Do dispensationalists believe that the moral values that were in existence prior to the Law of Moses were abolished? I was just wondering because some dispensationalists believe that the entire Law of Moses was abolished.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

They are abolished unless they are repeated in the NT.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

The brush is too broad. Are you asking if they would fall back on them in light of a perception that the law is no longer in effect?

__________________
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

Yes.

In my experience, virtually all the dispensationalists I have met would hold to the Ten Commandments as being morally binding today, even though it may be inconsistent with their theology.

__________________
Stephen Spence

A Presbyterian attending a Baptist church

Stephen, I concur.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

I wonder why some think its necessary for the Bible to repeat the OT teaching somewhere in the NT for it to still be in effect.

__________________
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.

Most do not hold to the Sabbath command. 9 of the 10 are repeated but the sabbath was specific to Israel.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Generally it seems that the main reason for this is their strong belief that Christ actually did abolish/abrogate everything in the law that is found in the OT - so then they look to the NT for their only true source of guidance (though you'll still hear dispensationalist pastors preach from the OT, or at least reference OT texts)

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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

When you ask a question like this it is almost impossible to get a useful answer since there is no Dispensational Confession of Faith. Are you taking classic or progressive? It ususally boils down to whatever their teacher/mentor taught, which could be anything. They are not required to be consistent with their overall system.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."

Also, if you are asking the dispy, they will refer to themselves as being in the dispensation of grace, while their Jewish friends are still under law. Gotta remember their own illustration that the this dispensation of grace is a valley like experience of grace for the gentiles only, till their number is fully brought in, and then picks back up with the Jews, as if nothing really changed for them (i.e. reinstitute the sacrifices,...)

__________________
John Leonard
Deacon: Mid-Cities Presbyterian OPC
Bedford, TX

When this belief is challenged about the law being abolished/abrogated, some become a little defensive. I wonder if that's because they perceive the challenge as an attack on Christ's finshed work, or because it implies keeping the law to earn salvation.

That is partially true the believer is under the law of Christ not the law of Moses.

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

And, Aaron, what constitutes the Law of Moses? The ceremonial laws of the nation of Israel AND the Ten Commandments? Just the ceremonial laws? Are you saying that Christ brought a *new* law?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

Coming from a strongly dispensational background, my experience is that dispensationalists believe that the Ten Commandments are morally binding only in as much as they are repeated in the N.T. The one commandment not repeated - the Sabbath. Thus, I know very few dispy's who believe the Sabbath is binding on Christians, unless they are folks who really don't understand their own theology. Also, they would emphasize that Christians are absolutely not to live by the Ten Commandments but only by the teachings of the New Testament (some would say only by the teaching of the epistles). The only practical use of the O.T. law, for the Christian, is to demonstrate man's sinfulness and point him to Christ.

__________________
Mike Shingler
Pastor: Steep Hollow Baptist Church (SBC)
Bryan, TX

I think the main reason is the very sharp distinction between Israel and the church. The O.T. law was given to Israel, not the church. The church is not Israel - has no continuity with it - hence, the O.T. law is not for the church.
"The law was given as a constitution to the nation Israel and covers the period from Exodus 19:1 until Acts 1:26. The law was in force until the death of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit....Dispensationalists teach that God has a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the church. The commands given to one are not the commands to the other; the promises to the one are not the promises to the other. God calls on Israel to keep the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11), but the church keeps the Lord's Day (1Cor. 16:2)." (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago: Moody, 1989, pp. 520-521)

That's very true. We've had some pretty good discussions on the board about dispensationalism in the last year or so in which the defender(s) of dispensationalism pointed out that the dispensationalism being argued against isn't what dispensationalists believe any more. It kind of takes some of the wind out of your sails when you argue against something most don't believe any more.

Classic dispensationalism was the only dispensationalism I've ever know until recently. I'll admit I'm lazy at times academically, but I can't see myself putting in the time to learn what makes progressive dispensationalism different - in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "Will this eventually be something that "nobody believes anymore"?

