BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Hello PastorWay
Got a few questions.
You write:
19. Salvation of OT Saints
DISP - [b:b231775cd5]Some saved by works[/b:b231775cd5]
PD - Same as CT
CT - All who are saved are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
NCT - Same as CT
Where do you get this from ? I hear this charge often and have went to current dispensationalist writers to see if the charge is true.
It is NOT. Ryrie deals directly with this charge in his revised edition of [i:b231775cd5]Dispensationalism[/i:b231775cd5] in Chapter 6, starting at page 105. On pages 106 and 107, he writes the following:
Undoubtedly, the charge persists because dispensationalists have made unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today's debate. Antidispensationalist are never quick to allow for refinement in the statements of dispensationalism, particularly if it dulls their attack. Scofield did write, "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvaiton, but acceptance or rejection of Christ." (SRB, 1909, p. 1115 n. 2) But Scofield also wrote some other things, and what would he write today if he were alive and answering present-day critics of dispensationalism ? The [i:b231775cd5]New Scofield Bible[/i:b231775cd5] clarified the note:
[quote:b231775cd5]Under the former dispensation, the law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 2:21-22). Prior to the cross man's salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3), being grounded on Chrit's atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God...; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are reiceved by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior." (NSRB, 1124, f. 2). [/quote:b231775cd5]
Not so incidentally, nondispensationalists have made a few unguarded statements themselves about salvation under the Mosaic Law. Oswald Allis wrote, "The Law is a declaration of the will of God for man's salvation." (Propecy and the Church, p. 39) Louis Berkhof wrote in one place, "Grace offers escape from the law as a condition of salvation," and in another place, "From the law...both as a means of obtaining etrnal life and as a condemning power believers are set free in Christ." (Systematic, Banner of Truth edition, pp. 291 and 614) If, as these covenant theologians [i:b231775cd5]clearly[/i:b231775cd5] state, the law was a means of salvation and of obtaining eternal life, then covenant theologians must teach two ways of salvation - one by law and one through Christ!
However, though these unguarded statements by covenant writers indicate two ways of salvation, we know full well that covenant theology insists on a single way of salvation , [i:b231775cd5]and it would be unfair to insist or imply otherwise.[/i:b231775cd5] Similarly, antidispensationalists who seize one one unguarded statement of Scofield's out to have the same consideration and not leave people with the wrong impression. Dispensationalism does [i:b231775cd5]not[/i:b231775cd5] teach two ways of salvation, and there have been sufficient statements by dispensationalists to prove this fact. Let the opponents be fair and present the entire picture.
The positive teaching of dispensational writers is that salvation is always through God's grace. Chafer asserted this position clearly:
[quote:b231775cd5]
Are thre two ways by which one may be saved ? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific charachter is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. [b:b231775cd5]This is to assert that God never saved anyone one person or group of persons on any other round than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is, therefore, but ONE WAY to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ."[/b:b231775cd5] (Chafer, "Inventing Heretics Through Misunderstanding", BibSac 102, January 1945, p. 1, emphasis mine)[/quote:b231775cd5]
Ryrie, Dispensationalism (1994 Edition), pp. 106-108
That's question #1.
Question #2 -
28. Millennial Reign
DISP - Literal thousand years on earth - pre-mil
PD - Same as DISP
CT - Millennial reign is figurative for the current age - amil, some post-mil, a few historic pre-mil
NCT - Same as CT
You forgot to mention that there are some Covenant theologians such as G.E. Ladd and Spurgeon who held to a literal millennium. The author of http://www.messiahskingdom.com is a former PCA elder who is also historic premill (futurist).
Also in relation to question # 20 - what do you mean by 'sin-bearer' ?
#25 and 26 disturb me, especially since as a former normative dispensationalist (my old pastor sat under Ryrie), I was taught a threefold division of the law - Civic, ceremonial and moral. Civic law was specific to Israel and their direct situations (i.e.- the eye for an eye, destruction of property laws, stoning laws) and as such, have no bearing on the church today, though they can be applied to modern analagous situations, ceremonial laws were the temple laws which were all fulfilled in Christ at His sacrifice - [i:b231775cd5]perfectly[/i:b231775cd5] so that they no longer need to be repeated and the moral laws (i.e.- death penalty, prohibitions on homosexuality) are still applicable to the believer today.
As far back as I can remember, I've never seen anything in Dispensational literature which stated that if a law isn't repeated in the NT, it's not binding on the believer (though I [b:b231775cd5]have[/b:b231775cd5] heard that argument from a covenant person).
Looking for clarification, brother.:bs2:
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by OS_X]
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by OS_X]
Got a few questions.
