Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | DocTrinsograce | 232882 | ||
Dear Seth, You're right... I was condensing a lot of stuff we've gotten on the forum over the years. When I raised my kids, I always insisted that they knew the difference between can, will, and ought. Nowadays people do regularly practice a distinction. Phrases like "must still" has all the built in presuppositions that simply do not compute. The "must" thing has all the problems of legalism. The "still" thing has all the problems of antinomianism and dispensationalism. Christendom has long considered the sabbath one of the gifts to His people. Imagine! One day in seven is entirely about Him! Why aren't we asking, "Wow! May I have more time than that, Lord?" Then He assures me that I will have eternity in precisely that way! A congregation comes together under specific Christian distinctives. Those distinctives are not a matter of segregation but of unity. We delight in knowing what we believe, why we believe it, and coming together to worship in that truth in the completed work of our Lord Jesus Christ. These distinctives are the ones around which we form a congregation. If you agree, come and join us! If you do not agree, find another church with distinctives with which you are comfortable. There is no judging (common vernacular not Biblical vernacular) about it. Shabbos means celebration. If glory has people who do not delight in coming together with believers to worship, they are going to be a pretty bored lot of folks. Creation is about God, not man. Redemption is about God, not man. Glory is about God, not man. If folks are asking how much must I do, how much may I neglect, how much belongs to me, how much must I believe -- then they have human religion. God gave to believers extravagantly, our most extravagant response to Him, always tiny in our eyes (Luke 7:36-49). Real of love of Christ is never satisfied with anything less than all. He has given us all that we need or will ever imagine. I cannot increase His love of me a molecule, nor can I decrease His love of me a molecule. It isn't about that. It is about adoration of our Lord God. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232884 | ||
"The "still" thing has all the problems of antinomianism and dispensationalism." I find the mention of dispensationalism in the context of this sentence which infers it has problems similar to antinomianism interesting in light of StudyBible guidelines. What is even more interesting is when we consider the context of this thread and understand dispensationalist falls on both sides of the Sabbath issue. Will you please explain why you mentioned dispensationalism here? |
||||||
3 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | DocTrinsograce | 232885 | ||
Hi, Ed... Dispensationalism is a theological perspective that seeks to interpret biblical history in terms of distinct administrative approaches that God uses in dealing with mankind. These administrations are called dispensations -- of which they say there are seven. Nowadays it tends to be highly eschatological, and largely cross denominational. (It traces its roots back to Plymouth Brethren -- or more specifically John Nelson Darby -- but it has been espoused by Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Campbellites, and Seventh Day Adventists. Don't you Pentecostal teachers hold to it as well? This I do not know.) However, since it asserts that God deals with mankind differently in each of these dispensations it has soteriological implications. For contrast and comparison purposes: Protestant Reformed theologies traditionally hold to something called Covenant Theology. Nevertheless, some Calvinistic Baptists are espousing a third view called New Covenant Theology, but that is very recent. Dispensationalism holds to antinomianism. As dispensational Bible teacher William Nowell (1868-1956) put it: "It is a harmful perversion of the truth of God to teach (as did the Puritan theologians) that while we are not to keep the law as a means of salvation, we are under it as a 'rule of life.' Let a Christian only confess, ‘I am under the law,' and straightway Moses fastens his yoke upon him, despite all his protests that the law has lost its power. Men have to be delivered from the whole legal principle, from the entire sphere where law reigns, ere true liberty can be found." Consequently, this accounts for the antinomian/dispensational connection -- regardless of whether it be explicit or tacit, it has been referenced. These arguments are old as the hills... even older than you and I! In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232893 | ||