Does not being under the law mean the same thing as not being expected to obey the law any more?

This is really a good observation. Dispensationalism really isn't confessional, creedal or apt to being put in a box. Many have tried to systematize it or relegate it to a hermeneutical approach, with little success. In fact, when asked if he was a dispensationalist, MacArthur recently stated that he really didn't know what it meant. If it means a separation of the church and Israel, sure. But there's a whole lot more to the picture.

One thing to be more clear on, Jesus fulfilled the law, He didn't abolish it. It's a very important distinction and one that should help those who truly attempt to understand where dispensationalists are coming from. Those dispies who do claim that Jesus abolished it haven't really worked out their own understanding of the law.

And in light of dispensationalism being difficult to nail down, to be fair, much of the same thing can be said about covenantalists (Anabaptist, paedo, credo, anit-paedo, baptismal regeneration, paedo-communion, pre-mil, post-mil, a-mil, etc.).

It is in light of this that I have often been guilty as charged for stating that "this isn't what dispies believe anymore," or "the brush is too broad - you can't include all dispies."

In answer to the original question, I've never heard of such a thing. But that doesn't mean that some dispensationalists wouldn't subscribe to such teaching. I've heard some say stranger things. Heh, I've said stranger things. I imagine everyone reading this can relate to one degree or another.

Several broad brushes have been applied here. For instance, though the Jews were under the law, salvation is through Christ alone. I've never heard of a dispie sabbatarian, though I suppose there could be a few out there. It's hard to say that it's inconsistent with their theology because it's so hard to nail their theology down. However, I would agree that it would be inconsistent with the hermeneutical principles espoused by what I would call more exegetically sound dispensational theologians. Those who bite into a system without submitting themselves to sound hermeneutical principles can get caught up in a host of errors. This is why we have the dispensational sensationalism that fills our Christian radio stations and bookstores.

Try to understand why some are somewhat defensive. There are many dispensationalists who hold to TULIP. Many have a strong understanding, appreciation and respect for church history, including the reformation. Many embrace the solas of the reformation with strong conviction. Many, though they are strong in their convictions regarding eschatology, rarely teach on it because there is so much more to teach on in regard to the Christian walk. So when dispensationalists are slammed by those claiming that dispensationalism teaches against any of these it shows a lack of understanding and graciousness on the part of those making such statements. It would be akin to me making a statement such as, "all paedos instill a false sense of security in their children," or "without tradition or Westminster covenantalists would have no source of theology." At least one of these statements would rankle with almost every person on this board; the second with almost all. And yet we all know that there are some within paedos and covenantalists who fit the bill.

Galatians 6:2-10
2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For each one shall bear his own load.
6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Titus 3:3-7
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

As I recall, dispensationalism began in the Presbyterian church, and was a break from the commonly accepted covenant theology of the time. Classic dispensationalism was very different for CT, progressive dispensationalism is much more similar to CT than classic. Since dispensationalism seems to be in a state of flux, do think it'll eventually run full circle and end up as CT?

I think both sides agree Jesus fulfilled the law. I guess maybe the next question to ask, since Jesus fulfilled the law, how does that affect the Christian's relationship to the law, or the non-Christian for that matter? Are we expected to strive to keep the law (not to earn salvation or anything, but simply because God commanded it)? The verse is often quoted about us not being under the law, but under grace now. Is the dispensational and CT understanding the same here? How are they the same or different?

I was asking about what both classic and progressive dispensationalists believe.

Dispensationalism really began within the Plymouth Brethren. It was picked up in the States by a couple of different groups including C. I. Scofield who was a Presbyterian. He then produced the Scofield Reference Bible (though he did not write all the notes himself) and it became mainstream American evangelical doctine for years.

For a more indepth account try CHANGING PATTERNS IN AMERICAN DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY