Sermon on the Mount - REJECTED

BT · Sep 14, 2004

Gold Dragon said:
And that is where we disagree. I disagree with the under-lying principles that dispensationalists use to arrive at those positions and the relative importance of those principles in the work of interpretation.

Yup that's where we'd disagree, and that's ok. No one is going to end up in hell because they aren't a dispensationalist, that's for sure.

FreeinChrist · Sep 14, 2004

Crazy Liz said:
This is where I think dispensationalists go astray. Dispensationalism is a reaction to Reformed or Covenant theology. Dispensationalists tend to say Covenant theology is wrong, therefore Dispensational theology must be right. It is a reactionary theology that fails to recognize the many other ways of interpreting scripture.

There are LOTS and lots of nondispensationists churches that place spreading the gospel before social programs. It is NOT particularly tied to Dispensationism, or Covenant theology or anything else. Your opinion appears to be very biased.

Perhaps the reasoning behind placing the gospel first is that salvation affects our eternity.

I see no problem with placing the highest priority to sharing the gospel message with others. But the dispensationists I know and the missionaries I have heard or read or spoken with give to the poor whether believers or not, are giving medical aid to the poor, believers or not. They give clothing to the needy and give to victims of disasters - without spreading the gospel to them at the same time, and participate in more programs like teenage pregnancy counseling.

What social programs are you concerned about?

I also think you are inaccurate in your opinion that dispensatinism is a reaction to covenant theology. Have any proof of this?

FreeinChrist · Sep 14, 2004

BT said:
No one is going to end up in hell because they aren't a dispensationalist, that's for sure.

And I have never heard a dispensationist say anyone would end up in hell for being a nondispie, and I have interacted with many.

Crazy Liz · Sep 14, 2004

FreeinChrist said:
There are LOTS and lots of nondispensationists churches that place spreading the gospel before social programs. It is NOT particularly tied to Dispensationism, or Covenant theology or anything else. Your opinion appears to be very biased.

We all have our biases. I try to recognize mine, and I think that's what I said in my first response to you. It's based on my personal experiences with dispensationalists, many of which happen to have been bad ones.

Yes, I admit to being biased. We don't have to argue about that anymore. In my biased opinion, there are some aspects of dispensationalism that tend to fuel this trend, or at least be compatible with it, that whether the poor are helped, diseases are cured, etc., are mere temporal concerns and are unimportant compared to people's salvation; therefore we should invest all our money in evangelism and none in social programs, unless they are directly tied to evangelism.

Again, I admit to being biased.

I also think you are inaccurate in your opinion that dispensatinism is a reaction to covenant theology. Have any proof of this?

Why do you think I'm inaccurate? I'm certainly willing to be corrected. I think in the Theology forums there are a couple of threads on the history of dispensationalism.

I made that remark in response to point #8 in BT's post #34 in this thread. Although I don't think dispensationalists will use the word "reactionary," I thought it was common knowledge that dispensationalism developed largely because its originators disagreed with Covenant theology on this particular point. I have frequently seen Dispensational theology compared and contrasted with Covenant theology. I can't recall seeing it compared and contrasted with Anabaptist theology, although many of the theological and missiological conflicts I have seen arise in Anabaptist churches stem directly from the incompatibility of these two theologies. I can't recall seeing Dispensationalism compared and contrasted with Catholic or Lutheran or Orthodox theology, either. BT's comment sounded quite typical to me, which is why I drew attention to it. It seems to imply that if Covenant theology is wrong, Dispensationalism must be right, as if these were the only two theologies there were. That is what I meant by my post. I'm sorry it offended you.

Gold Dragon · Sep 14, 2004

Crazy Liz said:
Why do you think I'm inaccurate? I'm certainly willing to be corrected. I think in the Theology forums there are a couple of threads on the history of dispensationalism.

