Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ ANTI-DISPENSTIONALISTS

[titus213]

Yes, sorry, the way I worded my statement was confusing. Scofield's comment about their rash acceptance of the Law in Exodus 19.8 is actually made in his notes on Genesis 12, in his discussion of the "Fourth Dispensation".

[Justaned]

In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Ex 19:8 Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Ex 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law.
C.I. Scofield, ed., The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments, WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Chapter 12".

That is a most interesting statement and one that carries many implications that I'm not sure scripture fully supports.

If we look at the children of Israel at this point in time we see a rabble of people that just came out of a dog eat dog environment after 400 years of slavery. They had no real concept of social interaction and needed direction, a social/moral law and fresh realization of ethics and integrity. The Law was given to accomplish those things along with teaching them to trust in God and to renew their hope in the Messiah.

The word rashly used by Scofield can be interpreted in many ways. I think the Children of Israel did act out of ignorance not knowing how impossible it would be to keep the whole law but I'm not sure rashly is a how their agreement with the law should be characterized.

I need to think on that.

I don't think most dispensationalist would view their decision as a trade of Grace for the Law. Since some of the Law (circumcision) did exist before this.

The question I have always asked myself is, if a Israelite dropped dead moments after making a sin sacrifice, in which he was cleansed of all sin, would he be found righteous and go to heaven or did he still have to see the need for a Messiah?

[titus213]

One of the reasons I don't buy into the "rashly accepted" comment Scofield makes is that when Moses met with the Lord he was told that the Lord had heard everything the people had said, and that they had done well or right in saying it, and the Lord went on to express his wish that their heart would remain that willing to be faithful and obedient, that they might prosper (Deut 5.29). In other words, the Lord commends them for their attitude. Obedience was just as much a fruit of salvation for them as for us now; it was never the pathway to attain salvation.

[branham1965]

Its a human invention.and it will be rooted up Matthew 15:13.

Cyrus Scofield put the stuff out to the masses through his Bible.


NOT ONE SINGLE APOSTLE OF THE LAMB WOULD PUT HIS APPROVAL ON ANY OF IT.

[macca]

Thats why we must trust God in all things so He has controll over ALL of our life.

[brodave]

John 16:8 And when He comes, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement.
If a born again believer sins the Holy Spirit will convict him.If he confesses his sins God will forgive him.If he fails to listen to the Holy Spirit the sin consequence remains on him.Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments .If we want keep His commands we don't love Him and we are not saved.

[branham1965]

thats called ultra dispensationalism or hyper dispensationalism what Mr.Feldick teaches.

If you committed one sin under the Law you were guilty of all the Law and the penalty was death. The wages of sin is death. Dake is implying the same is true under the New Covenant. Perhaps Dake is talking about blatant, habitual unconfessed sin?! But does he ever make it clear on such an important point?

Didn't Paul say it was impossible to keep the Law? If that is true under the Old Covenant wouldn't it be true under the New Covenant? Of course we now have the Holy Spirit to help us but don't we all commit sins on a daily basis and does anybody repent of each individual sin?

So, should confession of sins be a major part of the believers life to be saved?? Isn't our name written in the Lamb's Book of Life, are we not already a new creation, children of God?? Or are we on probation, in danger of losing our salvation. Aren't are past, present and future sins forgiven?? Or only if we confess them?

See, this is where Les Feldick makes the point where James, Peter and John were part of the Jerusalem faction of believers in Christ and were still under much of the law and so their epistles should not be given the same weight as Paul's writings about HIS GOSPEL of grace vs. the Jerusalem believers who were preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and we really not up to par!

[brodave]

In the law there were sacrifices for unintentional sins. Instead of worrying if I have broken one of the 1050 new covenant precepts, I know the blood of Jesus cleanses me from all sin. Now if it is intentional sin then I must confess and turn away from that sin.

[Justaned]

The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment. He is our coach/mentor in how to live moment to moment.

He who is led by the Spirit of God, he is a son of God.

And every time we commit a sin the Holy Spirit will convict us and we should confess it to God and He is faithful and true to forgive us of that sin and cleanse us of all unrighteousness, I John 1:9.

Dake makes it very clear in GPFM, P. 339-347.

Billy, a simple reading of the N.T. doesn't make this issue clear, their seems to be contradictions between verses and that is why God provided the Church with teachers like Dr. Dake. Read the pages above and see if you don't agree with him.

Dolph
Careful now you are suggesting something other than Sola Scriptura that was used to put the pope down.

If you follow the teaching of others Pope or Dake you must be convinced they are correct.

AntiCatholics say that, which convinces Catholics in wrong while Dake followers say that, which convinces Dakites is correct.

See the problem?

[Justaned]

When any discussion gets into the need to confess or repent of sins it gets real sticky.

There are intention sins which as so named are sinse we intended to commit.
However they are harder to define than one might think. A lady comes into church with a ugly hat and asks if you like it. You intentionally lie and say yes but was this a intentional sin or not?

Then there are the unintentional sins, sins with no forthought that occurred and were over before you ever even gave thought thought. Like rushing to a check out line beating out the little old lady that was still 20 feet away but definitely headed to it.

Then there are the sins of omission passing up the chance to confess Jesus, or righting a wrong.

If you are a believer in you must confess all sins to be forgiven then I would guess heaven will be mostly empty.

If you are a believer in you must confess all sins you intentionally committed then I would guess you are a justifier and probably justify more than you should.

If you are a believer in you must trust in the Holy Spirit to point out your sins then you are it was the Holy Spirits fault if you have any unconfessed sin in your life.

If you are a believer in grace all sins are forgiven for those in Christ then you find it hard to be a back slidder hater.

If you are a believer that grace that all sinse are forgiven of man then you are a universalist.

Pick your postion but remember by which you judge you will also be judged.