Do Dispensationalism and Free-will Salvation question God's providence?

[Mammachickadee]

Did Adam choose to sin in the garden? Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived. If Adam chose to follow Eve in sin then Adam had a free will. A free will now corrupted through sin. Man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The burden of that knowledge is the necessity of choice. John 3:19 Jesus tells us that men choose Light or darkness. Their reasons are clear but they do have a choice to make. Men in Romans 1:32 choose sin even though they know the consequences. To say that men cannot choose is to say they cannot breathe.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

No one ever questioned man's "free will" to sin. As a matter of fact, before salvation we are slaves to sin. There's no free will there either because it's not anything we can help. There is no freedom in bondage to sin. Again, God chose to consider Adam and Eve justified by default (something that must not have been hard for a pair that literally communicated directly with God to understand).

 

[Mammachickadee]

If you are not ammilenial, You must believe in dispensations.

I was trying to show you out of the thousands of people I have known, or went to church with, or came across who are christians. I have met very few dual covenant dispensationalists. and ammillenialists.

Most of them are dispensations who believe in salvation by faith alone in the grace of God throughout ALL dispensations.

When I was young, My father got me a scofield reference kjv. I loved studying his notes.. From what I remember, this is the only dual covenant teaching I have heard. and I may even be wrong about this, it has beeen so long I owuld have to get my bible out again and look at his notes.

However, I do remember as a young Christian believing during the tribulation, Isreal would go back to being saved by law. A friend of mine got me to question this and study it, And I found it to be in error.

and this friend was a pre-trib dispensationalists.

Tell me what you believe amillenialism is. I am a post-tribber.

 

[djames1958]

djames1958, thanks for that very revealing confession! As I have taught, for 50 yrs, that Dallas Theo. Sem. is the capital of carnal christianity. A,W.Tozor and I and John MacArthur condemn it. this "faith only" sal. is not found in the Bible. It is of the Devil!

No, MacArthur condemns "easy-believism" - which very few dispensationalists actually teach (and MacArthur is a dispensationalist). Much of MacArthur's concern has centered around the gospel as articulated by Zane Hodges and those who have followed this line of thought - which is not representative of dispensationalists (including myself) as a whole as demonstrated by the fact that Ryrie wrote a book that is a mediating position between Hodges and MacArthur. Although I disagree with the way MacArthur incorporates discipleship issues into salvation issues, the fact is that he is a Calvinist with regard to soteriology, he absolutely teaches salvation by grace through faith alone - as well as eternal security. So, MacArthur is definitely the wrong person to cite for support of your views.

It would seem that your working knowledge of the situation is fairly incomplete and based on a lot of misconceptions about what is believed and taught by a number of people.

You may choose to disagree with the faith alone position, but it is definitely found in the Bible. Ephesians 2:8-9 alone demonstrates that it is a viable understanding of the gospel, although not without some difficult verses. On the other hand, the faith+ position, while able to garner some biblical support using isolated verses is not without problems itself. If it were of the Devil, as you say, it would not be a position held by so many godly Bible teachers. That godly men hold a position does not make it right - only the Bible does that - but it does mean that such statements that relegate it to the Devil belies an extreme reductionist view that neither MacArthur or Tozer would agree with.

We're obviously not going to solve this in a forum discussion since books have been written on both sides of the issue. Beyond that, the only reason I commented was to correct a misunderstanding regarding what dispensationalists teach concerning one or two ways of salvation. So, we will just have to agree to disagree because at 70 years old you're not likely to change your view based on an exchange in this forum - and at 55 and a Bible teacher of 25 years, I have reached settled convictions on this matter as I have carefully studied it since I was saved 30 years ago.

I try to maintain a balance of having convictions and being teachable - but having spent as much time as I have on thinking, praying and studying the Word of God on this particular issue, I understand both sides and have reached some firm conclusions that I believe are biblical.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Tell me what you believe amillenialism is. I am a post-tribber.

amill believes all the stuff in revelation is past tense, it all happened on or around ad 70..

as for what I am, (pre-mid-post) I am undecided..lol however, I can say I am not amill..

 

[Mammachickadee]

djames1958, thanks for that very revealing confession! As I have taught, for 50 yrs, that Dallas Theo. Sem. is the capital of carnal christianity. A,W.Tozor and I and John MacArthur condemn it. this "faith only" sal. is not found in the Bible. It is of the Devil! You guys corrected somethings; but you when from the frying pan into the fire. You have created an apostate church which will be "left behind' at the rapture.

