The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism

Blue Tick · #1 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 02:26 AM

The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism

Anyone sign the Theses?

Pergamum · #2 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 06:27 AM

Wow, that's pretty neat. Can anyone send it to Dallas Seminary?

Blue Tick · #3 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 09:22 AM

It would be interesting to see DTS's response to the 95 theses.

Peter H · #4 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

It would be interesting to see DTS's response to the 95 theses.

What about Master's?

Wannabee · #5 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 09:49 AM

Great points. He kinda loses credibility in quoting Hagee though. It's best not to use the opposition's fringe heretics when refuting them. But quoting Lindsey and many outdated authors does just that.

Thought I am a TMS graduate, I cannot speak for the seminary as a whole. They don't shove dispensationalism down the throats of their students. It's a given that the school is decidedly premil, pretrib. Even MacArthur, when asked if he's a dispensationalist, admits that he really doesn't know what dispensationalism means anymore. There are professors there, however, that stand strong on it. But I only had one class that dealt with it, and even then it was only a small portion of one semester. And still, one could voice concerns about particulars without reprisal. Rest assured that Hagee and Linsdsey are not speaking at TMS chapels. Carson, Sproul and Mohler have though.

His introduction here is wonderful, and carries a spirit of graciousness. I think the real enemy is "easy believism" though. It's often attributed to dispensationalism, but is not a result of the system; if one insists on calling it a system (Ryrie did, as to others - I do not - it's too slippery to nail down as a system).

Quote:

90. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of the gospel as the means of salvation, their evangelistic method and their foundational theology, both, encourage a presumptive faith (which is no faith at all) that can lead people into a false assurance of salvation when they are not truly converted, not recognizing that Christ did not so quickly accept professions of faith (e.g., when even though “many believed in His name,” Jesus, on His part, “was not entrusting Himself to them.”—John 2:23b-24a).

91. Despite the dispensationalists’ declaration that “genuine and wholesome spirituality is the goal of all Christian living” (Charles Ryrie), their theology actually encourages unrighteous living by teaching that Christians can simply declare Christ as Savior and then live any way they desire. Similarly, dispensationalism teaches that “God’s love can embrace sinful people unconditionally, with no binding requirements attached at all” (Zane Hodges), even though the Gospel teaches that Jesus “was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine’” (John 8:31) and that he declared “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27).

92. Despite the early versions of dispensationalism and the more popular contemporary variety of dispensationalism today teaching that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (L. S. Chafer and Zane Hodges), the Apostle Paul “solemnly testifies to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).

93. Contrary to dispensationalism’s tendency to distinguish receiving Christ as Savior and receiving him as Lord as two separate actions, so that saving faith involves “no spiritual commitment whatsoever” (Zane Hodges), the Bible presents both realities as aspects of the one act of saving faith; for the New Testament calls men to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26; James 2:14-20).

95. Despite dispensationalism’s teaching regarding two kinds of Christians, one spiritual and one fleshly (resulting in a “great mass of carnal Christians,” Charles Ryrie), the Scripture makes no such class distinction, noting that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you,” so that “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom 8:9).

“Dispensationalism has thrown down the gauntlet: and it is high time that Covenant theologians take up the challenge and respond Biblically.” -- Dr. Robert L. Reymond, author, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

There are plenty of covenantalists who are just as culpable. It's a result of man attempting to make salvation more palatable. Our microwave culture insists on things quick and easy. As a result the Gospel has been packaged so that you simply join the club and get your "get out of hell free" card. This permeates those who profess to follow Christ throughout western culture, including dispy, covenantalists, RCC and any number of cults out there. It would have been better if he would have taken this head on, and only kept dispensationalism in the picture where it fit, tangently. In spite of his intro, this guy's obviously got a stone to grind.

Reymond's quote is destructive and polarizes those who should be battling sin together. In fact, it seems to speak out in opposition to the introductory remarks. It's amazing that these sorts of statements are taken seriously and yet we see many men travel across the country to attend The Shepherds' Conference, T4G and Ligoniere's conference.

Listen to Washer's sermon again. He understands the problem, and it's not inherent to dispensationalism. Jesus prayed for His people to be one. Either they are, or they're not, regardless of dispy, CT or whatever. To deny this is to deny Jesus the right to answered prayer. Please step away from the sheep...

Dwimble · #6 (**permalink**) 11-07-2008, 04:13 PM

I think it is pretty good, but calling the site "AgainstDispensationalism.com" and using the large subtitle, "Defending Christianity" is needlessly militant and inflammatory. It makes the clear implication that dispensationalists aren't Christians. It sets an immediate tone that is argumentative and not at all conducive to any meaningful discussion between those who differ.

Then, what is truly bizarre is that the very first paragraph says this about dispensationalists:

Quote:

We acknowledge that most are dedicated to the foundational orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Unlike the sixteenth century dispute over the doctrine of justification, this is an in-house discussion, a debate among evangelical Christians. We recognize and treasure all born again believers who operate within a dispensational framework as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Don't point a gun to someone's head and then say "Hi, I consider you my brother and would like to have a discussion with you over this important subject." That is just contradictory, weird, and seems completely insincere.

Also, as was already mentioned, quoting people like Hagee and Lindsey is definitely a mistake. They should have restricted their references to people like Darby, Ryrie, Scofield, Walvoord, Fruchtenbaum, and so on. But still, overall I think the content is pretty good.