# Is Dispensationalism (John Mcarthur) reason to leave an otherwise sound church?



## jamesinflorida

I attend a non-denominational church that is John MacArthur East. We have pastor and teachers from his seminary and teach verse by verse through the bible. It wan't until we hit Matthew 24 that the depth of the dispensationalist bent hit me in full. Is this something that I should leave the fellowship over? It is stated as part of the doctrinal beliefs and I have great regard for McArthur. Even RC Sproul has said not to break fellowship over this matter from his pulpit as I was lucky enough to ask him personally. But, the more I study this vis-a-vis classic Amil, the more it irritates me to hear this twisted supposed literal interpretation of scripture. It makes me feel that we Christians in this eschatology get to avoid those sufferings which have been suffered by all Believers throughout history. Heh, I am no hero, I got over that in Vietnam, but the more I study (on my own) the worse I feel. Any thoughts on how to reconcile this? Plus, I get the feeling through some of the Elders I speak with that they have no interest in "debating" or considering explaining amil. Sort of a take it or leave it. Thoughts? Input please.


----------



## Notthemama1984

If there is not a local covenantal church that preaches well, then stay. If one is available, I would leave and join it. Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology touches alot more than just eschatology. Personally I do not think a proper view of the Law, sanctification, the sacraments, or covenants can be achieved without covenant theology. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Andres

Chaplainintraining said:


> If there is not a local covenantal church that preaches well, then stay. If one is available, I would leave and join it. Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology touches alot more than just eschatology. Personally I do not think a proper view of the Law, sanctification, the sacraments, or covenants can be achieved without covenant theology.
> 
> Just my two cents.


 
 a lot would depend on what your other options are.


----------



## lynnie

I don't think I could do it. I know everybody has to decide what are essentials and what are non essentials and where to draw the line, and at least they are Calvinists, but to me dispensationalism is a very serious error.


----------



## jamesinflorida

I love the brothers and sisters and they all high quality believers most of whom were brought to our church because of dispositve preaching. We don't live in the eschatology as, say a Hagee or LaHaydoing ther ripped from the headlines, who is the anti Christ this month. But I satisfied myself having seen the destruction of the Temple, the installation of thr Arabs on the mount , Jesus saying It is finished and seeing the Arch of Titus in Rome just outside the forum showing the temple artifacts the Romans brought as plunder, including the Jews they enslaved to build the colosium and the million Jews they murdered. Then the diaspora so that God made clear that temple worship was ended by the killing of Jesus, once for time. It does grevous injury to the all stoning sacrafice if a new temple and animal sacrafice would be imposed again.


----------



## Herald

James,

First, please click on the Signature Requirements link at the bottom of this post and establish your signature. Thank you.

Second, do you lean more towards being a Baptist or Presbyterian? You state that your church is John MacArthur East. Taken on face value that would mean your church is baptistic and practices believers-only baptism. In your profile you state that you subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Presbyterian confession, which teaches infant baptism. Are you more Baptist or Presbyterian in your convictions? That will help determine where you should fellowship if you leave your current church.

I counsel you to proceed slowly. If your pastor teaches the doctrines of grace, take your time in deciding on your next step. I understand the problem you have with dispensational theology. I'm right there with you. The reason I caution you to proceed slowly is so you don't jump from the frying pan into the fire. Be deliberate in evaluating other churches.


----------



## MMasztal

For me it would depend on how much emphasis the pastor places on Dispensational eschatology. If it's in a sermon every month then he may be a closet prophecy nut. In that case I'd be gone.

But in 23 years of attending church on a regular basis, I can't recall any eschatological sermons, but do recall spending close to a year going through Revelation in Sunday School under my pastor, John Fesko, who is now teaching at WSC.

It may be a fault of mine, but I have little interest in doing in-depth study of eschatology and declare myself a pan-millenialist (from a comment a Baptist pastor patient once made to me).


----------



## Brian Withnell

My initial position would be contrary to what I know many here would say. I would only join with a non-denominational church if no reformed, confessional, presbyterian church were available. (Forgive me my baptist brothers, but I am Presbyterian by conviction of scripture ....) so saying "non-denominational" would be sufficient. I would also draw the line at non-confessional (and one of the reformed confessions at that.)