It's interesting that you would said John MacArthur condemns 'faith only" salvation and that it's not found in the Bible. To my knowledge John MacArthur is one of the foremost Calvanists of this day... aka belief in election and God's sovereignty including predestination. "Whom God foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son..." Romans 8:29

 

[Mammachickadee]

amill believes all the stuff in revelation is past tense, it all happened on or around ad 70..

as for what I am, (pre-mid-post) I am undecided..lol however, I can say I am not amill..

lol then by your definition I am consistent. I'm a pretribber, not an amillenialist; I believe that the only division of history in the Bible is BC/AD and Mosaic law vs. non-Mosaic law (not for salvation but for simple obedience to God... which Christ delineated quite fully to be the case). That we no longer need to sacrifice is an undisputable fact. I also believe in divisions between covenants only as they pertain to specific lineage... though one can see a few blurred lines in the Jacobine Covenant because of the dual meaning of the term "Israel". Davidic Covenant was to the line of David. Abrahamic Covenant was to the line of Abraham and so on.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

lol then by your definition I am consistent. I'm a pretribber, not an amillenialist; I believe that the only division of history in the Bible is BC/AD and Mosaic law vs. non-Mosaic law (not for salvation but for simple obedience to God... which Christ delineated quite fully to be the case). That we no longer need to sacrifice is an undisputable fact. I also believe in divisions between covenants only as they pertain to specific lineage... though one can see a few blurred lines in the Jacobine Covenant because of the dual meaning of the term "Israel". Davidic Covenant was to the line of David. Abrahamic Covenant was to the line of Abraham and so on.

Most dispensationalists I know just separate periods of time according to how God dealt with people. or the way things happened.

some have more ages than others.

ie, Pre sin was called the age of innocence.

The time of the law was called the time of the law or the age of Isreal (god dealt with mankind through Isreal)

The age of the church is called the church age. (God deals with mankind through the church)

Then you have the times in between which have various interpretations. Then the time after or future prophesy

in all of them (except innocence, where salvation was not needed) salvation was by grace through faith alone.

it is just a way to interpret history in a context.. Much like human history does this..

even ammils have to believe in some sort of dispensation or age,

the ot is different than the nt, thus you have two ages.

 

[Mammachickadee]

Though it's unlikely we will have any theological or spiritual "breakthroughs" through this thread, the fellowship and discussion with what is mostly unbigotted and quite mature debate is not only useful but God-honoring. He WANTS us to dwell on things of him and to KNOW our faith. We may disagree or have to request the occasional restatement or definition, but we are simply saints trying to be saintly while contemplating other points of view. I admit I'm a stubborn Free Presbyterian Calvinist who loves both John MacArthur and Ian Paisley, but the pure exercise of discussion is encouraging.
By contemplating both sides we learn to understand and respect or learn to avoid and be wary of opposing views. This is what we are taught to do throughout New Testament.

 

[djames1958]

amill believes all the stuff in revelation is past tense, it all happened on or around ad 70..

as for what I am, (pre-mid-post) I am undecided..lol however, I can say I am not amill..

Actually the view you describe is the Preterist view - with some holding to a premill and some to an amill position (as I recall).

Amillennialism holds that there will be no literal millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ on the earth - but rather that God's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom with Christ ruling from heaven. If there is a physical aspect to the kingdom it is represented on the earth through the church (the Roman Catholic view).

This is in contrast to Premillennial and Post-millennial views. In the Premillennial view (the one I hold), Christ will return to establish his literal physical kingdom on the earth for 1000 years. The Post-millennial view is that the church will establish God's kingdom on the earth as the earth is subdued through the preaching of the gospel and God's kingdom will permeate the earth, leading to its full establishment - at which time Christ will return and the kingdom will be presented to him.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Though it's unlikely we will have any theological or spiritual "breakthroughs" through this thread, the fellowship and discussion with what is mostly unbigotted and quite mature debate is not only useful but God-honoring. He WANTS us to dwell on things of him and to KNOW our faith. We may disagree or have to request the occasional restatement or definition, but we are simply saints trying to be saintly while contemplating other points of view. I admit I'm a stubborn Free Presbyterian Calvinist who loves both John MacArthur and Ian Paisley, but the pure exercise of discussion is encouraging.
By contemplating both sides we learn to understand and respect or learn to avoid and be wary of opposing views. This is what we are taught to do throughout New Testament.

Amen as long as we are open and not condemning (these are not salvic issues) we can discuss freely without condemning others.

now if we are talking about the gospel. thats a different story!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Actually the view you describe is the Preterist view - with some holding to a premill and some to an amill position (as I recall).

Amillennialism holds that there will be no literal millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ on the earth - but rather that God's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom with Christ ruling from heaven. If there is a physical aspect to the kingdom it is represented on the earth through the church (the Roman Catholic view).

