The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Sabbath

Johannah,



In His Grace,

Moral law, as it originates in the eternal and holy nature of God, and as it relates to the nature of creation in its various moral estates, is the foundation for all other categories we speak of in connection with law. It is common to divide the law into three categories: moral, ceremonial and judicial (civil).<br><br>These are the categories used in the Westminster Confession as well as in many other historic statements of faith. It should not be assumed that these represent three independent and separable types of law. If moral law is the principal base of all ethics and reflects the holiness of the Creator, then we should presume that the other categories are designated to show how it applies in creation from various considerations. The ceremonial laws were instituted to reveal the redemptive work of Christ in restoring fallen men to a right standing under the moral law, and the judicial is exemplary of how moral law ought to have governed Israel.<br><br>Some have taken certain passages concerning the law and confused some issues. Either they degrade the whole of God's law by eliminating things that were not abrogated, or they retain fulfilled aspects of the law which would deny the full satisfaction by the Savior of what they depicted. Example:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Romans 10:4 For Christ is the [color:red][i]end</font color=red> of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. </font color=blue>[/i]</blockquote> If Jesus did not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17), then what does Paul mean when he said that Jesus Christ is the [color:red]end</font color=red> of the law? Does Paul take a different view than Jesus himself? Does he somehow understand that the coming of Christ has canceled the moral requirements of the moral commandments summarized for us on Mt. Sinai? that in some way sin is no longer to be defined by the law of God? Absolutely not! <br><br>While Jesus used the word (plaerosai) meaning that he came to [color:red]fulfill</font color=red> the law, Paul uses another word. He says that Jesus, in his accomplishing his work or redemption, has become the (telos) of the law. He is the [color:red]end</font color=red> of the law. <br><br>The concept of [color:red]fulfilling</font color=red> means to bring something to its full measure. Being the [color:red]end</font color=red> of the law means to bring it to its goal, to its intended end product. <br><br>This same word (telos) is used by Peter in his discussion of saving faith. <br><br>[color:blue]1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the [color:red][i]end</font color=red> (telos) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.</font color=blue>[/i] <br><br>Certainly Peter did not mean that the salvation of our souls comes by eliminating our faith. That meaning of the word [color:red]end</font color=red> would be completely out of place. The translators rightly have used the word [color:red]end</font color=red> (outcome) to show that faith, when brought to its full work in us, is God's means of salvation. Salvation is what faith issues as its fruit in us. It is the goal of our belief in the promise of the gospel. <br><br>Jesus is no more the eliminating of the law, that our salvation comes by the eliminating of our faith. That is simply not the meaning of the word used here. Jesus may be said to be the outcome of the law. He is that toward which the law was directing us who love and obey it. He is the goal of the law. <br><br>The law shows our sin and failure to have righteousness on our own. It shows us how Jesus lived a holy life in our place. It convicts the regenerate soul and drives it to the Savior. <br><br>Jesus used this same word on the Cross. John records how Jesus completed the work the Father had given him. He had reached the goal of the promise of the covenant of redemption. <br><br>[color:blue]John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is [color:red][i]finished</font color=red>: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. </font color=blue>[/i]<br><br>The word used by Jesus for finished is (tetelestai), from this same word (telos). Jesus was indicating not that its over. But that the work he came to do was finished, completed, consummated. <br><br>The writer of Hebrews uses the same work of the completion of our salvation in Christ in Hebrews 6:1 and 10:14. Jesus is the perfection of the law. He is its goal and end product. As Savior he accomplished what the law promised and made it possible that redeemed sinners would be enabled to live obediently with the glory of God as their true motivation. <br><br>Romans 10:4 carries this same meaning. Jesus is not the cancellation of the law, he is not its cessation. He is its completion, its goal, its consummate ennoblement, its perfecter. By his completed work he brings righteousness to all who believe. The law is exalted by Paul. It is in no way degraded. <br><br>Conclusions about the moral law: <br><br><ul>1. Its necessity: Moral principles derive from the nature of the Creator. Therefore it is not possible for these principles to be unimportant or optional in a creation intended to declare the Creator's glory, eternal power and divine nature. <br><br>2. Its perpetuity: Since the nature of God is eternal and unchangeable, so also must the moral principles of his creation be perpetually binding. <br><br>3. Is revelation: Since God made all of Creation to declare his glory, which includes his holiness and justice, therefore God makes known his moral principles obligating all moral creatures to obey them perfectly and personally.[/LIST] To honor God, and to live at peace with his creation (including other humans) requires that the revealed moral law should be obeyed. (GRIS)

