Closing the Gap in Dispensationalism
- Thread starter Dave-L
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
As Elisha was traveling to Bethel several dozen young men confronted him. Their jeering, recorded in the slang of their day, implied that if Elisha were a great prophet of the Lord, as Elijah was, he should go up into heaven as Elijah reportedly had done.
They regarded God’s prophet with contempt. Elisha then called down a curse on the villains. This cursing stemmed not from Elisha’s pride but from their disrespect for the LORD as reflected in their treatment of His spokesman.
God used wild animals to execute His judgment. The 42 men were mauled by the two bears because they mocked Elisha, saying "Go up baldy, go up!" ("Go up into the sky like your mentor Elijah supposedly did"). Its not nice to mock people
“Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.” (2 Kings 2:23–24)
They regarded God’s prophet with contempt. Elisha then called down a curse on the villains. This cursing stemmed not from Elisha’s pride but from their disrespect for the LORD as reflected in their treatment of His spokesman.
God used wild animals to execute His judgment. The 42 men were mauled by the two bears because they mocked Elisha, saying "Go up baldy, go up!" ("Go up into the sky like your mentor Elijah supposedly did"). Its not nice to mock people
“Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.” (2 Kings 2:23–24)
Define cessationist.
Some "continuationists" think that "the gifts" are isolated to miraculous sign gifts, such as tongues, interpretation of tongues, healings through a specific individual, and prophecy.
When they use the phrase "the gifts", what they are really talking about is their version of these particular gifts, which I don't think that they are exercising.
I do not deny the possibility that God may use any of the above at any future period of time, but I don't think that current-day charismatics are exercising these gifts.
For instance, I believe "tongues" should be translated as "languages", and this gift relates primarily to human languages. I know that there are a few difficult passages in regards to this view, but that is my overall understanding of tongues. And, do I think God could give someone the ability to speak and/or translate other human languages? Absolutely. He gave mute men the ability to speak. He created Adam with the ability to speak. He could give me the ability to speak or interpret another language at his sovereign will.
I don't believe any individual is gifted with healing, but I believe that God heals upon the prayers of his people, if it is his sovereign will.
And, false prophecies are uttered on a regular basis. Even charismatics will admit that. Do I believe God is the author of false prophecies? No. And, if the error rate of alleged prophets is pretty much 100%, that's no more than guessing.
I categorically deny that there are modern-day prophets and apostles. And, if there were real prophets and apostles, I don't think they would strut around declaring themselves to be such. If I see someone using those titles, they are automatically discredited in my mind. Their self-affirmation societies mean nothing to me.
You know you can join some societies of prophets and apostles for about 500 dollars online? You can even get a husband/wife discount.
Most of all, from what I understand, many churches who claim that the gift of tongues is for today will exercise their alleged tongues in an unbiblical manner, speaking all at once, without interpreters. Additionally, several former charismatic friends have told me that they were deceived into thinking that their tongues speaking was real, when in fact it was not. I suppose in most cases, people who claim to speak in tongues are coached into it by someone, and it is not a spontaneous, uninfluenced occurrence.
You ask if I am a continuationist. Like I said, it depends on your definition. If you are asking whether I believe the vast majority of charismatics and their claims, no. If you are asking whether I think they have the correct understanding of some of the biblical gifts, no. If you are asking whether I believe God could give all biblical gifts to individuals according to his sovereign will, yes. If you are asking whether I think that all the gifts of the Spirit must be operational at all times in some person throughout all church ages, no.
Call me what you want. Continuationist or cessationist. I don't care.
My view is that some charismatics have shamed the church through their odd behaviors, and if they are real Christians, they should be held accountable. Anyone who dares to claim God said something when, in fact, he did not is using the LORD's name in vain. Even if they are perfectly sincere in their false prophecies.
Some "continuationists" think that "the gifts" are isolated to miraculous sign gifts, such as tongues, interpretation of tongues, healings through a specific individual, and prophecy.
When they use the phrase "the gifts", what they are really talking about is their version of these particular gifts, which I don't think that they are exercising.
I do not deny the possibility that God may use any of the above at any future period of time, but I don't think that current-day charismatics are exercising these gifts.
For instance, I believe "tongues" should be translated as "languages", and this gift relates primarily to human languages. I know that there are a few difficult passages in regards to this view, but that is my overall understanding of tongues. And, do I think God could give someone the ability to speak and/or translate other human languages? Absolutely. He gave mute men the ability to speak. He created Adam with the ability to speak. He could give me the ability to speak or interpret another language at his sovereign will.
I don't believe any individual is gifted with healing, but I believe that God heals upon the prayers of his people, if it is his sovereign will.
And, false prophecies are uttered on a regular basis. Even charismatics will admit that. Do I believe God is the author of false prophecies? No. And, if the error rate of alleged prophets is pretty much 100%, that's no more than guessing.