This is in contrast to Premillennial and Post-millennial views. In the Premillennial view (the one I hold), Christ will return to establish his literal physical kingdom on the earth for 1000 years. The Post-millennial view is that the church will establish God's kingdom on the earth as the earth is subdued through the preaching of the gospel and God's kingdom will permeate the earth, leading to its full establishment - at which time Christ will return and the kingdom will be presented to him.

Yes, As I said, Amills believe this by saying most of the stuff in revelation (the tribulation etc) occured in 70 Ad or there abouts. However, I never heard a premil say this so this is new to me.

And your right, The church became the new Isreal and established Gods kingdom. Also called replacement theology. And is largly catholic, which I believe formed this believe when they went to a symbolic interpretation of prophesy, and got away from literal interpretation. Many of the protestants brought this belief with them.

I have not studied the post mill view much. Not sure I want to.. Does not sound ver good..lol

I am pre-mil also

 

[Mammachickadee]

Most dispensationalists I know just separate periods of time according to how God dealt with people. or the way things happened.

some have more ages than others.

ie, Pre sin was called the age of innocence.

The time of the law was called the time of the law or the age of Isreal (god dealt with mankind through Isreal)

The age of the church is called the church age. (God deals with mankind through the church)

Then you have the times in between which have various interpretations. Then the time after or future prophesy

in all of them (except innocence, where salvation was not needed) salvation was by grace through faith alone.

it is just a way to interpret history in a context.. Much like human history does this..

even ammils have to believe in some sort of dispensation or age,

the ot is different than the nt, thus you have two ages.

I don't disagree that what you say is in concurrence with modern-day dispensationalism. However, dispensationalism, like Islam and Halloween (as I stated previously), has become somewhat diluted and evolved since its conception to be more palatable.
Though I know what people mean by "church age", I still disagree with a division of the Bible into such redundant terms. God has been consistent... You sinned, you die unless I save you. You live for me, we are cool. You disobey, you get smacked silly. You repent, I may or may not change my mind about your consequences. God always has and always will behave just like a just and perfectly holy Father. He picks the fundamentals but leaves some of life to a believer's discretion. The act of sacrifices in the OT was a simple habitual reminder for the people of the spotless and sinless sacrifice that God provided in our place to cleans and justify us. aka... sacrifices was no different than communion or baptism. They are mirrors of what Christ did for us.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Did Adam choose to sin in the garden? Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived. If Adam chose to follow Eve in sin then Adam had a free will. A free will now corrupted through sin. Man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The burden of that knowledge is the necessity of choice. John 3:19 Jesus tells us that men choose Light or darkness. Their reasons are clear but they do have a choice to make. Men in Romans 1:32 choose sin even though they know the consequences. To say that men cannot choose is to say they cannot breathe.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Never said man never makes choices. Free will does not equate to making choices, but rather is discussing a specific nature of the choosing agent. That's why Jesus says, "out of the heart..."

Adam didn't have a will tainted by Original Sin. Our wills are, and thus they are not free. Before regeneration, we are slaves to sin hating God and serving our father the devil. After regeneration, we are slaves to righteousness, hating evil and serving our Father in heaven.


Free willy types inevitably end in a rejection of original sin given enough examination and pressure.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Though it's unlikely we will have any theological or spiritual "breakthroughs" through this thread, the fellowship and discussion with what is mostly unbigotted and quite mature debate is not only useful but God-honoring. He WANTS us to dwell on things of him and to KNOW our faith. We may disagree or have to request the occasional restatement or definition, but we are simply saints trying to be saintly while contemplating other points of view. I admit I'm a stubborn Free Presbyterian Calvinist who loves both John MacArthur and Ian Paisley, but the pure exercise of discussion is encouraging.
By contemplating both sides we learn to understand and respect or learn to avoid and be wary of opposing views. This is what we are taught to do throughout New Testament.

Free Presby? Really? I went to one in Lees Summit and was highly impressed. Do you wear a covering in church as well?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I don't disagree that what you say is in concurrence with modern-day dispensationalism. However, dispensationalism, like Islam and Halloween (as I stated previously), has become somewhat diluted and evolved since its conception to be more palatable.
Though I know what people mean by "church age", I still disagree with a division of the Bible into such redundant terms. God has been consistent... You sinned, you die unless I save you. You live for me, we are cool. You disobey, you get smacked silly. You repent, I may or may not change my mind about your consequences. God always has and always will behave just like a just and perfectly holy Father. He picks the fundamentals but leaves some of life to a believer's discretion. The act of sacrifices in the OT was a simple habitual reminder for the people of the spotless and sinless sacrifice that God provided in our place to cleans and justify us. aka... sacrifices was no different than communion or baptism. They are mirrors of what Christ did for us.

