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 Are you asking if they would fall back on them in light of a perception that the law is no longer in effect?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

Member, Newtownards Reformed Presbyterian Church, N. Ireland

Stephen, I concur.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
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.

__________________
B.Howes
Framingham, MA

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://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



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
Elder, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."

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
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

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
Louisville, KY

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

The Law of Moses constituted all the old testament ordnances. the Ten Commandments are done a way with and Christ brought a new law that is written on the heart of the believer by the Holy Ghost. So in short that is what I meant to say.

The core progressive text is

Progressive Dispensationalism

Amazon

What does that "new law" consist of?

The law of Moses is not binding on the believer so no the believer no longer has to follow any commandment under the law of Moses. But we are under the law of Christ which is written on our hearts by The holy Ghost.

What is the law of Christ?

When a believer is regenerated God gives Him a new heart spirtually speaking. So with that new heart comes a new law this is shown in Paul's epistles along with The Sermon on The Mount where Christ says "it has been said but I say unto you". That is my understanding of it.

But in John Jesus says "Not a new commandment I give to you."

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

I would be surprised if some people believe that the moral values that were in existence prior to the Law of Moses are no longer in existence today. It was morally wrong to commit murder before the Law of Moses and it is still morally wrong to commit murder today.

But the law of Christ is the law of Moses.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

How is it new? I've always thought of that part of the Sermon on the Mount as just a clarification of the true intent of the law, not giving of something new. Agreed?

But what is the content of that law? What I am trying to get at is the point that the law that was written on stone is in the new covenant written on our hearts. So the content is the same: Love God and love your neighbour.

Hence John Gill writes:

1Jn 2:7 - Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you,.... Some understand this of faith, which this apostle calls a commandment, 1 John 3:23; but it rather intends the commandment of love, especially to the brethren, of which the apostle says the same things as here in his second epistle, 1 John 2:5; and this sense agrees both with what goes before and follows after, and is a considerable branch of the commandments of Christ to be kept, and of walking as he walked; and the word "brethren", prefixed to this account, may direct to, and strengthen this sense, though the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read, "beloved"; and so the Alexandrian copy, and others: and this commandment is said to be not a new one,

but an old commandment, which ye had from the beginning; it being in its original a part of the eternal law of truth, founded upon the unalterable nature and eternal will of God, who is love itself, and requires it in all his creatures; being what was written on Adam's heart in a state of innocence, and a branch of the divine image stamped upon him; and is what was delivered in the law of Moses, for love to God and men is the sum and substance of that; and was taught by Christ and his apostles from the beginning of the Gospel dispensation; and was what these saints had been acquainted with, and influentially instructed in from their first conversion, being taught of God in regeneration to love one another; so that this was no novel doctrine, no upstart notion, no new law, but of the greatest and most venerable antiquity, and therefore to be regarded in the most respectful manner.

The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning; or this ancient law of love is contained in, and enforced by that word or doctrine which was delivered from the beginning of time; and which these saints had heard of, concerning the seed of the woman's bruising the serpent's head, which includes the work of redemption and salvation by Christ, atonement by his sacrifice, forgiveness of sin through his blood, and justification by his righteousness, than which nothing can more powerfully engage to love God, and Christ, and one another; and which is also strongly encouraged by the word of God and Gospel of Christ, which they had heard, and had a spiritual and saving knowledge of, from the time they were effectually called by the grace of God: the phrase, "from the beginning", is left out in the Alexandrian copy, and others, and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; it is omitted in both clauses of the text in the latter.

According to Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." When Jesus said those words, He was not abolishing the seventh commandment. He did not say, "The seventh commandment has been abolished and now I will make a new commandment." His point was that committing adultery is more than just perfoming a certain outward behavior. Adultery is also committed when we have lust in our hearts towards other people.

Covenant theology is new to me. I just started to study about it. I have been listening to some lectures by Michael Brown about covenant theology and I've been reading Horton's book, God of Promise. I'm trying to compare it with dispensationalism. I'm interested in knowing how certain dispensationalists attempt to prove their position.

Some people believe that all OT laws are abolished unless they are repeated in the NT. What passages of Scripture do those people use to prove their point?

Is it taught anywhere in the Bible that there are certain laws that only the OT Jewish people were supposed to obey them?

Generally the argument is that the Mosaic Law was given to Israel. Gentiles are not Israelites therefore the law never applied to them. They would also point to verses that say "you are not under law but rather under grace". That type of thing.

Here are some that might be brought up, depending on one's understanding or perception of the law. Many of these must include surrounding verses, especially Romans 5-7. I did not take the time to work through these carefully, so I'm making no certain proposal myself. It's simply a list of verses that some may use.Have fun.

Is it supposed to be any easy exercise to wrap your mind around all those verses and arrive at an understanding of the Christian's relationship to the law? Some of its pretty straight forward, the ones involving that aspect of the law about animal sacrifices, but some of its not (to me).

My dispie experience would have the 'law' divided up into civic (to Israel only), ceremonial (temple stuff) and moral (10 commandments, Lev. 19:18, laws against homosexuality, etc....).

Dispies would take Christ fulfilling the law to mean that the ceremonial laws/requirements for sacrifice were fulfilled completely in Christ.

The civic laws are no longer applicable, since they were given specifically to govern Israel as a nation.

The moral laws are all repeated in the NT. They would typically classify the Sabbath as being a part of the ceremonial law (with the Deut. 5 version as justification), saying it was given to Israel, not the church.

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard, Husband of Danielle since 7/11/09 (I married up!)
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
MEMBER: Wallace PCA in College Park, MD as of 10/18/09
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
Now announcing: Life | Doctrine | Music - join the message board now! Site launch with streaming radio coming in 11/09!

I have another question about dispensationalism. Are the doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Works compatible with dispensationalism?