I made that remark in response to point #8 in BT's post #34 in this thread. Although I don't think dispensationalists will use the word "reactionary," I thought it was common knowledge that dispensationalism developed largely because its originators disagreed with Covenant theology on this particular point. I have frequently seen Dispensational theology compared and contrasted with Covenant theology. I can't recall seeing it compared and contrasted with Anabaptist theology, although many of the theological and missiological conflicts I have seen arise in Anabaptist churches stem directly from the incompatibility of these two theologies. I can't recall seeing Dispensationalism compared and contrasted with Catholic or Lutheran or Orthodox theology, either. BT's comment sounded quite typical to me, which is why I drew attention to it. It seems to imply that if Covenant theology is wrong, Dispensationalism must be right, as if these were the only two theologies there were. That is what I meant by my post. I'm sorry it offended you.

I would agree with this. Dispensationalists consistently assume that if you are a non-dispy, you must follow Covenant theology which can be an even more flawed system of interpretation (depending on the flavour you subscribe to). And then proceed to refute the Covenant theology position without finding out if the person they are talking to actually subscribes to Covenant theology.

Gold Dragon · Sep 14, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
What ever happened to I believe what the bible says? What is with all these labels these days.

Hey GEL. One of the difficulties of simply saying "I believe what the bible says" is that there are hundreds of different views held by people who "believe what the bible says." So that phrase isn't a very useful descriptor and labels help us to elaborate on what we mean by that in a simple way.

I am currently reading a book called Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard. It is a pretty academic work but it starts off with a chapter on the history of biblical interpretation, outlining many of the primary ways that Christians have viewed "what the bible says" over the centuries and millenia. I would be happy to give you a brief summary of the major interpretive models if you wish.

FreeinChrist · Sep 14, 2004

Crazy Liz said:
We all have our biases. I try to recognize mine, and I think that's what I said in my first response to you. It's based on my personal experiences with dispensationalists, many of which happen to have been bad ones.

Yes, I admit to being biased. We don't have to argue about that anymore. In my biased opinion, there are some aspects of dispensationalism that tend to fuel this trend, or at least be compatible with it, that whether the poor are helped, diseases are cured, etc., are mere temporal concerns and are unimportant compared to people's salvation; therefore we should invest all our money in evangelism and none in social programs, unless they are directly tied to evangelism.

Again, I admit to being biased.

Well, I appreciate the admission of it.

Now, prior to being married, I had been involved with a man who was Quaker and attended meeting with him and we discussed our views alot. He was okay. But within the group in this Michigan community, there were folks who didn't identify themselves as Christians , didn't really believe that Christ was God Incarnate, and denied the physical resurrection of Christ. A few were Jewish and liked the philosophy of the Quakers. The man I was seeing thought this was just fine....I didn't. I couldn't see how this congregation could accept nonChristian members and refer to itself as a Christian group.

In another state, I again made friends with several Quaker families and interacted wit them over time, and attended meeting, as I was considering changing churches. I figured that group in Michigan must be unusual. But the same type of things came up. And one member who was often leading something, who counseled married folks on communication and relationships turned out to be a fellow who had had repeated, longstanding adulterous affairs, who verbally abused his wife, and had a very questionable relationship with a daughter. In fact, quite a number of behaviors like that turned up.

From my overall experiences though, I could generalize Quakers as having more concern with the earthly pleasures and comforts than of what God desires in direct conflict with scripture, is not really a Christian organization at all despite its beginnings, does not take any moral stand, or expect members to try and live a Christlike life. I could generalize many negative things from my experience that may not truly characterize the Quakers at all.

That is the problem I see with your comments. As a nonQuaker, I try not to make negative generalizing comments about Quakers. You aren't a dispensationist, yet made comments about what is in the hearts of all Dispensationists.

Why do you think I'm inaccurate? I'm certainly willing to be corrected. I think in the Theology forums there are a couple of threads on the history of dispensationalism.

I made that remark in response to point #8 in BT's post #34 in this thread. Although I don't think dispensationalists will use the word "reactionary," I thought it was common knowledge that dispensationalism developed largely because its originators disagreed with Covenant theology on this particular point. I have frequently seen Dispensational theology compared and contrasted with Covenant theology.