If you have actually joined the church, I would at least talk with the elders (if there are such) and explain that I agree with those denominations that have found dispensational theology error ... with grace and humility. If they refuse to bless your going after hearing your view, then you might need to leave without blessing, but I would not attend a Dispensational church long term if there is a choice.


----------



## Idelette

jamesinflorida said:


> I love the brothers and sisters and they all high quality believers most of whom were brought to our church because of dispositve preaching. We don't live in the eschatology as, say a Hagee or LaHaydoing ther ripped from the headlines, who is the anti Christ this month. But I satisfied myself having seen the destruction of the Temple, the installation of thr Arabs on the mount , Jesus saying It is finished and seeing the Arch of Titus in Rome just outside the forum showing the temple artifacts the Romans brought as plunder, including the Jews they enslaved to build the colosium and the million Jews they murdered. Then the diaspora so that God made clear that temple worship was ended by the killing of Jesus, once for time. It does grevous injury to the all stoning sacrafice if a new temple and animal sacrafice would be imposed again.


 
Hi and welcome to the Puritan Board. I was just curious what exactly you mean when you say that the church is dispensational? I know the church holds to a premil position, but are you saying that the church is teaching dispensational premil? I'm wondering if you could elaborate, because I actually know Pastor Kreloff and his views, and I'm a little confused by what was said above. From what I know of him, I believe he teaches historic premil and not dispensationalism. I would appreciate some more information, thanks!


----------



## AThornquist

My situation is vaguely similar. My church is a small MacArthurite church in Nor Cal. This is the only church with a high view of Scripture in the area, and regardless of what doctrinal points I might disagree with, Christ is proclaimed above anything else. If there was a Reformed alternative in the area I would consider attending *IF* Christ was proclaimed as He is here. I would suggest a similar approach. I don't give a rip if a church holds to more Reformed doctrinal points if it doesn't seek to glorify Christ in everything it does with a proper heart.


----------



## TrueConvert

It's definitely a tough decision. As you can see from my signature, I've moved on from a nondenom McCartherite Church as well. The reason for me though was that Christ was not exalted every week, and that the Gospel was not central. There was also zero OT teaching/preaching due largely to the dispensational bent. I love my brothers who are at the Church stil, but to say that "Christ is ONE theme in Scripture, but the OVERARCHING theme of all of Scripture is God's glory" to explain why Christ isn't preached week in and week out, was one of many straws that kept my family from being able to stay. No Gospel ='d in our case imperative-laden sermons; despair w/ no hope given for believers OR non believers, non Biblical theology meant that small, bite-size portions of text were over examined with no regard for the larger context (ie THE BIBLE as a whole). This experience that we had may be anomalous, and I pray it is. Because I wanted to hear Christ preached in every sermon, I was told I have a low view of Scripture.....I just couldn't remain where Christ was not the center (intentionally)............


----------



## Ne Oublie

Just to make sure, Dispensationalism is not just about Eschatology, it is how one sees and reads the scripture as a whole and how God works in different times with his people. So, how we interpret the scriptures is the key here.
Dispensationalism has different dispensations, too. In the first AEON was the Classical dispensation of Dispensationalism, the second 1000 years was the Modern dispensation of Dispensationalism, 
and now in these end times it is the Progressive dispensation of Dispensationalism and these are the major dispensations in Dispensationalism. The latter has moved even closer toward the Covenant Theology side. But not there yet. That could be in the Tribulation period.

I would appreciate a literal interpretation of this post please. If even possible.


----------



## Scott1

First, consider the vows you have taken there if you are a member.

If you have come to understand covenant theology, as opposed to dispensationalism, and are convicted the former is biblical, this is an over-arching doctrinal difference and you would have grounds to change churches. If you can respectfully articulate that, it can be understood by both your former and new church.

You want to go through the polity process and leave with their permission, understanding and blessing, if possible.

Dr MacArthur is right on many things, and even describes himself as a "leaky" dispensationalist because more-and-more he is seeing the unified plan of redemption through the whole of Scripture.