I categorically deny that there are modern-day prophets and apostles. And, if there were real prophets and apostles, I don't think they would strut around declaring themselves to be such. If I see someone using those titles, they are automatically discredited in my mind. Their self-affirmation societies mean nothing to me.
You know you can join some societies of prophets and apostles for about 500 dollars online? You can even get a husband/wife discount.
Most of all, from what I understand, many churches who claim that the gift of tongues is for today will exercise their alleged tongues in an unbiblical manner, speaking all at once, without interpreters. Additionally, several former charismatic friends have told me that they were deceived into thinking that their tongues speaking was real, when in fact it was not. I suppose in most cases, people who claim to speak in tongues are coached into it by someone, and it is not a spontaneous, uninfluenced occurrence.
You ask if I am a continuationist. Like I said, it depends on your definition. If you are asking whether I believe the vast majority of charismatics and their claims, no. If you are asking whether I think they have the correct understanding of some of the biblical gifts, no. If you are asking whether I believe God could give all biblical gifts to individuals according to his sovereign will, yes. If you are asking whether I think that all the gifts of the Spirit must be operational at all times in some person throughout all church ages, no.
Call me what you want. Continuationist or cessationist. I don't care.
My view is that some charismatics have shamed the church through their odd behaviors, and if they are real Christians, they should be held accountable. Anyone who dares to claim God said something when, in fact, he did not is using the LORD's name in vain. Even if they are perfectly sincere in their false prophecies.
Well, I guess you know that then.
Why did you use the Romans 10 voice to prove that belief precedes salvation?
By the way, I could agree that belief precedes conversion anyways.
The Reformed position is that God regenerates the person, which produces faith and repentance, which leads to conversion, as the chart shows.
It is the free-willer claim that regeneration occurs along with conversion. Reformed theology does not hold that position, because man needs a new heart to respond to God. This new heart produces faith and repentance.
Decisional regeneration says otherwise. Basically the claim is that the unsaved man, with a heart of stone, must produce faith and repentance from his own resources in order to respond to God. The assumption is that man is morally able to do this, when in fact he is not. He hates God and hates God's law.
As for Scriptures, I suggest you read all of Romans. That will cover all of these points. Add to this Ephesians 2. And while you're at it, read Romans 6, 10. And, read Jeremiah 17:9-10 to see that the human heart is deceitfully wicked. It really takes regeneration to get past this armour of self-justification, deceitful hatred of God, and pride.
Yet, free-willers tend to attribute their salvation, ultimately, to an act of free will, in the final analysis.
Since you want Scriptures, I'll suggest those to start. Tell me when you've read them carefully, and I'll give you more.
Why did you use the Romans 10 voice to prove that belief precedes salvation?
By the way, I could agree that belief precedes conversion anyways.
The Reformed position is that God regenerates the person, which produces faith and repentance, which leads to conversion, as the chart shows.
It is the free-willer claim that regeneration occurs along with conversion. Reformed theology does not hold that position, because man needs a new heart to respond to God. This new heart produces faith and repentance.
Decisional regeneration says otherwise. Basically the claim is that the unsaved man, with a heart of stone, must produce faith and repentance from his own resources in order to respond to God. The assumption is that man is morally able to do this, when in fact he is not. He hates God and hates God's law.
As for Scriptures, I suggest you read all of Romans. That will cover all of these points. Add to this Ephesians 2. And while you're at it, read Romans 6, 10. And, read Jeremiah 17:9-10 to see that the human heart is deceitfully wicked. It really takes regeneration to get past this armour of self-justification, deceitful hatred of God, and pride.
Yet, free-willers tend to attribute their salvation, ultimately, to an act of free will, in the final analysis.
Since you want Scriptures, I'll suggest those to start. Tell me when you've read them carefully, and I'll give you more.
I haven't paid much attention to your posts.
I don't like the label "Calvinist" so I don't use it. I know very little about John Calvin. I would prefer the label "monergist" but most people here wouldn't be familiar with it. So I use Reformed.
I am more like a Reformed Baptist. I am not Presbyterian although I listen to a few conservative Presbyterian teachers and they are fine. We just wouldn't agree on a few things such as infant baptism.
I personally don't have a problem with denominations. I came from a cult who made constant reference to the vast number of evangelical denominations, and how that proved they could not be the true Church, which they claimed they were. This is a similar argument that the Roman Catholics use. Additionally, some groups that call themselves non-denominational actually hold heretical beliefs like the cult. That would be a good reason to avoid this label, too.
The church I attend is not aligned with a denomination or association, but there are advantages to this. For one thing, if they agree doctrinally, they can conduct more efficient missionary activities. And, group insurance provides some savings. Additionally, richer churches can help poorer churches to grow, with all confidence that they share the same doctrinal position, and that they are held accountable at some level by the association in the event of gross immorality or heresy.
