The Litmus-test Of Scripture?--scripture - Nc

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by netchaplain, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. First, I'm compelled to give an open "Thank You"! to all those who labor to keep this site active (may God continue to bless it) and God's blessings to your Families!​
    In the last thirteen years of my thirty-six year Christian walk I have been studying dispensation doctrines from theologians of the last few centuries and have found them to be as applicable to spiritual growth in Christ and as faithful, accurate and sincere to the truths of Scripture that can be expected. It has recently come to my attention that many earnest truth-seeking Christians have been unaware of the spiritual-growth teachings available within dispensation doctrine and I want to encourage you to, “try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets (and teachers—emphasis mine ) are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Let all teachings be put to the litmus-test of Scripture!​

    One prime example of concern is that there is a significant number of Christians opposing the Scriptural truth related to receiving salvation pertaining to the essential doctrine of “Justification by Faith Alone, in Christ Alone.” To understand this is pertinent to spiritual growth, as Scripture teaches that the receiving of salvation is a monolithic work of God, apart from any interjections of man. Scripture also teaches that regeneration will eventually manifest itself by “good works” (Mat 5:16; Jam 2:18). Even though true works will follow the believer, we must be clear they have no effect as to the retention of salvation, considering this can only be maintained in the same manner it is received—by Grace (Jude 1:24).

    It is acceptable to have differing beliefs concerning non-essential-for-receiving-salvation doctrine, but there should not be variances concerning essential-for-receiving-salvation doctrine. The entirety of Scripture is clear in revealing that salvation comes by “Faith Alone, in Christ Alone.” This is due by “Grace” alone; therefore any alteration of this truism will only consign one to the un-restful taskmaster of “Legalistic Covetanism”, which is salvation by works (salvation evidenced by works is accurate - Jam 2:18) and is a one-eighty degree comparison to salvation by grace (Eph 2:8, 9).

    “By Grace—Through Faith” is Scripture's sole proponent when revealing the method of entering Salvation; thus, transposing this order of terms (i.e. by faith instead of "by grace") is failure to understand and faithfully represent Scripture, leaving one to the destitution of his own interpretation. Since receiving salvation is “not by works” (Eph 2:9) it mandates the categorizing of “faith” as a gift of God. Concerning works and justification, Strong’s dictionary defines justification (G1344) in two categories (below); each containing a variant definition which, of course, is in accordance with contextual usage. Justification in reference to man’s work designs the concept of an outward manifestation of an inward, simultaneous work of grace. The crux of the matter is not to attempt to desire any personal credit because, "in all things He has the preeminence" (Col 1:18).

    1. To render righteous (“justified by His blood” Rom 5:9). This is prior to any work of man (other than reception) and is simultaneous with salvation, because the believer cannot produce the righteousness of God, but rather Christ is, “made unto us . . . righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30).

    2. To show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous. (“by works a man is justified” Jam 2:24). This is God working through man, to be seen by man—after receiving salvation; “that they may see your good works” (Mat 5:16). The phrase “your good works” are actually still God’s works being evident to others by Him using us.

    The primary availability for the Holy Spirit’s teaching (1 Cor 2:13)?--Neighborly love first and doctrine second because we love God the most when we love our neighbor first (1 John 4:20).
  2. I understand the general tenor of this post, but do not see how it's based on the Dispensationalist school of prophecy....
  3. Hi Rusty - I not sure what you mean but I was just putting in a good word for Dispensational teaching concerning the truths of Scripture, which are not "based" in these teachings but promoted within them.

    The example I posted concerning the thread's subject (Faith Alone, in Christ Alone) is just one of many essential doctrines that are presently undergoing alarming opposition, due to false teachings among Christians.
  4. My understanding is that Dispensationalism is a school of prophecy and is also known as Futurism or even Darbyism or Scofieldism. There is also Preterism and Historicism schools of prophecy.

    The general Gospel ideas you posted here I have read in non-dispensationalist books as well.

    Perhaps a study of these will clarify what I mean:

    and for a small comparison of the three schools:
  5. I understand. Thanks!
  6. No worries...please understand:
    It was a good compact grace/justification post, no doubt.
  7. Excellant! I Agree and thanks for the insight.

    Your comments go a long way to explain that dispensationalism is not just about prophecy but instead the whole history of the Scripture beginning at Genesis with creation.

    Keep up the good work.
  8. Thanks Brother and you too!!
  9. Dispensationalism does not have a monopoly on the concepts of grace and works. ALL Christian schools claim that grace supersedes works, but what they do with charitable acts after that statement varies.

    I think this thread attempts to make a school of prophecy more overshadowing than it is.

    There are hundreds of Futurist/dispensationalist varieties in eschatology, and I think you may be promoting your own ideas about eschatology as superior because you blend in your own ideas on grace and works.

    Although Futurism/dispensationalism affects theology, I do not see it AS a theology, only a prophetic instrument.
    It does put spins on the other aspects of doctrine and practice, such as Theodicy, Theological anthropology, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Israelology, Bibliology, Hermeneutics, Sacrament, Pneumatology, etc...

    I hope this is clearly written...not sure.
  10. Hi Rusty - I just wanted to mention to you that the thread-subject is not eschatologically related. It merely supports the Scriptural doctrine that Salvation comes "by grace--through faith,"--apart from any works, which proceeds regeneration, not precedes it.

    As you may know, nobody has "a monopoly on the concepts of grace and works", because "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (1 Pet 1:20).

    To me, dispensational teaching is just a method of "rightly dividing the Word" which involves various chronological dispensations or if you will, dispensings, i.e., the dispensation of the Law by Moses and the "dispensation of the gospel" by Paul (1 Cor 9:17).

    The separate dispensations are necessary to understand that, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb 1:1, 2).
  11. So that makes dispensationalism a "chronology", a time factored prophetic position.....NOT about grace and works. Time factors are what prophecy is all about.

    I know plenty of chronologies that hold the same grace and works position; so I think you mislabeling dispensationalism.

    The other prophetic schools, Preterism, and Historicism as well as Allegoricallism, also deal in time-factors, periods, history, human secular activities, etc. AND I have never read from any of them any different position than yours about grace and works.
  12. I do not believe we're understanding one another on this one, because you keep repeating what I've mentioned is unrelated concerning your replies on this thread, but it's okay to lovingly disagree regardless. To me, this is just a matter of opinion and truths eventually come anyway to those who seek them wholeheartedly.

    Not that I've been offended, but I would suggest that you place more concern on how you correspond and avoid making accusations. You can share your opinions without appearing to be suspicious of other's intentions. (i.e., "I think you may be promoting your own ideas"; "I think you mislabeling dispensationalism."

    In Brotherly Fellowship
  13. My comments were said in love. I did not condemn but said "I think" with every comment regarding what I saw as a small error in labeling or promotion.

    I have given my ideas (that dispensationalism is an eschatology school of thought, not a move of God in grace for conversion and righteousness in one individual soul), show other such schools of prophecy (for that is all it is) and that's all that I need to say.

    If you see "suspicion" in my comments they did not spring from me.
  14. Glad to know and thanks for informing me.

    Your Brother Bob
    Rusty likes this.
  15. My high regards, Bob.

Share This Page