You write:
19. Salvation of OT Saints
DISP - [b:b231775cd5]Some saved by works[/b:b231775cd5]
PD - Same as CT
CT - All who are saved are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
NCT - Same as CT
Where do you get this from ? I hear this charge often and have went to current dispensationalist writers to see if the charge is true.
It is NOT. Ryrie deals directly with this charge in his revised edition of [i:b231775cd5]Dispensationalism[/i:b231775cd5] in Chapter 6, starting at page 105. On pages 106 and 107, he writes the following:
Undoubtedly, the charge persists because dispensationalists have made unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today's debate. Antidispensationalist are never quick to allow for refinement in the statements of dispensationalism, particularly if it dulls their attack. Scofield did write, "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvaiton, but acceptance or rejection of Christ." (SRB, 1909, p. 1115 n. 2) But Scofield also wrote some other things, and what would he write today if he were alive and answering present-day critics of dispensationalism ? The [i:b231775cd5]New Scofield Bible[/i:b231775cd5] clarified the note:
[quote:b231775cd5]Under the former dispensation, the law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 2:21-22). Prior to the cross man's salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3), being grounded on Chrit's atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God...; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are reiceved by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior." (NSRB, 1124, f. 2). [/quote:b231775cd5]
Not so incidentally, nondispensationalists have made a few unguarded statements themselves about salvation under the Mosaic Law. Oswald Allis wrote, "The Law is a declaration of the will of God for man's salvation." (Propecy and the Church, p. 39) Louis Berkhof wrote in one place, "Grace offers escape from the law as a condition of salvation," and in another place, "From the law...both as a means of obtaining etrnal life and as a condemning power believers are set free in Christ." (Systematic, Banner of Truth edition, pp. 291 and 614) If, as these covenant theologians [i:b231775cd5]clearly[/i:b231775cd5] state, the law was a means of salvation and of obtaining eternal life, then covenant theologians must teach two ways of salvation - one by law and one through Christ!
However, though these unguarded statements by covenant writers indicate two ways of salvation, we know full well that covenant theology insists on a single way of salvation , [i:b231775cd5]and it would be unfair to insist or imply otherwise.[/i:b231775cd5] Similarly, antidispensationalists who seize one one unguarded statement of Scofield's out to have the same consideration and not leave people with the wrong impression. Dispensationalism does [i:b231775cd5]not[/i:b231775cd5] teach two ways of salvation, and there have been sufficient statements by dispensationalists to prove this fact. Let the opponents be fair and present the entire picture.
The positive teaching of dispensational writers is that salvation is always through God's grace. Chafer asserted this position clearly:
[quote:b231775cd5]
Are thre two ways by which one may be saved ? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific charachter is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. [b:b231775cd5]This is to assert that God never saved anyone one person or group of persons on any other round than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is, therefore, but ONE WAY to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ."[/b:b231775cd5] (Chafer, "Inventing Heretics Through Misunderstanding", BibSac 102, January 1945, p. 1, emphasis mine)[/quote:b231775cd5]
Ryrie, Dispensationalism (1994 Edition), pp. 106-108
That's question #1.
Question #2 -
28. Millennial Reign
DISP - Literal thousand years on earth - pre-mil
PD - Same as DISP
CT - Millennial reign is figurative for the current age - amil, some post-mil, a few historic pre-mil
NCT - Same as CT
You forgot to mention that there are some Covenant theologians such as G.E. Ladd and Spurgeon who held to a literal millennium. The author of http://www.messiahskingdom.com is a former PCA elder who is also historic premill (futurist).
Also in relation to question # 20 - what do you mean by 'sin-bearer' ?
#25 and 26 disturb me, especially since as a former normative dispensationalist (my old pastor sat under Ryrie), I was taught a threefold division of the law - Civic, ceremonial and moral. Civic law was specific to Israel and their direct situations (i.e.- the eye for an eye, destruction of property laws, stoning laws) and as such, have no bearing on the church today, though they can be applied to modern analagous situations, ceremonial laws were the temple laws which were all fulfilled in Christ at His sacrifice - [i:b231775cd5]perfectly[/i:b231775cd5] so that they no longer need to be repeated and the moral laws (i.e.- death penalty, prohibitions on homosexuality) are still applicable to the believer today.
As far back as I can remember, I've never seen anything in Dispensational literature which stated that if a law isn't repeated in the NT, it's not binding on the believer (though I [b:b231775cd5]have[/b:b231775cd5] heard that argument from a covenant person).
Looking for clarification, brother.:bs2:
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by OS_X]
[Edited on 4-19-2004 by OS_X]