Pilgrim said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Well, because you are so ingrained in your Dispensationalism.....</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><font class="big">The Father's of early church history believed in divisions of history based on God's dealings with man.</font mu=big><br><br>"Some critics assume that Dispensationalism is a recent doctrine invented by Dr. C.I. Scofield and J.N. Darby, implying that Dispensationalism is a doctrine of modern times and does not have Biblical authority. However, research will show that neither C.I. Scofiel or J.N. Darby are the inventors of Dispensationalism or the final authority on the subject."<br><br>http://www.biblebelievers.com/BlueDISP.html <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Father's of early church history believed in divisions of history based on God's dealings with man.</font><hr></blockquote><p> There is nothing wrong in seeing dispensations in the Bible. Covenant theologians like Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof have their own dispensational schemes but all under the umbrella of the covenant of grace. There are not seven ispensations, but only two: (1) the dispensation (or covenant) of works (Gen 1:1-3:14), and (2) the dispensation (or covenant) of grace (Gen 3:15-Rev 22:21). God instituted the covenant of grace in Gen 3:15. The Lord Himself was the first Preacher of the Gospel when He declared, [color:blue]And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.</font color=blue> The Lord promised a Saviour from the seed of a woman—the virgin-born Son of God—who will save His people from sin (Isa 7:14, Matt 1:21-23). The covenant of grace consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. They differ in administration, but not in substance. The Mediator of both Testaments is the same, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). The means of salvation is also the same—by grace through faith (Hab 2:4, Rom 4:9-25, Gal 3:7-9, Heb 11:6).<br><br>On the other hand, the Scofield Bible cautions its readers that its teachings are the opposite of those of historic Christianity, those historic teachings being untrustworthy. The reader is told that as he studies the Gospels he must free his mind from the beliefs that the church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the church. Scofield admitted that this belief was "a legacy in Protestant thought" (p. 989).<br><br>In speaking of the dispensational teaching that the church was not prophesied in the Old Testament, Harry A. Ironside (Mysteries Of God, p. 50) boasts of the fact that this teaching was non-existent until introduced by John Darby in the nineteenth century. In fact, until brought to the forefront, through the writings and preaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr. J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon throughout a period of 1600 years! Search the remarks of the ECF, both pre and post-Nicene, the theological treatises of the scholastic divines, Roman Catholic writers of all shades of thought; the literature of the Reformation; the sermons and expositions of the Puritans; and the general theological works of the day. You will find the "mystery" conspicuous by its absence. <br><br>Writing in the introduction of a book by Lewis Sperry Chafer (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 5), Scofield said:<br><br><blockquote>Protestant theology has very generally taught that all the kingdom promises, and even the great Davidic covenant itself, are to be fulfilled in and through the Church. The confusion thus created has been still further darkened by the failure to distinguish the different phases of the kingdom truth indicated by the expression "kingdom of Heaven," and "kingdom of God." </blockquote> John Walvoord, in an article in Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan.-Mar., 1951, p. 11) points up the fact that his millennial thinking is a departure from that of the great Reformation theologians.<br><br><blockquote>Reformed eschatology has been predominantly Amillennial. Most if not all the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were Amillennial in their eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine.</blockquote> These quotations serve to prove at least two things concerning dispensational theologians: (1) their actual contempt for the thinking of historic Christian theologians, and (2) the fact that dispensational doctrines (note especially their teaching that the church is separate from Israel) are of comparatively recent origin.