I agree with everything you said here concerning your beliefs.

Like I said, this is not a salvic issue. No dispensationalists i know believes it is, or has made it one, the only ones I see making it a salvation issue are those who are apposed to it. Even though it has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[djames1958]

lol then by your definition I am consistent. I'm a pretribber, not an amillenialist; I believe that the only division of history in the Bible is BC/AD and Mosaic law vs. non-Mosaic law

Actually, I'm sure you believe in more than this because the Mosaic Law was only instituted in 1445 BC - and there was a longer period of time before that than there has been since with two dispensations (BC/AD to use your terminology).

So, there was at least something going on between the Fall and the Law. So that is 3 dispensations.

There was a major change that happened at the Fall, so the pre-Fall era marks a 4th dispensation.

And if you're not an amillennialist, then you believe there is an era in God's program after Christ's return that is different than anything that has preceded it - so that is 5 dispensations.

So, you are definitely a dispensationalist in your overall view of history - and the only two additional dispensations I see are between the Flood and Abraham and between Abraham and the Law. The reason for a different dispensation from Abraham is because Israel didn't exist until that time - which I assume you would agree with - and if so, that takes you to six.

Also, there was a major change after the Flood with the Noahic covenant - a basic form of human government was instituted with the introduction of capital punishment, the eating of meat was allowed, a promise of no more judgment by flood, etc. So, this is all 7.

Beyond that, the covenants you mentioned are biblical covenants, which also provide part of the framework of dispensational theology - as opposed to the theological covenants of Covenant theology - so, it seems that you're far more dispensational in your thinking / theology than you realize.

 

[Mammachickadee]

Yes, As I said, Amills believe this by saying most of the stuff in revelation (the tribulation etc) occured in 70 Ad or there abouts. And your right, The church became the new Isreal and established Gods kingdom. Also called replacement theology.

I have not studied the post mill view much. Not sure I want to.. Does not sound ver good..lol

I am pre-mil also

I agree that the post-trib view doesn't sound very good... but it's consistent with God's activity throughout history. Pre-trib rapture basically believes that in the blink of an eye Christ will call for his people to come to him before the Tribulation. Though there are no distinct proofs against this idea there are likewise no proofs either. Post-tribbers believe that the tribulation will come before the rapture, and that the Millenium will follow closely behind. The convenience of believing in pre-trib rapture is that Christians currently existing will not have to suffer the punishments God brings on the earth. HOWEVER, the Bible clearly states that there will be Christians present during the tribulation (1/3 of them will die from the tribulation)... and unbelievers will be present during the Millenium. I personally don't believe that being a Christian gives me a "get out of jail free" card in any event... even when it comes to global disasters and horrible wars and famines and droughts and earthquakes and falling heavenly bodies and poisonous water. The Tribulations will simply be a wrap-up restatement of all the things that Christians have suffered as humans since the beginning of time, but in a very short period of time regardless of their spiritual status.
The Millenium is a bit hazy for me, but I do remember one prominent concept from my versatile classes at BJU (where there is great diversity). Some believe that we as Christians will be the rulers with Christ HERE ON EARTH over the unsaved after the second coming of Christ. During this time the earth will pretty much return to its state during the earliest days of humanity... ie lion will lay down with the lamb and longevity will be restored, etc. It will, undoubtedly, be an incredible time regardless of who is present. Afterwards, however, will come the great "War of Armageddon" as some call it in which the devil and his followers will be unleashed and the blood will flow as deep as a horse's knee. I always envisioned it as something of a revolution. After the end of the battle the devil, his followers, and all non-believers will be cast into Hell for eternity. (Insert note in here about my personal belief that before the rapture the dead go to their respective "holding places" as it were because no one will leave Heaven or Hell once they are there) Believers will go to heaven for eternity and the earth will be destroyed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Actually, I'm sure you believe in more than this because the Mosaic Law was only instituted in 1445 BC - and there was a longer period of time before that than there has been since with two dispensations (BC/AD to use your terminology).

So, there was at least something going on between the Fall and the Law. So that is 3 dispensations.

There was a major change that happened at the Fall, so the pre-Fall era marks a 4th dispensation.

And if you're not an amillennialist, then you believe there is an era in God's program after Christ's return that is different than anything that has preceded it - so that is 5 dispensations.