----------



## jamesinflorida

Yvonne: I would respectfully request that no pastor's names be used, to me, I am discussing a personal issue, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREDENTIALS, MINISTERING TALENT, PREACHING OF GRACE ALONE FOR SALVATION, or a totally respectful position regarding sola scriptura at our church. And I do mean MY CHURCH. It may be a problem with me becoming knowledgeable about matters simply not dealt with before. It certainly is an issue that even RC Sproul, whom I greatly admire, admonished against breaking fellowship over. A real problem is that I am not aware of any other church that is close to my church regarding all other matters that I believe are Calvinist. And, even Calvin declined to exegete Revelation. I am discussing this with a knowledgeable Elder who, quite frankly, was astounded that Eschatology, especially historic premil versus amil was particularly relevant to my walk with Christ. I don't want to be a legalist, but something was stirred in my heart as we went through Matthew 24 recently.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Where are you from? Maybe someone on the board can point you to a good reformed congregation.


----------



## jamesinflorida

Pinellas County, Florida, Clearwater area.


----------



## Wayne

> It may be a problem with me becoming knowledgeable about matters simply not dealt with before.



That seems a very accurate assessment.



> It certainly is an issue that even RC Sproul, whom I greatly admire, admonished against breaking fellowship over.



In fact, RC appears to know your pastor. At the least, I did find that your pastor has an article which appeared in Tabletalk, the Ligonier Ministries magazine.

There are a lot of Reformed churches in that area. Bill was right earlier to ask about your own convictions regarding baptism. If you are going to search for a different church, that's the first consideration.
I can prepare a list of Presbyterian churches in your area, but there's no point in doing that if you are a credobaptist by conviction.


----------



## Wayne

You might also find the current thread on eschatology interesting:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/eschatology-non-essential-56363/


----------



## Mushroom

Is it just me, or does the divide btw Dispensational and covenantal eschatology appear to be widening of late? The local Dispensational monster non-denom McCarthurite Church no longer allows covenantal believers to serve in Church Office. What, pray tell, could be eschatological implications of *that*!?

You have my sympathies, brother. A tough predicament. No sound advice from me, since I would be high-tailing to the nearest covenantal and Confessional Presbyterian body due to my own convictions. But I will pray for you.

BTW, thank you for your service to this country in a very difficult place and time.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I think the divide is widening. I think more and more people are recognizing that Dispensational vs covenant touches more than just eschatology. I had marks taken off of a paper recently for quoting II Chron 7:14 to show that God hates sin in the church and that he blesses church discipline. The marks were taken off because that verse deals with Israel and is OT. It doesn't apply to us.


----------



## jamesinflorida

I am working through a awful lot of information and appreciate all of the input. I am not "freaking out" as if I found out I have joined a Mormon church unintentionally. I want to "“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15). Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## jamesinflorida

Very kind of you to comment, I was just discussing with my son the unbelievable difficulties Vietnam Vets confronted upon return, he doesn't believe me that some "California Progressive" got in my face when I passed through the Los Angeles airport on my way home. I guess the short hair, great suntan, aviator sunglasses, and parachute bag holding my belongings gave me away. Our country certainly has become much more supportive of military personnel and that is a true blessing to all of us. But, MacArthur is also attacked by hard core Dispensationalists, as they are referred to herein. Am I stuck in some unknown middle of this discussion. I am learning everyday...


----------



## R Harris

Over the past year, several people have left our church to go elsewhere due to problems that continue to some degree and the fact that we do not have a pastor. However, I find it very disturbing that several members have gone to the Faith Bible Church, the home of Mark Hitchcock, who has written some strange "prophecy" books over the past several years in the same vein as Hal Lindsey. (In fact, one family that left, the husband was an elder (!!!!) in our PCA church.)

We saw a former member the other night who was going there, and I cautioned her about the Hitchcock writings. Not only was she not aware of all of his writings, she really didn't understand the critical differences between the covenantal and dispensational viewpoints.

It amazes me how members of the congregation oftentimes really don't understand the deeper teachings of Scripture, and particularly how they relate to the denominational differences. It is as if most people really don't care at all or do not feel the differences are all that much to be concerned with. Absolutely amazing.


----------



## Idelette

jamesinflorida said:


> Yvonne: I would respectfully request that no pastor's names be used, to me, I am discussing a personal issue, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREDENTIALS, MINISTERING TALENT, PREACHING OF GRACE ALONE FOR SALVATION, or a totally respectful position regarding sola scriptura at our church. And I do mean MY CHURCH. It may be a problem with me becoming knowledgeable about matters simply not dealt with before. It certainly is an issue that even RC Sproul, whom I greatly admire, admonished against breaking fellowship over. A real problem is that I am not aware of any other church that is close to my church regarding all other matters that I believe are Calvinist. And, even Calvin declined to exegete Revelation. I am discussing this with a knowledgeable Elder who, quite frankly, was astounded that Eschatology, especially historic premil versus amil was particularly relevant to my walk with Christ. I don't want to be a legalist, but something was stirred in my heart as we went through Matthew 24 recently.