It may sound idealistic to disdain denominations or associations, but there are advantages to them. And coming from a cult where the leader was under no accountability, I see the wisdom in it.
I don't like the label "Calvinist" so I don't use it. I know very little about John Calvin. I would prefer the label "monergist" but most people here wouldn't be familiar with it. So I use Reformed.
I am more like a Reformed Baptist. I am not Presbyterian although I listen to a few conservative Presbyterian teachers and they are fine. We just wouldn't agree on a few things such as infant baptism.
I personally don't have a problem with denominations. I came from a cult who made constant reference to the vast number of evangelical denominations, and how that proved they could not be the true Church, which they claimed they were. This is a similar argument that the Roman Catholics use. Additionally, some groups that call themselves non-denominational actually hold heretical beliefs like the cult. That would be a good reason to avoid this label, too.
The church I attend is not aligned with a denomination or association, but there are advantages to this. For one thing, if they agree doctrinally, they can conduct more efficient missionary activities. And, group insurance provides some savings. Additionally, richer churches can help poorer churches to grow, with all confidence that they share the same doctrinal position, and that they are held accountable at some level by the association in the event of gross immorality or heresy.
It may sound idealistic to disdain denominations or associations, but there are advantages to them. And coming from a cult where the leader was under no accountability, I see the wisdom in it.
By the way, if you want a good overview of my doctrinal position, it's in this document. I created it for prisoners at jail, although it was likely more details than most were willing to read.
My focus is also chiefly on union with Christ, and not Reformed theology. This is the central teaching of Scripture. It is strange that we don't hear that much about it, though.
I can recommend books or sermons on this topic if you are interested.
Here are two sermon series that are on this matter, both by excellent speakers.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....The+Christian's+True+Identity&AudioOnly=false
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....&subsetitem=Union+With+Christ&AudioOnly=false
My focus is also chiefly on union with Christ, and not Reformed theology. This is the central teaching of Scripture. It is strange that we don't hear that much about it, though.
I can recommend books or sermons on this topic if you are interested.
Here are two sermon series that are on this matter, both by excellent speakers.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....The+Christian's+True+Identity&AudioOnly=false
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....&subsetitem=Union+With+Christ&AudioOnly=false
Because it says that is does.
I don't, attribute salvation to or give credit to free will. I simply acknowledge that it happens. God gets all the credit because he made it possible. I illustrated this in post #199.
It's not contradiction for one party to make a choice and also not get credit for the outcome. That is where Calvin and his followers make a false assumption.
I don't, attribute salvation to or give credit to free will. I simply acknowledge that it happens. God gets all the credit because he made it possible. I illustrated this in post #199.
It's not contradiction for one party to make a choice and also not get credit for the outcome. That is where Calvin and his followers make a false assumption.
Which "step" would you consider the following verse to fit into? :
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself."
[even if you translate that "all" to mean "all KINDS of people"]... where does this "DRAW" (done by JESUS HIMSELF) "fit" into the sequence/steps/equation, pertaining to salvation? before or after "regeneration"? before or after God pours "faith" into you? etc
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself."
[even if you translate that "all" to mean "all KINDS of people"]... where does this "DRAW" (done by JESUS HIMSELF) "fit" into the sequence/steps/equation, pertaining to salvation? before or after "regeneration"? before or after God pours "faith" into you? etc
-
1
- Show all
Be sure, when you read Eph2 (as was suggested), that you note the CONTEXT of Eph2 and note the word (in 2:5) "G4806 - suzóopoieó - TO MAKE ALIVE TOGETHER WITH"... meaning that this word applies TO JESUS just as it does TO US (that is, it occurred for us WHEN it occurred RE: JESUS--and note HE had no need to be "made alive" in the SENSE that others tend to MIS-apply this word, and this passage's context 
)
I just ask you to bear this in mind.
)I just ask you to bear this in mind.
I don't think hardly anyone denies that the gifts of the Spirit are not in effect.
What they are talking about specifically is miraculous sign gifts, and their position is that they were associated with the apostles.
Whether I agree with them or not, I don't find the antics or practices I've heard about as credible. The continuationist camp lacks little credibility with me.
Anyways, I wouldn't label myself as a cessationist, and I wouldn't label myself as a continuationist. It's more of a credibility issue of the claimants that I would question.
Also, there is nothing in Scripture to limit God's sovereign right to cease a gift during a particular time period, or to revive it again in a particular time period. Nothing I know, anyways.
What they are talking about specifically is miraculous sign gifts, and their position is that they were associated with the apostles.
Whether I agree with them or not, I don't find the antics or practices I've heard about as credible. The continuationist camp lacks little credibility with me.