<br><br><center>[color:red]The History of Dispensationalism</font color=red><br>Author: Kevin Hartley</center><br><br>Dispensationalism is a rather recent phenomenon. Attempts to affirm its existence prior to the late 19th century have proven unsuccessful. It has a history consisting of no more than two centuries, with its success mostly due to events in the 20th century, where it has been most prevalent in the United States. It is a later development in Reformation history and has its roots in the Plymouth Brethren movement in late Puritan England. Its counterpart was Methodism and Arminianism. As a system of theology or dogma, it is identifiable by its singular distinctive: it defines God’s relationship to men based upon ethnicity. Dispensationalism, as it will be defined in the next chapter, while claiming many facets distinctive to its theology, boils down to the singular presupposition that the physical nation Israel was, and remains, peculiar within the economy of God’s redemptive plan beyond the day of Pentecost. The most fundamental distinctive and basic presupposition of dispensationalism is that God relates to men in one of two ways: as an Israelite of physical descent or as a non-Israelite of physical descent. Dispensationalism is identified by this fundamental premise, and if we are to look for dispensationalism historically, we must look for this premise. <br><br>In the previous chapters, dogma has been identified by its presupposition. Federal theology was identified by its covenant motif, which was not evident in history until the late 16th century. Its antecedents were evident quite early in church history, but its formulation was a result of the Reformation. The same was shown regarding antinomianism; while its tenants historically preceded Luther, its formulation was not fully evident until Johannes Agricola set forth his teaching in the early 16th century. Thus both federalism and antinomianism are consequential to the Reformation, and their fundamental presuppositions are directly related to it. In like circumstance, efforts to show dispensationalism’s historical validity have proven unsuccessful. This is why it was stated above that dispensationalism is a rather recent phenomenon. Prior to John Nelson Darby, in the 19th century, dispensationalism did not exist, but elements of it did exist. Premillennialism can be traced back quite early in church history (though never a dominant view), as could the dispensational divisions John Darby affirms; yet, just as it was shown with federalism and antinomianism, the mere existence of traits conducive to dogma do not affirm its existence. It is the fundamental presupposition of a theology that affirms its existence. Just because premillennialism has a history that predates Darby does not mean that dispensationalism has a history traceable to the early church. Attempts to claim early church attestation for dispensationalism have failed. It is identifiable, historically, by its presupposition, and its presupposition did not exist until the days of John Darby. John Gerstner notes, “There is little point in closely surveying early church history for anticipations of Dispensationalism proper. Dispensationalists themselves claim novelty for their system. They recognize that it was mainly a nineteenth-century phenomenon.”<br><br>Equally, Charles Ryrie states:<br><br><blockquote>The first straw man is to say that dispensationalists assert that the system was taught in postapostolic times. Informed dispensationalists do not claim that. They recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that the outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier.</blockquote> So, both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists agree that dispensationalism, as a system, began in the late 19th century.<br><br> Dispensationalism’s lateness in the aftermath of the Reformation makes its association with the Reformation somewhat removed. As has been shown, federalism arose directly from questions in Reformation theology, as did antinomianism. Dispensationalism can claim no such relationship, but must trace its origins from the first generation children of the Reformation, perhaps even from the Church of England itself. The only consequential relationship dispensationalism may claim to the Reformation is through its roots in the so-called Radical Reformation. However, dispensationalism appears to be isolated to the Plymouth Brethren and its association with John Darby. Dispensationalism did not arise from questions regarding the sovereignty of God and election, nor did it arise from the tension raised by the doctrine of justification by faith alone; rather, it arose through ecclesiastical concerns of post-Puritan English Reformation tensions, as summarized by Daniel Steele: <br><br><blockquote> Darby, a clergyman in the Church of England, renounced the Church, and assumed that all existing Church organizations are a detriment to Christianity, and obstructive of regeneration and the spiritual life [. . .]