 
James, I understand having strong convictions regarding covenant theology and if the Lord has really pressed some things upon you during the study of Matt 24, I think that's wonderful! I am a reformed presbyterian, and have strong views regarding covenant theology myself, so I understand that very well. Personally, I am an amillenialist when it comes to eschatology so I understand your concerns. However, at the same time I would be careful to call a particular church dispensational when they are not. I tried to graciously ask you to demonstrate how the church is teaching dispensationalism by giving specific examples ,however, you have not done so. I was not speaking of Pastor Kreloff's credentials, or his views on calvinism but more specifically the issues that you have brought up here. Which by the way, anyone could google the church and see who the Pastor is. I admire the fact that you are learning, and I think perhaps there has been some miscommunication along the way. Have you actually talked directly to Pastor Kreloff regarding these issues? I am sure that he would be more than willing to go over these things in more detail. Unfortunately, when people think of eschatology they immediately think of either dispensationalism or covenant theology. However, there are more views than that. I would say that the two camps are on the complete opposite spectrum of one another, but there are many views that lie within that spectrum. I found this online, and I think it would be helpful to take a look at when you have some time: COMPARISON OF FOUR ESCHATOLOGICAL POSITIONS I believe that church teaches something more in line with the Historic/Covenant Premil category. If you decide to leave the church over this issue I would completely understand that, but I would just be cautious to speak falsely of the brethern. I don't believe that you have done so intentionally, but there are so many people that read this forum so I would rather things be clarified.


----------



## jamesinflorida

Yvonne: Fair enough comments. I am not leaving until I have exhausted every method I know to fully understand what has troubled me. I am meeting tonight with Elders and will get with Pastor Kreloff if I cannot understand what is bothering me. I am fully comfortable, that but for understanding the historic premil position of the church, that we get the Word preached accurately and with love. I have been a member for over ten years, and only upon hearing Matthew 24 did something stir in me about what EXACTLY I heard. I may have confused the historical position with all of the hyped up end times stuff that flys around, after all they use much of the same pre-trib hysteria. I am making sure that I understand biblical eschatology. That is why I am here, certainly not to be confrontational with other Believers. I admit there are things I know, other things I will never understand short of Glory. I just don't want to sit and absorb things that either I don't understand fully (my query) or that is not biblical. All of the clergy at our church have been nothing short of Godly men and handle the Word fully.


----------



## etexas

I agree with what 2 fellow Texans have said. I would not "jump" out of Membership until you can find something more solid. My 2 cents.


----------



## jamesinflorida

Agreed, Yvonne your chart has narrowed some of my concerns, more reading, praying for a full understanding. It might just be my lack of understanding as we do not "live" in the end times issues. Thanks.


----------



## Wayne

James:

Why haven't you set up your signature block yet?

Click here: http://www.puritanboard.com/usercp.php, scroll down to Edit Signature (on the left side of the page) 
and please get it set up without delay.


----------



## jogri17

I do not believe this is an issue ever merits breaking a church membership oath unless the local church does not permit your views or they begin to teach heresy. Just because someone has a change in theology that does not mean one ought to change churches. Membership vows have meaning.


----------



## Idelette

jamesinflorida said:


> Agreed, Yvonne your chart has narrowed some of my concerns, more reading, praying for a full understanding. It might just be my lack of understanding as we do not \"live\" in the end times issues. Thanks.


 
Hi James,

Yeah, I'm sure you heard a lot of things that would warrant concern, and to be honest sound a lot like Dispensational theology. But, I do hope that chart is somewhat helpful, it helped me tremendously when I was looking at some of these issues. I will be praying for you, that God would direct you in you decisions whether to stay or not. I just did a quick search to see if there were any Presbyterian churches in that area. The closest one that I could find is in Palmetto, not sure how far you are from there but here is their website: Providence (OPC)


----------



## Curt

Include me with those who think the incompatibility factor is very high. Dispensationalists have caused a great deal of damage to our churches and communities, worldwide. That, along with the fact that they despise us, should be enough to warrant, at the very least, looking elsewhere. If push comes to shove, I'm sure that there are some good Reformed denominations that would like to discuss church planting.