Dispensationial thought has it's roots going back a long way. It may have been Darby who put it under a label of Dispensationism, but the recognition of the dispensations is old.
Clement of Alexandria ( 150-220) described 4 patriarchal dispensations Adam, Noah , Abraham and Moses.

Augustine, To Marcellinus,CXXXVIII , :

In chapter 1, section 5 :The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the uncHangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him.

Section 7..For as the man is not fickle who does one thing in the morning and another in the evening, one thing this month and another in the next, one thing this year and another next year, so there is no variableness with God, though in the former period of the world's history He enjoined one kind of offerings, and in the latter period another, therein ordering the symbolical actions pertaining to the blessed doctrine of true religion in harmony with the changes of successive epochs. without any change in Himself.

Section 8 If it is now established that that which was for one age rightly ordained may be in another age rightly changed,--the alteration indicating a change in the work, not in tile plan, of Him who makes the change, the plan being framed by His reasoning faculty, to which, unconditioned by succession in time, those things are simultaneously present which cannot be actually done at the same time because the ages succeed each other,

Now these folks were not dispensationists as we know the word todaybut they taught the principles that later were formalized into a theology known as dispensationism.

Going on:

Pierre Poiretwrote LOEconomie Divine in 1687. It was published in 6 volumes in 1713, about 6 years before his death. It was a work about predestination, but it was also premillenial and he delineated 7 dispensations:

I Infancy - to the Deluge

II. childhood - to Moses

III. Adolescence to the prophets (mid Solomen)

IV. Youth to the coming of Christ

V. Manhood some time after that

VI. Old Age - time of mans decay

VII. Renovation of all things the Millennium.

Jonathon Edwards, (1637 1716) He published A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations in 1699 in England. He was a Calvinistic minister. In the church of England. He was not sure of the Millennium Reign ith Christ present on earth, but pointed out dispensations: Innocence (to the fall), Sin and Misery from the fall, Reconciliation: made up of 4 patriarchal periods Adamical, Noahical, Abrahamick, Mosaical with a concurrent Gentile period, and then the Christian periods primitive past, present period, millennium, and old age that involves the loosening of Satan to the conflagration.

In other words, he believed in a future millennium followed by the loosening of Satanjust wasnt sure that Jesus would be seen visably on earth in that time.

Issac Watts (1674 1748) defined 6 dispensations.

Which brings us to Darby, who defined 7 dispensations -:

I Paradise to flood

2. Noah

3. Abraham

4. Israel subgroups - under law, under priesthood, under kings

5. Gentiles

6. The Spirit

7. the millennium

Scofield followed Watts dispensational pattern more than Darbys, so the claim that Scofield popularized Darbys dispensationism is wrong.

There are Calvinist and nonCalvinist Dispensationists and Calvinist and nonCalvinist Covenant theologists. Dispensationism developed over time, and using a literal hermenutic, differred from Covenant theology. they are often compared, because in some ways they are very similar.

@@Paul@@ · Sep 14, 2004

This topic is WAY more fun in GF...

WOW

Gold Dragon · Sep 14, 2004

@@Paul@@ said:
This topic is WAY more fun in GF...

WOW

I sorta lost interest around the post #100 because everyone was talking but nobody was listening to each other.

I guess the GT thread is more interesting than our PM discussion.

@@Paul@@ · Sep 14, 2004

Gold Dragon said:
I sorta lost interest around the post #100 because everyone was talking but nobody was listening to each other.

I guess the GT thread is more interesting than our PM discussion.

I'm working on that still!! sorry, got a little off track...

I'm like a big kid with A.D.D.

Crazy Liz · Sep 14, 2004

FreeinChrist said:
Well, I appreciate the admission of it.

Now, prior to being married, I had been involved with a man who was Quaker and attended meeting with him and we discussed our views alot. He was okay. But within the group in this Michigan community, there were folks who didn't identify themselves as Christians , didn't really believe that Christ was God Incarnate, and denied the physical resurrection of Christ. A few were Jewish and liked the philosophy of the Quakers. The man I was seeing thought this was just fine....I didn't. I couldn't see how this congregation could accept nonChristian members and refer to itself as a Christian group.