So, you are definitely a dispensationalist in your overall view of history - and the only two additional dispensations I see are between the Flood and Abraham and between Abraham and the Law. The reason for a different dispensation from Abraham is because Israel didn't exist until that time - which I assume you would agree with - and if so, that takes you to six.

Also, there was a major change after the Flood with the Noahic covenant - a basic form of human government was instituted with the introduction of capital punishment, the eating of meat was allowed, a promise of no more judgment by flood, etc. So, this is all 7.

Beyond that, the covenants you mentioned are biblical covenants, which also provide part of the framework of dispensational theology - as opposed to the theological covenants of Covenant theology - so, it seems that you're far more dispensational in your thinking / theology than you realize.

Thanks, you explained it much better than I could..

 

[Mammachickadee]

Actually, I'm sure you believe in more than this because the Mosaic Law was only instituted in 1445 BC - and there was a longer period of time before that than there has been since with two dispensations (BC/AD to use your terminology).

So, there was at least something going on between the Fall and the Law. So that is 3 dispensations.

There was a major change that happened at the Fall, so the pre-Fall era marks a 4th dispensation.

And if you're not an amillennialist, then you believe there is an era in God's program after Christ's return that is different than anything that has preceded it - so that is 5 dispensations.

So, you are definitely a dispensationalist in your overall view of history - and the only two additional dispensations I see are between the Flood and Abraham and between Abraham and the Law. The reason for a different dispensation from Abraham is because Israel didn't exist until that time - which I assume you would agree with - and if so, that takes you to six.

Also, there was a major change after the Flood with the Noahic covenant - a basic form of human government was instituted with the introduction of capital punishment, the eating of meat was allowed, a promise of no more judgment by flood, etc. So, this is all 7.

Beyond that, the covenants you mentioned are biblical covenants, which also provide part of the framework of dispensational theology - as opposed to the theological covenants of Covenant theology - so, it seems that you're far more dispensational in your thinking / theology than you realize.

Meh correction to my original statement. I had pre-trib on the brain. I'm actually a post tribber as I later explains. Sorry for the misstatement. Really sucks in debate/articulation.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I agree that the post-trib view doesn't sound very good... but it's consistent with God's activity throughout history. Pre-trib rapture basically believes that in the blink of an eye Christ will call for his people to come to him before the Tribulation. Though there are no distinct proofs against this idea there are likewise no proofs either. Post-tribbers believe that the tribulation will come before the rapture, and that the Millenium will follow closely behind. The convenience of believing in pre-trib rapture is that Christians currently existing will not have to suffer the punishments God brings on the earth. HOWEVER, the Bible clearly states that there will be Christians present during the tribulation (1/3 of them will die from the tribulation)... and unbelievers will be present during the Millenium. I personally don't believe that being a Christian gives me a "get out of jail free" card in any event... even when it comes to global disasters and horrible wars and famines and droughts and earthquakes and falling heavenly bodies and poisonous water. The Tribulations will simply be a wrap-up restatement of all the things that Christians have suffered as humans since the beginning of time, but in a very short period of time regardless of their spiritual status.
The Millenium is a bit hazy for me, but I do remember one prominent concept from my versatile classes at BJU (where there is great diversity). Some believe that we as Christians will be the rulers with Christ HERE ON EARTH over the unsaved after the second coming of Christ. During this time the earth will pretty much return to its state during the earliest days of humanity... ie lion will lay down with the lamb and longevity will be restored, etc. It will, undoubtedly, be an incredible time regardless of who is present. Afterwards, however, will come the great "War of Armageddon" as some call it in which the devil and his followers will be unleashed and the blood will flow as deep as a horse's knee. I always envisioned it as something of a revolution. After the end of the battle the devil, his followers, and all non-believers will be cast into Hell for eternity. (Insert note in here about my personal belief that before the rapture the dead go to their respective "holding places" as it were because no one will leave Heaven or Hell once they are there) Believers will go to heaven for eternity and the earth will be destroyed.

We have to remember there is alot of stuff. Far me than we can say here in a few posts.

But I will give you this.

1. Tribulation is called Gods wrath, We are told we are not subject to go through Gods wrath.
2. The "taking up" of Christians in the cloud is said to come as a theif in the night. the return of Christ (post trib) people will know almost exactly when that will be by the signs.
3. The restrainor must be removed before man of sin can be revealed (pre or mid trib supported here) As the HS is in the church and the HS is the one who restrains.

to me post trib has the least scriptural support of all of them.And I have studied this indepth for many years. However, I still am undecided..

Dwight pentecost in his book things to come makes the best arguments I have found for all. (he goes in depth over all positions, even quoting their leaders) and he is pre-trib. if anything, I would tend to lean this way.