Anyways, I wouldn't label myself as a cessationist, and I wouldn't label myself as a continuationist. It's more of a credibility issue of the claimants that I would question.
Also, there is nothing in Scripture to limit God's sovereign right to cease a gift during a particular time period, or to revive it again in a particular time period. Nothing I know, anyways.
Your last remark is inflammatory.
Reformed people are not "followers of John Calvin". In fact, I have read very little about John Calvin. I saw Reformed theology in Scripture prior to ever hearing his name.
In fact, it was my free willer pastor who told me "that's Calvinism" when I described what I was seeing in Scripture related to predestination.
Then he proceeded to tell me about Michael Servetus and that whole affair.
In a subsequent meeting, I asked about John Wesley and the morality of his failure to allow his former girlfriend to take communion, which in essence meant that her salvation was in question.
As I have said, the view of free-willers is that a fallen man, with a heart of stone, can dredge up faith and repentance in order to respond to God. Then, and only then, does he receive a heart of flesh.
This is logically incoherent because the man with a heart of stone hates God and his law (Rom 8:11, Jer 17:9-10) and will not respond to God without a change of heart. God gives the man a heart of flesh which produces faith and repentance as a fruit.
One view doesn't give glory to God, and the other does.
One view leads to the free willer Sunday School teacher patting little Johnny on the head for being gracious enough to allow Jesus into his heart, and the other view leads to the Reformed Sunday School teacher glorifying God for his sovereign act of salvation.
Reformed people are not "followers of John Calvin". In fact, I have read very little about John Calvin. I saw Reformed theology in Scripture prior to ever hearing his name.
In fact, it was my free willer pastor who told me "that's Calvinism" when I described what I was seeing in Scripture related to predestination.
Then he proceeded to tell me about Michael Servetus and that whole affair.
In a subsequent meeting, I asked about John Wesley and the morality of his failure to allow his former girlfriend to take communion, which in essence meant that her salvation was in question.
As I have said, the view of free-willers is that a fallen man, with a heart of stone, can dredge up faith and repentance in order to respond to God. Then, and only then, does he receive a heart of flesh.
This is logically incoherent because the man with a heart of stone hates God and his law (Rom 8:11, Jer 17:9-10) and will not respond to God without a change of heart. God gives the man a heart of flesh which produces faith and repentance as a fruit.
One view doesn't give glory to God, and the other does.
One view leads to the free willer Sunday School teacher patting little Johnny on the head for being gracious enough to allow Jesus into his heart, and the other view leads to the Reformed Sunday School teacher glorifying God for his sovereign act of salvation.
-
1
- Show all
I'm not sure why you think I don't subscribe to Reformed doctrine.
In essence, I do believe Reformed doctrine except for a few minor points. For instance, some of them are rabid Sabbatarians and I am not. I believe the Sabbath was one of the two signs of the Mosaic Covenant, the other being physical circumcision.
However, I do believe it is appropriate to observe the LORDS's Day. I just don't call it the Sabbath, nor do I think that it is binding in the same sense as the Sabbath under the Mosaic Covenant.
I have studied the Sabbath in more detail than most of them, though, because I was in a Judaizer cult called the Armstrongites for years.
I'm sure your study list keeps you busy, especially if you're watching Leighton Flowers videos learning how to defend free willer theology against "Calvinists".
I think I've said this, but on the order of things, I view union with Christ and identity in Him to be one of the most valuable studies. It is amazing how many free-willers cannot articulate this position. The same is true about dispensationalists. I believe if they had a deep understanding of this teaching, it would go a long way in addressing both issues, in fact.
I don't know how someone could continue to be a dispensationalist if they understand union with Christ and identity in Him, except for the fact that it's been ingrained in their brains by their dispensationalist teachers.
In essence, I do believe Reformed doctrine except for a few minor points. For instance, some of them are rabid Sabbatarians and I am not. I believe the Sabbath was one of the two signs of the Mosaic Covenant, the other being physical circumcision.
However, I do believe it is appropriate to observe the LORDS's Day. I just don't call it the Sabbath, nor do I think that it is binding in the same sense as the Sabbath under the Mosaic Covenant.
I have studied the Sabbath in more detail than most of them, though, because I was in a Judaizer cult called the Armstrongites for years.
I'm sure your study list keeps you busy, especially if you're watching Leighton Flowers videos learning how to defend free willer theology against "Calvinists".
I think I've said this, but on the order of things, I view union with Christ and identity in Him to be one of the most valuable studies. It is amazing how many free-willers cannot articulate this position. The same is true about dispensationalists. I believe if they had a deep understanding of this teaching, it would go a long way in addressing both issues, in fact.
I don't know how someone could continue to be a dispensationalist if they understand union with Christ and identity in Him, except for the fact that it's been ingrained in their brains by their dispensationalist teachers.