In another state, I again made friends with several Quaker families and interacted wit them over time, and attended meeting, as I was considering changing churches. I figured that group in Michigan must be unusual. But the same type of things came up. And one member who was often leading something, who counseled married folks on communication and relationships turned out to be a fellow who had had repeated, longstanding adulterous affairs, who verbally abused his wife, and had a very questionable relationship with a daughter. In fact, quite a number of behaviors like that turned up.

From my overall experiences though, I could generalize Quakers as having more concern with the earthly pleasures and comforts than of what God desires in direct conflict with scripture, is not really a Christian organization at all despite its beginnings, does not take any moral stand, or expect members to try and live a Christlike life. I could generalize many negative things from my experience that may not truly characterize the Quakers at all.

That is the problem I see with your comments. As a nonQuaker, I try not to make negative generalizing comments about Quakers. You aren't a dispensationist, yet made comments about what is in the hearts of all Dispensationists.

OK. Thank you for admitting your bias against Quakers.

Personally, I currently belong to an Evangelical Friends church, which would not tolerate any of the things you mention that you abhor. My background is Mennonite Brethren, and most of what I have said here has to do with my experience in that denomination, and nothing at all to do with Friends theology.

Dispensationial thought has it's roots going back a long way. It may have been Darby who put it under a label of Dispensationism, but the recognition of the dispensations is old.
Clement of Alexandria
[...]
Augustine, To Marcellinus,CXXXVIII , :
[...]
Pierre Poiret[...]
Jonathon Edwards, (1637 1716) He published A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations
[...]
Issac Watts (1674 1748) defined 6 dispensations.
[...]
Scofield followed Watts dispensational pattern more than Darbys, so the claim that Scofield popularized Darbys dispensationism is wrong.

There are Calvinist and nonCalvinist Dispensationists and Calvinist and nonCalvinist Covenant theologists. Dispensationism developed over time, and using a literal hermenutic, differred from Covenant theology. they are often compared, because in some ways they are very similar.

I agree Dispensationalism wasn't made up out of thin air. There were seeds of the idea earlier in Christian history. However, BT's post indicated to me something I have noted many times - that Dispensationalism as developed by Schofield and Darby was a reaction to Covenant theology. Watts and Edwards, who you quoted, were both protestants. The earlier authorities wrote before Calvin began to develop Covenant theology.

You equate Covenant theology with Calvinism, and quote pre-Reformation Fathers of the church. In doing so, you demonstrate considerable knowledge, which I respect. I also realize that "Calvinist," in the sense of predestinarian and Covenant, in the sense of the post-reformation holding that the Church entirely displaces Israel may be distinguished.

Can we disagree respectfully? I never intended to insult you personally.

Gold Dragon · Sep 14, 2004

@@Paul@@ said:
I'm working on that still!! sorry, got a little off track...

I'm like a big kid with A.D.D.

No worries, I was just ribbing you. Take your time with your responses.

GreenEyedLady · Sep 14, 2004

I was thinking about this thread as I was driving in the car. I asked the Lord..............WHAT AM I??
Should we have these labels to define what we believe or should we just believe everything that is written in His word until He tells us differant?
I don't want to know what all of these labels mean. Thanks for offering the time to explain. Its all just so confusing. I am not really sure if its for me really to have a label on my beliefs. I just feel like I am learning something new in God's word everyday, how could I label my beliefs? I am not knockin any of you. Some of you I am sure need to help people understand where you are comming from when you are talking theology. The question is, is our theology our reality?
God told me.........YOU are who I say you are!
So, I will just say....ok Lord....Whatever You say I will be, and I won't call myself anything less or more.
GEL

Crazy Liz · Sep 14, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
I was thinking about this thread as I was driving in the car. I asked the Lord..............WHAT AM I??
Should we have these labels to define what we believe or should we just believe everything that is written in His word until He tells us differant?
I don't want to know what all of these labels mean. Thanks for offering the time to explain. Its all just so confusing. I am not really sure if its for me really to have a label on my beliefs. I just feel like I am learning something new in God's word everyday, how could I label my beliefs? I am not knockin any of you. Some of you I am sure need to help people understand where you are comming from when you are talking theology. The question is, is our theology our reality?
God told me.........YOU are who I say you are!
So, I will just say....ok Lord....Whatever You say I will be, and I won't call myself anything less or more.
GEL

GEL!

