Drotar:
Thank-you for your kind comments. I'm not sure that I know a "lot" about this, but I have been around a while and I have had some good teachers over the years. My last post was also my first, so I'm not sure to whom you refer when you say that I've adopted someone's writing style...another member perhaps?
Not everyone will give you positive comments on the "Left Behind" series. For example, I won't. In fact, I would suggest that you in fact LEAVE THEM BEHIND! Believe me when I tell you that you can put your hard earned bucks to better use! Anything that you find at the "discerning reader" site will be a vast improvement! Oh yes--you are not the first one to note that the characters are flat. The writing is inexcusably poor.
I do take very serious exception to the dispensational system of theology. But I'm not here to pound you over the head. On the other hand, I also take exception to your claim to be a "big loser." Don't beat up on yourself, man! Life will give you more than enough kicks soon enough! I promise! *L*
As for my thoughts on the dispensational system, I'll offer a few below and after that respond to questions as I can--if you ask them. Not to say that I'll have all the answers or even any answers (let alone good answers). But if I can help, I'll do what I can with the time I have.
Several years ago, a nifty little free-ware program called "Reformed Confessions" turned up on the Internet. You download the compressed file, run it and it gives you a program with a number of creeds and confessions. You have the eccumenical confessions (Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.), plus the three forms of unity (Belgic Confession of Faith, Heidelberg Catechism AND the Canons of Dort--the famed "five points). It also features the 2nd Helvetic Confession of Faith (which was an attempt to harmonize the reformed and lutheran branches of the reformation; today, it is still used by the Swiss Reformed Church) the 39 Articles of Religion (Church of England), the French Confession (also called the Gallican Confession or the Confession of Rochelle--authored under the eye of this dude named John Calvin). And it includes the Westminister Standards--the Confession of Faith, the Shorter Catechism and its ugly step-sister--the Larger Catechism. Moreover, the expanded file even gives you a neat little tulip icon for your desktop on which to click your mouse when you want to read some good theology.
How cool is that?
If you really want to know the reformed faith, go to the confessions. Study them. Study them again. Then study them even more. Master them. What you need to do is to see HOW the many parts of reformed theology flow toether, how they integrate into a single whole.
My last post mentioned to the key role of the covenant community. Of this covenant community or church, the Belgic Confession Article 28 says that it "has been from the beginning of the world and will be to the end thereof
supported by God against the rage of the world." So there is one church from the beginning to the end of the world.
Is that the dispensational system of theology? Clearly not! That is the so-called a-millennial view of the future. As for dispensationalism, it makes the church not a permanent fixture (from the beginning to the end of the world), but a brief parenthesis in time. But that is only a very small problem.
A far larger problem results from the fact that the reformed view of election and grace and the perseverance of the saints is indissolubly bound to the CHURCH. Our soteriological doctrines also relate profoundly to the doctrines of justification by faith and God's imputed righteousness! Just how great a problem this is becomes abundantly clear when we refer to the Canons of Dort (which first defined the "five points").
Head 1 (Divine Election and Reprobation), Article 7 declares election to be "...the unchangeable purpose of God whereby...He has out of mere grace...chosen from the whole human race...a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He...appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation."
There you have your answer on the "connection between the church and irresistible grace and unconditional election." This election has reference to the WHOLE human race (meaning that the elect are drawn from all peoples and times), that it secures redemption in Christ who is appointed mediator (meaning of the covenant) and Head of the elect (one body). This elect body IS the church of the Belgic Confession, Article 28 (which you will remember affirms that there has been one church from the beginning of the world to the end). That is supported and confirmed by the assertion that elect persons are chosen from the WHOLE human race. Whole human race...the beginning of the world to the end. It fits, no?
But wait! Dispensationalism denies that there is one church and one people of God in all ages! Dispensationalism maintains that the church is but a temporary parenthesis interrupting the fulfillment of older testament promises in the millennial kingdom. Here is the problem:
If election, grace, perseverance, justification by faith and the imputation of righteousness relate to the church--and the church is but a temporary parenthesis--then at the very least, these doctrines may not be universally applicable to all God's people in all ages!