. They insist that in Christianity there is no specially called ordained ministerial order.</blockquote> The Plymouth Brethren movement is said to have begun in Ireland and Plymouth, England in the year 1830. Daniel Steele notes, “The movement was at first a protest against ecclesiasticism, like that of George Fox, the first Quaker.” Steele, a late contemporary of Darby, went to great lengths to identify Darby and the Plymouth Brethren with antinomianism. His evidence is compelling, and John Gerstner’s attempt to identify dispensationalism with antinomianism has merit. It will be borne out, however, that antinomianism and dispensationalism are not one and the same, though they may bear similarities in origin and thought. What may have begun as an antinomian expression among the Plymouth Brethren, and Darby’s break from ecclesiastical tyranny as he saw it, re-formulated itself upon a different presupposition, later known as dispensationalism. <br><br> Dispensationalism is related to antinomianism through its relationship to Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, as is soundly proven by Steele, who notes, “A CARDINAL Plymouth tenet is the necessary continuance of the flesh, or the old man, and his abiding, unchanged, with the new man, till death. Regeneration has no effect on the old man by way of improvement or extinction.” That which separates the two dogmas is their prevailing presuppositions. We might, then, say that Darby’s formulation of dispensationalism grew out of the Plymouth Brethren movement which had its roots in antinomianism, but it morphed into an entity all its own. The antinomian presupposition was replaced by the dispensational fundamental premise of Israel’s physically abiding distinctive.<br><br>The earliest distinguishable form of dispensationalism can be associated with Darby’s break from the Church of England and his association with the Brethren movement. Darby’s shift occurred during the 1820’s. If we were to identify the seed thought of dispensationalism, we would find it began in the mind of Darby during his early years with the Plymouth Brethren. Tracing the heritage of dispensationalism takes one to J. N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren (assessing the ecclesiastical tension of his day inherent to their division) and from the recurring questions of antinomianism. Darby’s association with the Church of England appears to separate him from federalism and leaves him, to a degree, removed from its dispute with antinomianism. Though an antinomian of a unique breed and not a federalist, Darby gave birth to something beyond the fundamental premise of antinomianism. From the mind of Darby was born a theological dogma peculiar to itself. That dogma was borne out by his teaching and writing in the second half of the 19th century.<br><br>J. N. Darby’s influence had its greatest resonance in American theology. Darby transplanted the dogma of dispensationalism to America during recurring visits to America in the latter half of the 19th century, especially during the 1860’s and 1870’s. During these visits he had considerable influence upon several men, consummating in the Bible Conference movement at the close of the century. John Zens notes, “Darby made a total of eight visits to America, and spent a total of six years in America and Canada during the period 1862-1877.” It was during this time that Darby left his impact upon the likes of men such as James Hall Brookes, who was soon to be leader of the initial gathering of inquiries into the formulation of dispensationalism during the Niagara Bible Conference. John Gerstner traces the theological thread from Darby to Brookes to Scofield in this fashion. Craig Blaising and Darly Bock inform us: “The writings of the Brethren had a broad impact on evangelical Protestantism. This is especially true in the United States, where they influenced prominent ministers such as D. L. Moody, James Inglis, James Hall Brookes, A. J. Gordan, J. R. Graves, and C. I. Scofield.” The formative period for dispensationalism was the years 1860-1909. During that time, dispensationalism was nurtured upon American soil through the discipleship of Darby and was consummated in the Bible conferences at the turn of the 20th century. Growing in popularity and in exclusivity, it burst forth from the womb of Darby’s thought and influence and into the world in the year 1909, when C. I. Scofield published his first study bible; it was in that study Bible that Dispensationalism was born. The Scofield study Bible grew to immediate popularity and established itself as the hallmark of dispensationalism. It remained dispensationalism's loci communes for half a century. Its tenants passed from the hands of Scofield into the hands of men like Lewis Sperry Chafer, who systematized dispensationalism in his Systematic Theology. This was the first generation of dispensationalism. Since that day, dispensationalism has grown, morphed, and matured, much as federalism did in its stages of growth.