Gold Dragon · Sep 14, 2004

GreenEyedLady said:
I was thinking about this thread as I was driving in the car. I asked the Lord..............WHAT AM I??
Should we have these labels to define what we believe or should we just believe everything that is written in His word until He tells us differant?
I don't want to know what all of these labels mean. Thanks for offering the time to explain. Its all just so confusing. I am not really sure if its for me really to have a label on my beliefs. I just feel like I am learning something new in God's word everyday, how could I label my beliefs? I am not knockin any of you. Some of you I am sure need to help people understand where you are comming from when you are talking theology. The question is, is our theology our reality?
God told me.........YOU are who I say you are!
So, I will just say....ok Lord....Whatever You say I will be, and I won't call myself anything less or more.
GEL

I think that is a great perspective, GEL. And I would never encourage anyone to be defined by a label or to have their beliefs defined by one.

Labels are simply linguistic tools useful for communication that are always inferior to getting to know somebody for who they really are.

FreeinChrist · Sep 14, 2004

Crazy Liz said:
OK. Thank you for admitting your bias against Quakers.

oops! I didn't try to imply that I honestly beleived I could - o r have - make a generalization about Quakers based on my experience. I was simply trying to point out that from my experiences, I could - if I truly felt it was a valid thing to do - make negative generalizations about Quakers on the whole based on experiences in 2 states. Because I am into research, I know the likelihood of generalizations like that are often inaccurate. It is generalizations like that which are the basis for prejudices. It is highly likely that my experience is just plain atypical. And that is my point. Making assumptions based on 'experiences' is often unwise. And leads to erroneous thinking. that is what I am trying to say.

I agree Dispensationalism wasn't made up out of thin air. There were seeds of the idea earlier in Christian history. However, BT's post indicated to me something I have noted many times - that Dispensationalism as developed by Schofield and Darby was a reaction to Covenant theology. Watts and Edwards, who you quoted, were both protestants. The earlier authorities wrote before Calvin began to develop Covenant theology.

Edwards was a Calvinist. I am not sure about Watts. But there are many Calvinists who are dispensationist (many non, too). Pretty sure that John MacArthur is Calvinist and Dispensationist.

Can we disagree respectfully? I never intended to insult you personally.

Certainly!

Crazy Liz · Sep 14, 2004

FreeinChrist said:
Edwards was a Calvinist. I am not sure about Watts. But there are many Calvinists who are dispensationist (many non, too). Pretty sure that John MacArthur is Calvinist and Dispensationist.

Edwards and Watts both died before dispensationalism was invented.

I don't think I ever argued one could not be both a Calvinist (by which I assume you mean predestinarian) and a dispensationalist. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Certainly!

FreeinChrist · Sep 15, 2004

Crazy Liz said:
Edwards and Watts both died before dispensationalism was invented.

So you didn't read the quotes I posted?

Dispensationism came together under Darby...but all the facets were there beforehand. Darby didn't "invent" it.

I don't think I ever argued one could not be both a Calvinist (by which I assume you mean predestinarian) and a dispensationalist. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Because you wrote that Calvin developed Covenant theolgy (which can be argued for and against) and that you beleive dispensationism was developed as a 'reaction' to covenant theology...it seems appropriate to point out.

Sermon on the Mount - REJECTED

Fanatic

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

CF Advisory team

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Senior Veteran

The Key that Fits:Acts 28

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

My little Dinky Doo

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency