.

Do I lament the dogmatism within dispensationalism? Sure. But, last time I checked we were pretty dogmatic over here too. Do I wish that they had a larger understanding of the Kingdom of God, without the two track nuttiness? Sure, but once in a while we see some pretty sectarian and nutty ideas emerging out of Reformed circles (e.g., FV, and for many here, theonomy).

Let me be clear: criticisms of dispensational hermeneutics, rapture fiction, and the woeful misreading of the Bible are ALL worthy of severe critique. But, the critique is among brethren who differ, not enemies. We owe much to our dispensational brethren. In many cases, those of us who have discovered the DoG began our pilgrimage in dispensational churches. We discovered Christ and began to grow in him in dispensational contexts. Dispensational books whetted our appetites for deeper study of God's Word.

That is why the recent rebuttal by Sam Waldron, MacArthur's Manifesto, is such a good book (IMO). Waldron pulls no punches, leaves no illogical step undiscovered, and never shirks from pointing out how wrong-headed dispensational eschatology really is. Yet, throughout the book, he models the kind of irenic and respectful tone that furthers diagogue and wins people over to your side rather than alienating them and polarizing them against you. Kim Riddlebarger is another good example of someone who doesn't spare the pen in detailing the deficits of dispensationalism, but from the standpoint of a friend and brother, not an angry critic. His Case for Amillennialism is a masterpiece of gracious polemic. And, because both of these men were once dispensationalists (as many of us were), they write with a sensitivity to the kinds of arguments that will have force with their dispensational opponents.

My Reformed library includes several thousand Reformed and Puritan works AND everything John MacArthur ever wrote. I am not ashambed to profit from those scholars, leaders, and churchmen greater than I. So, etexas, my computer is a "no dispi-bashing zone" too.

All in all, I can pardon some of the errors when they were on the side of the angels so often.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

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

I had a couple of thoughts on this. One, often confidence can be perceived as elitism. Even if someone is wrong, their confidence that they're right is not necessarily elitism. We're all wrong somewhere. But we still teach what we perceive as truth. We confront error. But do we do so with love, grace and humility, or derision, pride and arrogance?
The other thought was that we tend to notice the arrogance and elitism of those we disagree with more than those "in our camp." It seems to me that those with the most education, greatest influence and power in the world tend to be elitist, whether they're actually right or not. The exceptions shine forth with the glory of God, shedding light in the darkness.

this is exactly where I am coming from.

Joe,

Please define "elitism".

Once you have done this, please explain what you meant here by "The graciousness and love of Christ followed by elitism". Were you referring to the second post on the thread?

After that, would you please explain why you rolled your eyes.

Thanks,

Adam

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

S. Lewis Johnson was a 5 pointer, but your point is well taken. Various types of 4 point views were more common among the other Dallas faculty.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Brother, when I said sympathy as stated in my OP it was in the Historic sense, the period I write of was one in which you had good Bible believing Christians who were starting to hear German born higher criticism, many of these folk were simple good people, farmers, mill-workers, teachers. They were afraid that the basics of faith were slowly being stripped away, they wanted a "champion" for the fundamentals of faith, they embraced men like Scofield. You say they "had the reformers" tell me, do you think these people had personal libraries with 4000 books? They did not. Most had a Bible and not much more. There is almost a collective guilt here. Where were the Reformed thinkers at this juncture? Most were involved with "in house" squabbles and infighting. "We" were not there for them. we left them in the cold! Read some American Church History from this period. So yes, I in a sense feel sorry that these people were grasping for a defense of the basics. (Or what they saw as basics) so YES, I do have sympathy for these people in that period. Now, someone threw Ruckman in my face. Did I mention him in my OP? I did not! My sympathy is in retrospect. I am talking about a time prior to such men. I am Reformed to the marrow, but I am going to say this: If the solid reformed minds of that period had not been sitting in Ivory Towers taking pot-shots at each other (RATHER than reaching out to the farmer in the Midwest) perhaps teachings like those of Ruckman might not have have emerged. Grace and Peace.

ETex,

I think it is easy to assume a pious attitude of "self-malediction" against the reformed churches at any period of time.

I don't think it's fair to say that the Reformed world was busy with in-fightings and nothing else. Reformed churches were evangelizing the world at the end of the 19th Century, fighting off higher criticism and unbelief at Princeton, shepherding their flocks, speaking before Congress, recovering from the collapse of the republic and reeling from reconstruction, and so on and on.

America rejected the faith of its forefathers (puritanism), and came under God's judgment for it: dispensationalism being merely one aspect of that judgment.

I think that your pity for many dear saints who were misled is noble, but I would not make too much of the supposed or real mistakes of our reformed forebears. I'd be interested if actual historical examples were brought forward rather than a mere accusation. For instance, the life of J. Gresham Machen is a glaring contradiction to the basic idea you seem to have stated.