----------



## KMK

I agree with Pastor Curt.

I have never been in a true Dispensational church. Do they preach from Matt 5 etc?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Yes they teach from Matt. 5. I heard the Sermon on the Mount growing up. Why would you think they wouldn't?


----------



## DMcFadden

Curt said:


> Include me with those who think the incompatibility factor is very high. Dispensationalists have caused a great deal of damage to our churches and communities, worldwide. That, along with the fact that they despise us, should be enough to warrant, at the very least, looking elsewhere. If push comes to shove, I'm sure that there are some good Reformed denominations that would like to discuss church planting.


 
"Despise"??? That is tarring with a pretty broad brush, don't you think? If you are speaking of Ergun Caner, sure. But, I do not think that you can claim that John MacArthur despises Reformed theology.

As for your broader point, I would agree with you for another reason. During my pastoral years I had more than my share of folks who could think of a few ways to make my life miserable over secondary and tertiary issues (e.g., home schooling -- on BOTH sides of the issue, eschatology, etc.). At times it makes a LOT more sense for a person to move on to a church that better reflects their own theology and practice. Why waste precious time and energy fussing over things when you could be more profitably engaged in positive kingdom work? My desire to try to be everything to everyone led me to waste much energy trying to convince folks to stay despite their disagreements over this, that, or the other thing. However, with maturity comes the realization that such departures can be healthy for the ones with a different theological point and for your own fellowship. Eventually, I came to accept such sadly necessary shifts as "blessed subtractions" for everyone concerned.

Yes, we want to include people and work with them despite an occasional difference of opinion or strategic preference. However, on some of these issues, we will NOT settle them this side of the eschaton and would do well to allow evident brethren to be our co-belligerence in the cause rather than becoming belligerent with one another.

Now that my ministry is in a retirement home community setting, the senior pastor at church is a dispensational pre-tribber. My adult Sunday school class is, shall we say, in a "different direction" under my teaching. He sees me as supportive of his ministry, serves on the board of my retirement community, and does not mind my 5 pt Calvinism and preference for the amil position on eschatology. When we considered the eschatology options a few months ago in SS, I presented all of the major views and explained why I hold to the amil view. IFF he did not permit me to teach such things or considered me a disruptive influence in the congregation, I would consider looking around for another church. However, as long as my tenure continues in the BAPTIST retirement community, it will probably require my presence in the Baptist church.


----------



## Curt

DMcFadden said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Include me with those who think the incompatibility factor is very high. Dispensationalists have caused a great deal of damage to our churches and communities, worldwide. That, along with the fact that they despise us, should be enough to warrant, at the very least, looking elsewhere. If push comes to shove, I'm sure that there are some good Reformed denominations that would like to discuss church planting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despise"??? That is tarring with a pretty broad brush, don't you think? If you are speaking of Ergun Caner, sure. But, I do not think that you can claim that John MacArthur despises Reformed theology.
Click to expand...

 
Broad brush, yes. And MacArthur MAY be an example of those who do not despise us (I emphasize the MAY not because I disagree, but simply because I do not know him well enough). But in my day-to-day dealing with full dispensationalists, I have found nothing but disdain (to put it mildly). They have tried to ruin churches and pastors over these differences in theological perspective. This is my own experience, but it my viewpoint is not limited to personal experience alone.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I don't think "despise" is to harsh of a term for most Dispensationalists. It is common for Dispensationalists to see us as cultic or heretical.


----------



## Curt

Chaplainintraining said:


> I don't think "despise" is to harsh of a term for most Dispensationalists. It is common for Dispensationalists to see us as cultic or heretical.


 
Yes.This is why it is not uncommon, upon entering a Dispensational church building, to find tracts with titles such as "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist?"


----------



## Notthemama1984

Or blaming the demise of a neighboring church because the pastor was one of those crazy calvinists.


----------



## KMK

Chaplainintraining said:


> Yes they teach from Matt. 5. I heard the Sermon on the Mount growing up. Why would you think they wouldn't?



I thought Dispensationalists believed that the Sermon On The Mount was strictly for the Jews. 



