Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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? |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | 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. |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | 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. |
||||||
9 | 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 |
||||||