Teachers are subject to harsher criticism, and shall give a stricter account of their actions. Thus, when Anton argued that the Reformed faith was before them, he's spot on. A teacher who does not know ecclesiastical history is not to be pitied, he is to be educated, and to be silent until he understands that he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel.

As the point has been made by others, the congregants are to be pitied, but the teachers deserve no such pity.

Just my

Adam

Max,

I wouldn't say that I threw Ruckman in your face. I wasn't even responding to your OP. My reference was more to the elitist part of the discussion.

An apology to Barnpreacher, I do feel some did not examine the fact I was looking at this in a historical context. So my bad (Ryan did not throw Ruckman in my face) for which I am thankful, I am sure having Pete Ruckman lobbed into the face would be rather painful!

Yes, Johnson was 5pt. I was suggesting that several profs at DTS were (at LEAST) 4-pts (Chafer = 4 pt; Lightner = 4 pt; Johnson = 5 pt).

We need to realize the Jonathan Edward's "weighty" sermons were preached to regular folk. And today when one studies these sermons he is considered to have an intellectual bent.

The sermons of John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Spurgeon were all preached to the common folk, and today when one studies these sermons he is considered to have an intellectual bent.

Purity of doctrine is not only a responsibility of theologians in ivory towers but also the responsibility of everyone that profess faith in Christ.

Today the quackery is pentecostalism and the charismatic movement and people of these groups are resisting the doctrines of grace to the bitter end. Some of them I pity the truly ignorant but it is getting to a level where their stubbornness is incorrigible.

This is simply not true. Some of the latest and greatest champions of the DoG are charismatic!

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


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

You can say that again!!!

Max, there was no need to apologize bro. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was being a jerk.

Brother, Machen and some others WERE beacons. That said, I have any number of books on church history in the US, I stand by what I say, I think the Reformed really dropped the ball during this period in fact I feel that Reformed Theology was indeed at a (sad) low ebb starting from around WW1 to the end of the Second War. I think you would find few Reformed people who would look at this period and say "Boy! That was our FINEST hour." God is gracious however! There is a "quiet" but fast spreading growth and interest in classic Reformed Theology. To be honest, it is GOOD to look at mistakes we have made, to reflect on an error to look at where and why things did not go well, is the best way to avoid repeating these things. I think the Lord is giving us a great chance now, people have questions! REFORMED THEOLOGY HAS COHERENT ANSWERS! This is an exiting thing! Grace and Peace in His Name.

Thanks Adam,

I think elitism was exposed fairly well in posts 11 and 14. A basic definition would be taking credit for the knowledge God has given us and looking down on others because He had not given them such knowledge. It's the height of arrogance and pride. No minister of the Gospel knows anything or has any understanding because he picked himself up by the bootstraps.

Second question - Yes.

Third - Thank you for pointing this out. By putting the "rolling eyes" icon up I was, in a very real sense, being elitist. You have graciously and humbly pointed out my hypocrisy. Thank you.


Keon, I ask you to forgive me for my own arrogance in response to your post.




In response to other comments, we must be careful to point out error while at the same time recognizing that Christ's servants will answer to Christ. Remember well Jesus' admonition to Peter, "What is it to you if...., you follow Me." Many good preachers with decent theology do not have very good historical knowledge. While historical knowledge is very helpful, it is not indispensable. Only God's Word is indispensable. However, the one glaring lesson we should all learn from history, that is directly pertinent to this discussion, is that even the best of theologians is wrong somewhere. We are all blinded to some aspect of the truth. Time and eternity will continue to bear this out. May we be exposed as those who pursued truth with a vigorous love for Christ, His Word and His church.

Joe,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post!

Amen! I would say, as another consideration, that one may still condemn or judge another man without doing so because of a belief in his own wisdom or his own power to gain knowledge, holiness etc. For instance, the Proverbs are filled with the duty to admonish and warn our friends and neighbors. Also, Paul gives directives about how to correct an erring brother, BUT, as you clearly point out "in a spirit of meekness and gentleness, looking to ourselves, lest we fall into the same error". Good point, and I tend to agree with your application of elitism to this kind of situation.

Thank you for receiving this in the spirit it was intended. And, you're welcome.

Certainly every man stands or falls before his own master; however, I don't think that this is a hard and fast rule for what to think of other ministers. Paul admonished Peter publicly when he sinned, and he commanded Timothy to do likewise (rebuke an elder publicly when he sins, e.g.). Jesus did the same thing, as did the prophets of old. I think Jesus is addressing Peter's idle curiosity rather than him judging others. As Jesus addresses in the Sermon on the Mount, when we do judge, we are to judge righteous judgment, and not self-righteously seek to exalt ourselves above our brethren.

I have to say that I take exception to the indispensability of historical theology. Think of a car maker that decided that he did not want to study all of the manufacturing technique, rules of architecture, etc. that have been used throughout time to build cars. What would we call such a man?