DMcFadden said:


> Now that my ministry is in a retirement home community setting, the senior pastor at church is a dispensational pre-tribber. My adult Sunday school class is, shall we say, in a "different direction" under my teaching. He sees me as supportive of his ministry, serves on the board of my retirement community, and does not mind my 5 pt Calvinism and preference for the amil position on eschatology. When we considered the eschatology options a few months ago in SS, I presented all of the major views and explained why I hold to the amil view. IFF he did not permit me to teach such things or considered me a disruptive influence in the congregation, I would consider looking around for another church. However, as long as my tenure continues in the BAPTIST retirement community, it will probably require my presence in the Baptist church.


 
Do you make recordings of these Sunday School classes, Dennis?


----------



## Scott1

> * Chaplainintraining *
> Yes they teach from Matt. 5. I heard the Sermon on the Mount growing up. Why would you think they wouldn't?





> *KMK*
> I thought Dispensationalists believed that the Sermon On The Mount was strictly for the Jews.



You're right, and this is one of the things that helped clarify the very different interpretative framework of the whole of scripture dispensationalism is from covenant theology.

In a detailed discussion about this issue, the dispensational influenced person told me there were "two" gospels- one for "the church," one for "Israel" (which he defined as people who had some Jewish ancestry, but would not say how much). So, it was eye opening for me to hear that the Sermon on the Mount was not intended for the church, but only for those who had some Jewish ancestry but were not believers.

(I have heard others infer from this dispensationalism that the whole of the Ten Commandments do not apply to us today- that somehow that standard is "too low" for us. When I read the Sermon on the Mount though it seems the standard based on the Ten Commandments is so broad, including thought, word and deed that no one, not then, not now, Jew or Gentile, could possibly keep them.)

And dispensationalism leads to two kingdoms as well- one for "the church" and for "Israel" and one had to know their dispensational interpretive framework to know which applied to who.

It was also quite revealing to learn most dispensationalist no longer believe in an eternal separation of "the church" and "Israel." They did originally when the system was first put out, but now, they say they do get together, sometime in the future state of glory.

Covenant theology says they are together now.

With differences like this, once they become apparent to a person, I believe they can be grounds for changing churches, respectfully, within their process and vows, and beneficial for all around to be aware of.

And that's also why reformed theology, at a minimum must be defined by:

doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession

(If it's less than that it may be leaning or trending "reformed" or even "Calvinist" or "covenantal" but not reformed, which is always defined clearly by its confession)


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I doubt that a dispensational church could be "sound" church. They might be pious, they might be good people, but dispensationalism, even progressive dispensationalism (which seems like a real improvement over earlier versions) is still dispensationalism. Further, dispensationalism doesn't occur in an ecclesiastical vacuum. Most of the time it appears in certain sorts of churches.

A "sound" church, _most broadly defined_ would be a Reformational church (at least) grounded in God's Word as confessed by the confessional Reformed (including confessional Anglicans) or Lutherans. I would rather, however, work with the category used by the Reformed in the Reformation of "true" and "false" churches. 

Here Belgic Confession Art 29 is most helpful, however difficult it may to apply in our time:



> *Article 29: The Marks of the True Church *
> 
> We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."
> 
> We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."
> 
> The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.
> 
> As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ.
> 
> They love the true God and their neighbors, They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
> 
> Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
> 
> As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
> 
> These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.



From a confessional Reformed point of view, does any Dispensational congregation have all three marks? Can it? I suppose theoretically, but then how relevant would the dispensationalism be in the life and doctrine of such a congregation?


----------



## jrdnoland

I also like a lot of what John MacArthur teaches, but if you are sure the church you are attending is teaching something falsely that may affect your view of God, then I think you'd have to at least look into other churches.

I just started reading Calvins Institutes and I think this section is relevant to your concerns, I especially like the quote "No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth."




> Book One Chapter 4
> 
> 3.We are not to fashion God according to our own whim
> 
> In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be,not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and is no spectra or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses,mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either contemptuously overlooks, or even undisguisedly rejects, the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured that he takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own childish conceits. Hence that vague and wandering opinion of Deity is declared by an apostle to be ignorance of God: "Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."(Gal.4:8) And he elsewhere declares, that the Ephesians were "without God" (Eph. 2: 12) at the time when they wandered without any correct knowledge of him. It makes little difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by departing from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable idol. It remains, therefore, to conclude with Lactantius, (Instit.Div. lib i. 2,, 6,) "No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth."


----------