I missed it where did you show the connection between Antinomianism and Dispensationalism? Was it the quote of Dispensationalist teacher Willian Nowell that said antinomian was a harmful perversion? Or was it you unqualified statement that “dispensationalism holds to antinomianism?” Or was it the other unqualified statement that “Consequently, this accounts for the antinomian/dispensational connection?” All based on a statement made by a DISPENSATIONALIST saying ANTINOMIANISM is a HARMFUL PERVERISON. Having been a dispensationalist all my life and Pentecostal for the last 32 years. I have never once seen even a faintest hint of a connection made between Antinomianism and Dispensationalism until this attempt by you. In fact all the dispensational scholars, teachers, writers that I'm aware of are diametrically opposed to antinomianism. The point is even if I were to concede that there was connection, which I’m not, it is so remote, I would have to question your motive for including Dispensationalism in you condemnation of Antinomianism. |
||||||
5 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232900 | ||
EdB, I know that you and I aren't on the best terms, but I hope it is alright if I explain where the connection is. I am making no assertions here about all this, rather just helping clarify. Dispensationalism, as almost all stances, has undergone refinement. Almost nobody at all today holds to the original form of dispensationalism. But at the same time the modern notion still merely refers to itself as dispensationalism just like the old version. Now you'd have to be familiar with some of the older version to understand the link between antinomianism and dispensationalism. As Doc stated, the basic premise was that God acted in different ways in different dispensations. The original form went so far as to say that in each of these dispensations God actually saved people in different ways. For example, in the time of the Jewish nation prior to Christ, they asserted that Law was the means of saving people. Now in the modern dispensation God uses grace. So what they actually did was claim that the law was for the saints of a past dispensation and therefore had nothing to do with the current dispensation. Hence, old school dispensationalism did have a link with antinomianism so long as you define antinomianism as a rejection of Old Testament Law on today's believers. Now the reason you can be so shocked and have been dispensational all your life and never been around anybody who believes any such thing is because Old School dispensationalism has been pretty thoroughly crushed and shown to be wrong. Modern dispensationalists, from what I am aware, hold to dispensations but they don't claim a unique means of salvation in each. John McArthur as you stated (whom I'm fond of) would not at all embrace old school dispensationalism unless I'm sorely mistaken. So in Old School dispensationalism, there is a bit of a tendency for Antinomianism to come with it. However, they ofcourse teach certain rules. They just teach certain behavior restrictions seperate from the Old Testament law. So even in Old School Dispensationalism you really got more of a theological antinomianism without a practical one. In other words they formally rejected the old testament law, but they would still in practice forbid most of the things actually forbidden under the OT Law such as adultery, murder, lying, rape, stealing, etc. I hope this is helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
6 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232901 | ||
Beja Who are these "old dispensationialist”? What books, papers, articles have they written that makes the integral connection between their theology and the heretical teaching of Antinomianism? Dispensationalism as such is relatively new, most date it back to early 1800's. So when you say old Dispensationalist are you really talking about a theological position that was decidedly heretical Antinomianism that may have contained shades of what is now presently known as Dispensationalism? This is what appears to be happening. There is absolutely no valid connection between Dispensational theology and Antinomianism. In fact just the opposite all dispenstational theologians past and present that I’m aware of would denounce antinomianism as being aberrant teaching. Doc’s inclusion of dispensationalism with antinomianism is thus far unsupportable and even if there were remote connection it is so far removed from the normal teaching of Dispensationalism, we have to suspect the motive of Doc of even suggesting it. Likewise I noticed how you qualified your defense of MacArthur rather than say the dispensationalist John MacArthur certainly doesn't embrace antinomianism you say he doesn't embrace the old school dispensationalism. Again I ask where do we find "old" school dispensationalism discussed that shows a definite integral connection to the heretical teaching of Antinomianism? |
||||||
7 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232904 | ||
EdB, "we have to suspect the motive of Doc of even suggesting it." I agree. At this point our moral obligation has shifted away from putting in extra effort to understand what he's saying and it has shifted instead to a moral obligation to slander him. But now that I'm on your side in this, I would suggest a mere google search on "history of dispensationalism" to you. I think it would help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
8 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232905 | ||