Paul commanded Timothy to pass down to the coming generation a "pattern of sound words". This clearly teaches that "theology" or the "pattern of sound <<lah-goi>>" is something derived from Scripture that is to be communicated from generation to generation. It is not merely Scripture, per se, but the method and conclusions of "rightly dividing the Word of truth" that Paul charges Timothy to keep and pass along.

If a man comes along and is unconcerned about what all of the wholesome teachers Christ has gifted His church with since He ascended (Ephesians 4) such a man is not a "good preacher", he is (in my opinion) a fool. Why? Because, as the Proverbs tell us, fools despise wisdom, will not give heed to correction, will not listen to the voices of previous generations, and the wisdom of wise men, and will not honor the ancient boundaries that his fathers have set.

Lack of historical context has led to the following movements: Jehovah's Witnesses, Campbellites, Mormonism, 7th Day Adventist, Dispensationalism, Oneness Pentecostalism, and the Modern Evangelical movement. Each of these, to a greater or lesser degree, has refused to listen to the holy fathers which God has raised up in the church, and therefore suffers the confusion of face that comes with such refusal.

I don't believe that this is elitism, I believe that this is about Christian character. If a man has no interest in learning about the Council of Nicea, or the Apostles Creed, or about the Council of Chalcedon, or the Westminster Assembly, or the writings of Augustine or Clement of Rome, or Calvin, then I don't think such a man is wise. As I stated in a previous post, he is seeking to reinvent the wheel, and rather than stand on the shoulders of his forebears, he will not even attain to their stature. And, thus the church will not grow into the fullness of Christ, but will have to go through adolescence again. Just some thoughts.

Amen! This is another reason why historical knowledge is indispensable: not only do we need to learn the good things that God has taught us through the church in history, but we also need to humbly and reverently learn from the mistakes of the past. If a minister does not understand the history of theology, he will be bound to make the same mistakes as men of the past have made. So, not only will he lack the positive aspects of history, he will be "doomed to repeat its mistakes". Indeed, may we all be those that love our Lord Christ, and pursue His glory, with the Father's and the Holy Spirit's!

Thanks for the interaction Joe!

Adam

Get over the self-denigrating "lovefest" men. Keon was wrong, as post number three pointed out, should have apologized for making a foolish statement, and thereby eliminated 2/3 of the following posts and all of the silly retractions that are attached to them.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

Always so encouraging!

Well, glad that's settled then.

I used to belong to a Dispensationalist church, which since it was otherwise Reformed, tried to build the Dispensationalism on to a Covenant base. It didn't work, and the resulting inconsistencies caused great trouble to my Christian walk. Many of the people at the church linked one's salvation with accepting all points of Dispensationalism as articles of faith. So since I could not see how many of its doctrines could be proven with the Bible, I thought there was something wrong with me, and thus the crisis of faith.

When I at last discovered a consistently Reformed discussion of eschatology, my faith was greatly revived. I still use the study Bible published under the name of the pastor of that church, but when I see Dispensationalism pushed, I cringe.

The reason Dispensationalism is off is that, historically, it was created for secular, political reasons. Trying to reinterpret the Bible and create new doctrines on behalf of political movements is always a bad idea. It is particularly dangerous when the political movement in question is publically Leftist and anti-Christian. This is why I cannot sympathize with the creators of Dispensationalism, nor would I buy a Scofield Reference Bible even if it were still 1907 now.

By the way, my mother has a vintage Scofield Bible from which my grandfather preached; it is sometimes useful to read as what is not healthy teaching.

__________________
Less than the least of all saints,
Peter
At home: All Saints, REC.. At seminary: New Hope, PCA.
ETS, Due West, SC, CSA
Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord
and whose hope the Lord is:
For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters.
Jer. 17:8

Brother. I am WITH you. Read my OP. The sympathy of which I wrote dealt with , the farmer, the mill worker, the common man at the grass roots level, who were looking for a way to defend the truths of scripture, in a historic sense I am trying to put myself in their shoes in, say, 1917, these people were "graspng" for a system of theoly that "in their minds" defended the "basics". Please Brother, do not put words in my mouth, I NEVER defended the creators or promoters of this system! Not in a single Post! I have made it clear that I feel the stuff of Scofield and Larkin was HORRID exegesis. I only say that this stuff was popular at a grass roots level because the Reformed were not doing so at this juncture. I think it is OK to examine past mistakes! Given the new interest in solid Reformed Theology I think it important to remember: We MUST defend orthodoxy at the College and University, but we must NOT again make the mistake we (the Reformed) did in the that era of American history, that being, reaching out at the "popular" grassroots level. Grace and Peace in His Name.

etexas - I see. No big deal. My grandfather preached from Scofield and I love the man; the pastor I was referring to, I also respect highly. I definitely sympathize with the ordinary, Bible-loving man using Scofield, brother! (By the way, my Dad lives in Amarillo, I love the Palo Duro Canyon.)