<br><br>Dispensationalism as a theological dogma is identifiable in four stages: (1) its parentage, found in the likes of Darby and the Plymouth Brethren; (2) its incubation, enclosed in the formative years 1860-1909; (3) its birth and childhood in 1909-1950, dominated by Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer; (4) its maturation to adulthood in the second half of the 20th century resonating at Dallas Theological Seminary and the influence of Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, and J. Dwight Pentecost; and (5) its middle age as formulated in the closing years of the 20th century and dispensationalism’s reformulation by men like Craig A. Blaising, Daryl L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy. Curtis L. Crenshaw defines the stages of dispensationalism in this fashion:<br><br> [. . .] classical dispensationalism [. . .] as represented by Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer [. . .]. This view dominated from the late 1800’s to the 1950’s [. . .] neo-dispensationalism [. . .] being promoted by such men as Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, and J. Dwight Pentecost [. . .].<br><br> This historical perspective omits dispensationalism’s formulation and the current trend called progressive dispensationalism, which is the fifth stage spoken of above. Craig L. Blaising presents this division: “While it is not easy to classify all the differences between various dispensational theologians, three broad forms of dispensational thought can be identified [. . .] Classic dispensationalism [. . .] Revised dispensationalism [. . .] Progressive dispensationalism.” These categories well identify the historic stages of dispensationalism.<br><br>There has been discussion regarding the use of the word dispensation to identify that system of theology that has its roots in the theology of John Nelson Darby. Vern Poythress in his book, Understanding Dispensationalists, makes a good case for the abandonment of the word dispensation to identify what is called dispensationalism. The term itself does not properly distinguish or identify true dispensationalism. Before its formulation we might consider it as Plymouth Brethrenism, but its movement away from certain tenants of that movement warrants that title inadmissible. At the end of Darby's life, Daniel Steele noted, regarding the identification of the Plymouth Brethren: “they are sometimes called Darbyites.” That title, however, does not fully bear out the tenants of dispensationalism any more than the term Calvinist properly identifies the Calvinist. What word best suits the movement that has been prominent in American theology since 1909? Scofieldism may be appropriate, but late revisions of Scofield’s theology have left his name equally of no use to the identification of the dogma. Federalism has its title that well affirms its fundamental presupposition; Antinomianism has its title, and, though wearing it reluctantly, it does to a degree speak to its distinctiveness. That system called dispensationalism, however, is not identifiable by its division of redemptive history into dispensations. Keith A. Mathison notes:<br><br>Virtually every system of Christian theology recognizes various administrations or economies within God’s plan, yet it would be inaccurate to claim that all of these systems are dispensational [. . .]. A system of theology cannot be amply defined in terms of doctrines it shares with virtually every other system of theology.<br><br>This is the problem with the term dispensationalism; it does neither identify nor define dispensationalism. Perhaps the most accurate term would be to call it ethnic theology. History has nonetheless left us with such an identifiable label as the word dispensationalism, and it is retained.<br><br>Dispensationalism, then, can be called a system of dogma that is distinct and separate from federalism and antinomianism. It has its roots in the Reformation and ecclesiastical disputes in England. It grew up out of the Church of England and the Plymouth Brethren movement. It found its fundamental presupposition in the theological transformations of John Nelson Darby. It was born through his efforts in America and is a system of theology germane to American evangelicalism of the late 19th century. It was codified in the 1909 and 1917 editions of the Scofield Reference Bible and was further affirmed by the labors of Lewis Sperry Chafer. Its prominent influence resonates at Dallas Theological Seminary. It is comprised of three recognizable periods in its vitality: its historical expression in C. I. Scofield and Chafer, its revisions in Charles Ryrie, and its most recent re-formulations among those called progressive dispensationalists. While distinctly different in each of these stages, its fundamental presupposition has not changed, and, therefore, the term dispensationalism applies to the whole of the movement. In the next chapter, dispensationalism will be defined and explained at its various stages. Its presupposition will be affirmed and its historical congruity will be shown.

Interesting thought on the Sabbath I read recently goes something like this :-<br><br>If you are not your normal self on a Lordsday/Sabbath/Sunday (call it what you will ) , then you are a hypocrite .<br><br>I have never looked at it from this point of view before- have you ?