Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	What????????????????????????????????????	Bible general Archive 1	Lionstrong	7785
	Is what this aurthor writes about dispensationalism, of which Scofield is a representative (is he not?), accurate? Was this ever their view? Or has their view been modified since the days of Scofield to make it more Scriptural?: "It is implied, however, that Adam was to observe the Sabbath day and worship God. And, after the fall at least, he was to offer certain sacrifices. Moreover the story of Cain, and Abel requires us to believe that God had forbidden murder. It would seem likely therefore that God had given Adam all the Ten Commandments. Later, after the flood, these commands were repeated. "Now, unfortunately, among the fundamentalists a certain group talks so as to give the impression that God gave no laws before the days of Moses. These people divide time into several dispensations which are distinguished by different plans of salvation. They speak of a dispensation of conscience, a later dispensation of human government; and only with Moses is the dispensation of law supposed to begin. This dispensational view, in addition to being inconsistent with Genesis, is directly contradicted in Romans 5:13,14. These verses say, "until the law (here Paul refers to the Mosaic law) sin was in the world"; that is to say, people before the time of Moses were sinners. "But," continues Paul, "sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless (sin very obviously was imputed before the days of Moses because) death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over (infants) that had not sinned (voluntarily) after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Accordingly, there must have been law between Adam and Moses because the penalty for disobedience was exacted.... ................... The dipensationalists go on and place a dispensation of grace after the dispensation of law. In this dispensation, i.e., the present age, law has no place. But once again the Scripture contradicts such a view. The three chapters of Romans where our freedom from the law of sin and death is most emphasized are far from disparaging the law. In addition to the strong insistence on the necessity of a righteous life (Rom. 6:2,6,12,15; 8:1,4,13), Paul asserts that the law is holy and good (Rom. 7:12), spiritual (7:14), a delight to the godly man (7:22), and the rule of service (7:25)." Gordon Clark, "What Do Presbyterians Believe?” p. 181, 182.
2	What????????????????????????????????????	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	8543
	Hey Lionstrong, I’m writing in defense of Dispensationalism, and the aspects of dispensationalism described by Mr. Clark are correct. Unfortunately, his attempt to discredit this theology is shameful, at best! This author has chosen to set up dispensationalism as a ‘straw man.’(A perspective so weak that any rational interpretation of scripture rejects that perspective.) This is always done by making general claims about some form of Biblical interpretation and neglecting to mention the justifications and arguments for that interpretation. In this case, Mr. Clark makes some assumptions of his own and, without mentioning the dispensational view, concludes that dispensationalism is idiotic! I’m going to attempt to mention the weaknesses in Mr. Clark’s argument and give Biblical support of the dispensational view, but whether I succeed or fail, I’d encourage you to neglect this writer’s opinions; because, he obviously is willing to misinterpret the facts, or ignore them altogether, to support his view. I don’t want you to think I’m judging you or your theological perspective, there are many dispensationalists that set up reformed theology as a ‘straw man.’ And, I would not suggest reading them either! Any debate must be well considered and well researched, if the writer doesn’t do his/her homework, they should always be ignored. Ten Commandments before Moses: Gen. 2:3, 9:1-17; Romans 2:12-16. The claim was that Genesis ‘implied’ that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. I disagree, if the giving of the Ten Commandments was so important for Moses as to be referenced more than once in the Law, why would they not warrant mention in the book of Genesis? You quote that the Commandments were repeated to Noah, where? See Gen. 9:1-17: in vs. 4 we see a prohibition from eating animals with their blood still in them. (Would that be ceremonial? It’s not one of the Ten, is it?) And, if we study vs. 6, we see that it is not a prohibition against murder, though clearly that was wrong by the vss implication, but rather a method of governing human activity. Whoever hurts a human being, by humans he will be hurt; hence the dispensation of human government. I don’t see anything in these verses that resembles the Ten Commandments! Finally, see Rms 2:12-16, in these verses Paul states that Gentiles did not have the Law (which includes the Ten), but if Adam and Noah had the Law in the form of the Ten, then the Gentiles would have had some of the Law but see vs. 12 ‘without the Law.’ But, Paul says in vs 14 that the Gentiles who ‘instinctively’ or ‘by nature’ do the things of the Law, so there must be an instinct in man to live according to some of GOD’s Laws, and I believe any resemblance between Genesis and the Ten can more appropriately be explained by this ‘instinct.’ Romans 5:13, 14: There are two main interpretations to these verses! Some interpret it in a similar way to Mr. Clark, without adding infant and voluntarily! Dispensationalism is actually more appropriate, in my view, with this interpretation! At the end of vs 13 we read, “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Mr. Clark, along with many others, realized that this ‘law’ is not the Law of Moses (and again, the Law of Moses includes the Ten), so what is this ‘law’? Obviously, it is some standard GOD set up before the Law to determine whether a man was righteous or not. This is exactly what Dispensationalism says! Each dispensation has a standard to which man must attain to be pleasing before GOD, some get closer than others (Noah, Abraham, Job). The other mainstream interpretation of these vss would be rejected by anyone of the Reformed persuasion, so there’s no use in discussing how well it interacts with Dispensationalism. Dispensational Support: Romans 3:21; 4:15, 16; 6:15; 7:1-6; 8:3-4 I didn’t continue past the book of Romans, I feel anything more would be repetitive. 3:21 - ‘apart from the Law’ the righteousness of GOD is displayed in Christ without the burden of the Law! 4:15,16 - Salvation comes to those NOT under the Law! 6:15 - We are NOT under the Law (there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law) but under GRACE! 7:1-6 - When one dies they are FREED from the Law, we have died with Christ! See vs. 6, “But now we have been released from the Law,” again, nothing to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law! 8:3,4 - The requirement of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, including the Ten Commandments! Rebuttal of so-called ‘contradictions’: Of course Paul is NOT disparaging toward the Law! It is Holy, but we are NOT! Paul states that knowing the Law gave sin opportunity, so even though the Law is Holy, its affect on a man with a sinful nature is devastating, so GOD delivered us from the Law, including the Ten!
3	What????????????????????????????????????	Bible general Archive 1	Makarios	8549
	Excellent survey Chris!! You have presented dispensationalism in a most clear and informative way and I appreciate the positive contributions that you have made to the Forum Chris! Keep up the good work, my friend! Blessings, Nolan