Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The brush is too broad. Are you asking if they would fall back on them in light of a perception that the law is no longer in effect?
In my experience, virtually all the dispensationalists I have met would hold to the Ten Commandments as being morally binding today, even though it may be inconsistent with their theology.
I wonder why some think its necessary for the Bible to repeat the OT teaching somewhere in the NT for it to still be in effect.They are abolished unless they are repeated in the NT.
I wonder why some think its necessary for the Bible to repeat the OT teaching somewhere in the NT for it to still be in effect.They are abolished unless they are repeated in the NT.
Do dispensationalists believe that the moral values that were in existence prior to the Law of Moses were abolished? I was just wondering because some dispensationalists believe that the entire Law of Moses was abolished.
When this belief is challenged about the law being abolished/abrogated, some become a little defensive. I wonder if that's because they perceive the challenge as an attack on Christ's finshed work, or because it implies keeping the law to earn salvation.Generally it seems that the main reason for this is their strong belief that Christ actually did abolish/abrogate everything in the law that is found in the OT - so then they look to the NT for their only true source of guidance (though you'll still hear dispensationalist pastors preach from the OT, or at least reference OT texts)
In my experience, virtually all the dispensationalists I have met would hold to the Ten Commandments as being morally binding today, even though it may be inconsistent with their theology.
I wonder why some think its necessary for the Bible to repeat the OT teaching somewhere in the NT for it to still be in effect.They are abolished unless they are repeated in the NT.
That's very true. We've had some pretty good discussions on the board about dispensationalism in the last year or so in which the defender(s) of dispensationalism pointed out that the dispensationalism being argued against isn't what dispensationalists believe any more. It kind of takes some of the wind out of your sails when you argue against something most don't believe any more.When you ask a question like this it is almost impossible to get a useful answer since there is no Dispensational Confession of Faith. Are you taking classic or progressive?
Does not being under the law mean the same thing as not being expected to obey the law any more?That is partially true the believer is under the law of Christ not the law of Moses.
That's very true. We've had some pretty good discussions on the board about dispensationalism in the last year or so in which the defender(s) of dispensationalism pointed out that the dispensationalism being argued against isn't what dispensationalists believe any more. It kind of takes some of the wind out of your sails when you argue against something most don't believe any more.When you ask a question like this it is almost impossible to get a useful answer since there is no Dispensational Confession of Faith. Are you taking classic or progressive?
Classic dispensationalism was the only dispensationalism I've ever know until recently. I'll admit I'm lazy at times academically, but I can't see myself putting in the time to learn what makes progressive dispensationalism different - in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "Will this eventually be something that "nobody believes anymore"?
As I recall, dispensationalism began in the Presbyterian church, and was a break from the commonly accepted covenant theology of the time. Classic dispensationalism was very different for CT, progressive dispensationalism is much more similar to CT than classic. Since dispensationalism seems to be in a state of flux, do think it'll eventually run full circle and end up as CT?This is really a good observation. Dispensationalism really isn't confessional, creedal or apt to being put in a box. Many have tried to systematize it or relegate it to a hermeneutical approach, with little success. In fact, when asked if he was a dispensationalist, MacArthur recently stated that he really didn't know what it meant. If it means a separation of the church and Israel, sure. But there's a whole lot more to the picture.
I think both sides agree Jesus fulfilled the law. I guess maybe the next question to ask, since Jesus fulfilled the law, how does that affect the Christian's relationship to the law, or the non-Christian for that matter? Are we expected to strive to keep the law (not to earn salvation or anything, but simply because God commanded it)? The verse is often quoted about us not being under the law, but under grace now. Is the dispensational and CT understanding the same here? How are they the same or different?One thing to be more clear on, Jesus fulfilled the law, He didn't abolish it. It's a very important distinction and one that should help those who truly attempt to understand where dispensationalists are coming from. Those Dispensationalists who do claim that Jesus abolished it haven't really worked out their own understanding of the law.
Do dispensationalists believe that the moral values that were in existence prior to the Law of Moses were abolished? I was just wondering because some dispensationalists believe that the entire Law of Moses was abolished.
When you ask a question like this it is almost impossible to get a useful answer since there is no Dispensational Confession of Faith. Are you taking classic or progressive? It ususally boils down to whatever their teacher/mentor taught, which could be anything. They are not required to be consistent with their overall system.
As I recall, dispensationalism began in the Presbyterian church, and was a break from the commonly accepted covenant theology of the time. Classic dispensationalism was very different for CT, progressive dispensationalism is much more similar to CT than classic. Since dispensationalism seems to be in a state of flux, do think it'll eventually run full circle and end up as CT?
And, Aaron, what constitutes the Law of Moses? The ceremonial laws of the nation of Israel AND the Ten Commandments? Just the ceremonial laws? Are you saying that Christ brought a *new* law?
The Law of Moses constituted all the old testament ordnances. the Ten Commandments are done a way with and Christ brought a new law that is written on the heart of the believer by the Holy Ghost. So in short that is what I meant to say.
Does not being under the law mean the same thing as not being expected to obey the law any more?That is partially true the believer is under the law of Christ not the law of Moses.
The law of Moses is not binding on the believer so no the believer no longer has to follow any commandment under the law of Moses. But we are under the law of Christ which is written on our hearts by The holy Ghost.
The Law of Moses constituted all the old testament ordnances. the Ten Commandments are done a way with and Christ brought a new law that is written on the heart of the believer by the Holy Ghost. So in short that is what I meant to say.
What does that "new law" consist of?
The Law of Moses constituted all the old testament ordnances. the Ten Commandments are done a way with and Christ brought a new law that is written on the heart of the believer by the Holy Ghost. So in short that is what I meant to say.
What does that "new law" consist of?
When a believer is regenerated God gives Him a new heart spirtually speaking. So with that new heart comes a new law this is shown in Paul's epistles along with The Sermon on The Mount where Christ says "it has been said but I say unto you". That is my understanding of it.
That is partially true the believer is under the law of Christ not the law of Moses.