And if the church does not span all ages, then dispensationalism must ALSO introduce conditions for the election of the chosen people in various dispensations. Entrance into these arrangements has to rest on obedience or decision-rather than on an obedience that rests on the covenant itself and on the unconditional election that is its foundation!
Moreover, just as a multiplication of covenants undercuts the basis of assurance (perseverance) and election in various ages, so it also militates against the doctrine that all God's people in all ages are made just by faith. But rather than arguing this point, it may have more impact to hear from dispensationalists on this matter. Of course-care is needed to select deliberative, definitive statements of this theology. Only then can we hold our brothers accountable to them.
For that task, I offer Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer is eminently qualified to articulate the dispensational viewpoint. As for the work-I refer to Dr. Chafer's 8 volume Systematic Theology. On page 219 of volume 2, he writes:
"A distinction must be observed here between just men of the Old Testament and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic law...MEN WERE THEREFORE JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN WORKS FOR GOD WHEREAS NEW TESTAMENT JUSTIFICATION IS GOD'S WORK FOR MAN IN ANSWER TO FAITH."
And volume 4, page 225 states:
"Thus it may be concluded that the teachings of the law, the teachings of grace, and the teachings of the kingdom are separate and complete systems of divine rule which are perfectly adapted to the various conditions of three great dispensations. THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES AND THE TEACHINGS OF THE KINIGDOM ARE PURELY LEGAL, WHILE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BELIEVER OF THIS DISPENSATION ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH PURE GRACE."
It may seem unbelievable, but as Dr. Chafer had it, neither the by-faith principle of grace nor the imputed righteousness of Christ was a part of Old Testament salvation (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, pages 215-216)! This has to be IN ORDER TO maintain a strict dichotomy of Israel and the church. If these are ONE body, then the promised blessings are being fulfilled now in Christ. Even dispensational scholars recognize that if this is established, their cause is lost!
In that connection, Knight is correct in the animal sacrifices; This is based on Ezekiel's temple vision; as Ezekiel describes it, the sacrificial system is restored in the so-called "millennial kingdom." Of course, it is a bit of an embarrassment to talk about the risen, ascended Lord entering the veil with animal blood for a sacrifice. OK. Its not an embarrassment. Its down-right heretical. So dispensationalists say that the sacrifices are memorial only. The only problem is that Ezekiel says that they are sin offerings and that they are expiatory. Basically, you have to live with heresy or "spiritualize" it (akin to blasphemy say dispensationalists).
But I digress...The question is this: Is this "be good, work and I will bless you" theology of dispensations before the "church age" (and after it in the millennial kingdom) the unconditional election of reformed soteriology? Absolutely not!
Sure, some good people who claim both theologies. But the question is not whether there can be found good people who hold both positions; the question is whether these alien systems can be thoroughly integrated while maintaining the integrity of both. I believe that even a cursive look shows that dispensational theology stands outside and runs counter to that system of doctrine which is defined by all of the great creeds, confessions and catechisms of the reformation.
We would be amazed at the help our creeds, confessions and catechisms could offer us--if we knew them. The representative dispensational and reformed confessional quotes that I provided show clearly that the dispensational system stands outside the system of reformed theology. One cannot profess both positions knowledgably, sincerely and integrally. Some good people with ministries the Lord blesses may try.
But to see the soteriology of "Calvinistic" dispensationalists as being alike the reformed faith is rather like saying that because Christians and Muslims both believe in God, one can be both. Like oil and water, they simply do not mix. The fundamental incongruity of these two systems explains why few Dispensational "Calvinists" are to be found. It is not that they don't exist. But there is a very compelling reason why they will NEVER exist in numbers, and it is this:
No thoroughly and contentiously reformed body on earth will ordain them.
Covenant Heart
And remember-Palestine must be freed!
http://www.musalaha.org
