# The fallacy that is dispensationalism



## Herald (Jan 14, 2007)

I have a dear friend who is in the Plymouth Brethren. We have been discussing Calvinism for a while and he is open to discussion. Recently he asked me about the Reformation Study Bible. We had a discussion about it but he felt the need to ask the opinion of another Plymouth Brethren member. He sent this individual an email and then sent me the response back. I am going to protect the individuals identity but thought it would be interesting to read part of it.



> Dear (name left blank),
> It was good to hear from you. I trust all is well on the family front.
> Things here are extremely busyy as always, but gives great grace.
> 
> ...



In my response back to my friend I tried to dispell this gentlemans claim that Sproul believes Jesus could sin. As I understand Sproul's position, in hypostasis Jesus could not sin. On the other hand if Jesus was not God then not only could He sin, He probably would have sinned. I believe this is Sproul's position. If it is then I believe Sproul was actually defending the hypostasis of Christ. The writer lumps Sproul with Rick Warren. While there are those on the PB that have issues with Sproul, I am sure no one would put him in the class of Rick Warren.

I wrote to my friend that the writer of the email in question was accurate (albeit by accident) on Sproul's position on dispensations. I informed my friend that his denomination conceived the dispensational system under the teachings of John Darby. Dispensationalism has been advanced by men like Finney and Scofield but it finds its roots in John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. 

Please pray for my friend. His first name is Dennis. I can see it is a struggle on his part to swallow the Plymouth Brethren Kool-Aide. The issue is not whether he should purchase a Reformation Study Bible. Study bibles tend to make some people lazy. The real issue with my friend is whether he will trust in the what the bible truly teaches regarding the doctrines of sovereign grace.


----------



## Herald (Jan 14, 2007)

On another note, the church that founded us six years ago was supporting a missionary to Russia. This missionary changed his view on Jesus' hypostasis. He no longer believed that Jesus retained his diety during his incarnation. By holding this view it would be possible (if not probable) that Jesus could have sinned. I believe this is what Sproul was arguing against.

Oh, upon verification of this missionary's changed belief our founding church pulled its support which forced this missionary (and his family) to leave the field and return to the USA. I was glad to see this action taken.


----------



## Bondman (Jan 14, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> On another note, the church that founded us six years ago was supporting a missionary to Russia. This missionary changed his view on Jesus' hypostasis. He no longer believed that Jesus retained his diety during his incarnation. By holding this view it would be possible (if not probable) that Jesus could have sinned. I believe this is what Sproul was arguing against.
> 
> Oh, upon verification of this missionary's changed belief our founding church pulled its support which forced this missionary (and his family) to leave the field and return to the USA. I was glad to see this action taken.



Good ol Pastor Lane came through!


----------