Slander him? How by asking his motive for trying to make the connection between a heretical teaching and theology held by the majority of Protestant believers? A theology he openly opposes. You can’t be serious do a google search where everyone is an expert and all facts are presented in a fair and impartial manner after receiving careful and exhaustive research. Both you and Doc claim there is clear and integral connection between Dispensationalism and Antinomianism and all I ask is a book, paper or article where the author a known respected Dispensationalist makes such a connection. To satisfy you I did a search on Google and I haven't found a site that supports a connection between Dispensationalism and Antinomianism. Although I did find a high number of sites that are sure their Mayan calendar proves the world ends in 2012. |
||||||
9 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232907 | ||
EdB, You must have missed this one. http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Torah/Dispensationalism_Root_Cause_of_Antinomianism.pdf In Christ, Beja |
||||||
10 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232910 | ||
You are right I did miss that one. An excellent article written by a renowned author, researcher, apologist and theologian, NOT! It was written by John K Mckee a man whose one aim is the defense Messianic Christianity. A movement which openly and readily admits it wants to retain its Jewish heritage. Do you think it may be just a little biased? The only mention to antinomianism I found from skim reading was this, “Holding the Law of God in very low esteem can lead to what is theologically termed antinomianism—the denial of the importance of the Law of God. Alexander M. Renwick, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, remarks that “It refers to the doctrine that the moral law is not binding upon Christians as a rule of life. In a wider sense it is applied to the views of fanatics who refuse to recognize any law but their own subjective ideas which they usually claim are from the Holy Spirit.” Holding is God’s law in very low esteem is not the driving thrust of Dispensationalism, nor is a topic that any dispensational writers that I’m aware have broached. Nor is it something either you or Doc have provided tangible proof of having occurred. Now let us stop this nonsense. Dispensationalist abhors antinomianism just as you do and it pointless to continue trying to find a remote or isolated comments if one exists that says differently. Doc said what he said and only his God and himself knows his intent. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism. I can only imagine major supporters of the Lockman foundation and the NASB Bible will be surprised to learn of this relationship. |
||||||
11 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232911 | ||
EdB, You said, "End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism" You continue to twist and misrepresent my words. I have never tried to suggest that modern dispensationalism as a rule advocates antinomianism. If you will go back to my first post you will see that I clearly distinguished modern dispensationalist from the ones found in its early days. Just because you reject that distinction does not give you permission to take my statements and suggest I personally am applying them without distinciton. Second, I have only attempted to show a link between early dispensational thought and antinomianism. I never suggested that they actively taught antinomianism by name. I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting my words and trying to present me as attacking those who I would gladly call brothers and friends. In Christ, Beja In Christ, Beja |
||||||
12 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | EdB | 232913 | ||
And I asked for a book, article or paper authored by a Dispensationalist that shows that relationship. Instead you provide a portion of a text that was evidently part of a sermon, so it is fair to say it was taken out of context, as proof Scofield taught antinomianism. And no where does he even suggest in words or idea the two tests you got from dictionaries as proof of antinomianism. If I have misrepresented your words it was unintentional. What I protest was what I thought you were defending. Doc made the connection without distinction of old and new dispensationalism and you jumped in to defend his position. Again I meant no misrepresentation. As I said I think this discussion is ended unless you want to make another charge against me. |
||||||
13 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | azurelaw | 232915 | ||
Dear EdB, I see that you have long been a forum participant since 2001 and my experience in reading some of your past posts no doubt have been pleasant and a blessing. Yet, I feel sad to see your below statement unfair and lacking brotherly love. "As I said I think this discussion is ended unless you want to make another charge against me." I really cannot understand how could you presume Beja's motive if he would continue the discussion. From your such statement, are you saying if he continues to respond, he will be liable to setting any charges against you (be it legitimate or not)? Shalom Azure |
||||||