Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5180 | ||
Two very informative books to read in order to understand Dispensationalism are by Charles Ryrie, entitled _Dispensationalism Today_ and _So Great Salvation_. Likewise, John Waalvoord and Zane Hodges are also a well-respected authors among Dispensationalists. As far as understanding and getting a grip of Covenant/Reformed theology, there is no modern writer who has done more to expound clearly on this theology than R.C. Sproul. One of the best works in recent years which introduces the principal tenets of Reformed theology is Sproul's _Grace Unknown_. Also, works by the late James Montgomery Boice, J.I. Packer, Jeames R. White, and John Piper will give you a lot of insight into the distinctives of Reformed theology. Just this week, I finished reading Boice's final book, _Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?_. It sums up very well the reasons why I adhere to a Calvinist/Reformed theology today, despite the fact that I have attended churches with a Dispensationalist outlook all my life (and in fact still do). Dispensationalists and Covenental types would agree on these five points: 1. Scripture alone as our source of authority 2. God's grace alone as the reason for our salvation, rather than any merit on our part 3. Faith in Christ's sinless life, substitutionary death, and resurrection as the only means of our justification; works in no way form the basis of our imputed "right standing" with God. 4. Christ's sacrifice alone is the sole mechanism by which God provides forgiveness of sins; there is "no other way" (John 14:6) 5. The glory for all of this goes completely and totally to God alone. So where is the problem? In my view, it is the emphasis or understanding that the two camps give these 5 "solas" ("sola" means "alone"). For example, most Dispensationalists stress defend the Biblical revelation of "faith alone" to the extent that most will contend that it is entirely possible to place one's faith in Christ and never be outwardly changed in the slightest as a result of the new birth. I always had a problem with the fact that Dispensationalist preachers always seemed to be uncomfortable with James 2, and especially the Gospels, where Jesus constantly tell his followers that following Christ entails obedience to him. Most Dispensationalists feel much more comfortable with John than Matthew, because John stresses that belief is the ground of our faith, but Matthew talks so much about being a disciple of Christ and eternal suffering awaiting even those who claim to be of Christ but whose deeds do not point that out. Therefore, while works are not the BASIS of salvation, true saving faith always RESULTS in works -- a concept that many Dispensationalists deny. In addition, here are other reasons why I have come to adhere to covenental theology: 1. Its strong intellectual and historical tradition, which places an emphasis not only on the "end times," but also a great emphasis on glorifying God here on earth, taking seriously the mandates God has for his church. 2. Its undeniable clinging to the sovereignty and the holiness of God, and consequently the spiritual deadness and depravity of the unregenerate. God micromanages the universe in a Reformed view, and even man's will is subjected to his control, which I think is the most clearly Biblical position. The Bible is a book primarily about God, not a book about us. 3. Dispensationalism has only come into vogue in the last 150 years or so, which doesn't make it wrong in itself; but one has to question a view that basically says that almost everyone from the earliest church Fathers through the Reformers up until the small groups in mid-1800's never adopted a pre-tribulational, Dispensationalist view. 4. I cannot be convinced that "carnal Christianity" is in the slightest a permanent condition to which God calls individuals. How does that bring glory to God? If someone asks me if James is telling us that a "dead faith" can save us, I think the context pretty clearly says "no." Therefore, the Reformer's view of faith goes beyond mere intellectual agreement with Christ's death and resurrection, but carries with it the idea of new birth (regeneration) from above, which leads to not only justification but also the bearing of fruit. But enough of me for now. Let's let someone else talk. Hope this helps start us off! --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Hank | 5189 | ||
Joe, thank you for your well-written answer to a tough question. Your essay had balance and clarity. You did your homework well. Your students should be proud of their teacher! --Hank | ||||||
3 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5216 | ||
Thanks for your encouragement, Hank. Of course, the trouble is "shutting off the valve" before I bore everyone to death! By the way, Hank, a personal question for you. You say in your profile that you use both the Ryrie and the MacArthur study Bibles as references. As you undoubtedly know, they have a very big difference of opinion when it comes to the so-called "Free Grace"/"Lordship Salvation" debate. Which one do you side with? --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Hank | 5221 | ||
Joe, I hold with free grace, but not in quite the same sense as I understand some proponents of it to mean. One of the "proof texts" that is frequently cited is Ephesians 2:8-9 in which Paul says we have been saved by grace through faith, not of ourselves; it is a gift of God; not of works lest anyone should boast. But Paul doesn't leave it at that. He says (v.10) that we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good WORKS (emphasis mine). I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is a gift of God and that there is nothing we can do -- no "works" -- to earn it. However, it also teaches that good works are the result of regeneration. James speaks of a faith that is without works as being a dead faith. Not everything which is claimed to be faith is genuine. Thus if someone who claims to have been saved "continues in sin that grace may abound" one can reasonably question whether the claim is valid. You will know them by their fruits. I believe the teaching that God's gift of salvation places no demands on the believer to "walk in newness of life" in obedience to Him is false teaching. It's what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called cheap grace. You make a valid argument that Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur do have some differences of opinion. But then when have we ever seen theologians agree on all points of the Christian faith? Ryrie and MacArthur both agree on the Triunity and salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Beyond that, all else is secondary exposition anyway. By the way, I don't prize study Bibles the way some of my friends do. JVH of this Forum, whose postings now top out over 700, said in an e-mail to me recently, "It's amazing how much light the Scriptures shed on study Bibles!" --Hank | ||||||
5 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5231 | ||
I think MacArthur's view does mirror your own (which is also the view I have). One thing you pointed out which a great number of people seem to miss is that we were not merely saved for our sakes. Yes, we do have eternal life, but almost every passage which talks about God's free gift of salvation also mentions our PURPOSE (glorification of God), such as Eph. 2:10 or 1 Peter 2:9,10 or 2 Corinthians 2:17-20. So many people are fond of quoting the "we are saved by grace through faith" without showing that we are indeed saved unto good works. I think that the crux of the problem has to do with two aspects of God's salvation. As you mentioned, both parties have the JUSTIFICATION part down, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account. What Ryrie and company downplay, in my opinion, is God's REGENERATION, the new birth. It just seems almost impossible to miss that we are not only declared righteous when we are saved, but that we indeed become "new creations." By focusing on justification, many of the Dallas Theological Seminary camp overlook (at least in practice) the supernatural change that is not just a legal declaration, but a true spiritual transformation. Thanks again for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||