Is Dispensationalism (John Mcarthur) reason to leave an otherwise sound church?

[Curt]

Include me with those who think the incompatibility factor is very high. Dispensationalists have caused a great deal of damage to our churches and communities, worldwide. That, along with the fact that they despise us, should be enough to warrant, at the very least, looking elsewhere. If push comes to shove, I'm sure that there are some good Reformed denominations that would like to discuss church planting.

 

[KMK]

I agree with Pastor Curt.

I have never been in a true Dispensational church. Do they preach from Matt 5 etc?

 

[Notthemama1984]

Yes they teach from Matt. 5. I heard the Sermon on the Mount growing up. Why would you think they wouldn't?

 

[DMcFadden]

Include me with those who think the incompatibility factor is very high. Dispensationalists have caused a great deal of damage to our churches and communities, worldwide. That, along with the fact that they despise us, should be enough to warrant, at the very least, looking elsewhere. If push comes to shove, I'm sure that there are some good Reformed denominations that would like to discuss church planting.

"Despise"??? That is tarring with a pretty broad brush, don't you think? If you are speaking of Ergun Caner, sure. But, I do not think that you can claim that John MacArthur despises Reformed theology.

As for your broader point, I would agree with you for another reason. During my pastoral years I had more than my share of folks who could think of a few ways to make my life miserable over secondary and tertiary issues (e.g., home schooling -- on BOTH sides of the issue, eschatology, etc.). At times it makes a LOT more sense for a person to move on to a church that better reflects their own theology and practice. Why waste precious time and energy fussing over things when you could be more profitably engaged in positive kingdom work? My desire to try to be everything to everyone led me to waste much energy trying to convince folks to stay despite their disagreements over this, that, or the other thing. However, with maturity comes the realization that such departures can be healthy for the ones with a different theological point and for your own fellowship. Eventually, I came to accept such sadly necessary shifts as "blessed subtractions" for everyone concerned.

Yes, we want to include people and work with them despite an occasional difference of opinion or strategic preference. However, on some of these issues, we will NOT settle them this side of the eschaton and would do well to allow evident brethren to be our co-belligerence in the cause rather than becoming belligerent with one another.

Now that my ministry is in a retirement home community setting, the senior pastor at church is a dispensational pre-tribber. My adult Sunday school class is, shall we say, in a "different direction" under my teaching. He sees me as supportive of his ministry, serves on the board of my retirement community, and does not mind my 5 pt Calvinism and preference for the amil position on eschatology. When we considered the eschatology options a few months ago in SS, I presented all of the major views and explained why I hold to the amil view. IFF he did not permit me to teach such things or considered me a disruptive influence in the congregation, I would consider looking around for another church. However, as long as my tenure continues in the BAPTIST retirement community, it will probably require my presence in the Baptist church.

 

[Curt]

Include me with those who think the incompatibility factor is very high. Dispensationalists have caused a great deal of damage to our churches and communities, worldwide. That, along with the fact that they despise us, should be enough to warrant, at the very least, looking elsewhere. If push comes to shove, I'm sure that there are some good Reformed denominations that would like to discuss church planting.

"Despise"??? That is tarring with a pretty broad brush, don't you think? If you are speaking of Ergun Caner, sure. But, I do not think that you can claim that John MacArthur despises Reformed theology.

Broad brush, yes. And MacArthur MAY be an example of those who do not despise us (I emphasize the MAY not because I disagree, but simply because I do not know him well enough). But in my day-to-day dealing with full dispensationalists, I have found nothing but disdain (to put it mildly). They have tried to ruin churches and pastors over these differences in theological perspective. This is my own experience, but it my viewpoint is not limited to personal experience alone.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I don't think "despise" is to harsh of a term for most Dispensationalists. It is common for Dispensationalists to see us as cultic or heretical.

 

[Curt]

I don't think "despise" is to harsh of a term for most Dispensationalists. It is common for Dispensationalists to see us as cultic or heretical.

Yes.This is why it is not uncommon, upon entering a Dispensational church building, to find tracts with titles such as "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist?"

 

[Notthemama1984]

Or blaming the demise of a neighboring church because the pastor was one of those crazy calvinists.

 

[KMK]

Yes they teach from Matt. 5. I heard the Sermon on the Mount growing up. Why would you think they wouldn't?

I thought Dispensationalists believed that the Sermon On The Mount was strictly for the Jews.

Now that my ministry is in a retirement home community setting, the senior pastor at church is a dispensational pre-tribber. My adult Sunday school class is, shall we say, in a "different direction" under my teaching. He sees me as supportive of his ministry, serves on the board of my retirement community, and does not mind my 5 pt Calvinism and preference for the amil position on eschatology. When we considered the eschatology options a few months ago in SS, I presented all of the major views and explained why I hold to the amil view. IFF he did not permit me to teach such things or considered me a disruptive influence in the congregation, I would consider looking around for another church. However, as long as my tenure continues in the BAPTIST retirement community, it will probably require my presence in the Baptist church.

Do you make recordings of these Sunday School classes, Dennis?

 

[Scott1]

Chaplainintraining
Yes they teach from Matt. 5. I heard the Sermon on the Mount growing up. Why would you think they wouldn't?

KMK
I thought Dispensationalists believed that the Sermon On The Mount was strictly for the Jews.

You're right, and this is one of the things that helped clarify the very different interpretative framework of the whole of scripture dispensationalism is from covenant theology.

In a detailed discussion about this issue, the dispensational influenced person told me there were "two" gospels- one for "the church," one for "Israel" (which he defined as people who had some Jewish ancestry, but would not say how much). So, it was eye opening for me to hear that the Sermon on the Mount was not intended for the church, but only for those who had some Jewish ancestry but were not believers.

(I have heard others infer from this dispensationalism that the whole of the Ten Commandments do not apply to us today- that somehow that standard is "too low" for us. When I read the Sermon on the Mount though it seems the standard based on the Ten Commandments is so broad, including thought, word and deed that no one, not then, not now, Jew or Gentile, could possibly keep them.)

And dispensationalism leads to two kingdoms as well- one for "the church" and for "Israel" and one had to know their dispensational interpretive framework to know which applied to who.

It was also quite revealing to learn most dispensationalist no longer believe in an eternal separation of "the church" and "Israel." They did originally when the system was first put out, but now, they say they do get together, sometime in the future state of glory.

Covenant theology says they are together now.

With differences like this, once they become apparent to a person, I believe they can be grounds for changing churches, respectfully, within their process and vows, and beneficial for all around to be aware of.

And that's also why reformed theology, at a minimum must be defined by:

doctrines of grace + covenant theology + confession

(If it's less than that it may be leaning or trending "reformed" or even "Calvinist" or "covenantal" but not reformed, which is always defined clearly by its confession)

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I doubt that a dispensational church could be "sound" church. They might be pious, they might be good people, but dispensationalism, even progressive dispensationalism (which seems like a real improvement over earlier versions) is still dispensationalism. Further, dispensationalism doesn't occur in an ecclesiastical vacuum. Most of the time it appears in certain sorts of churches.

A "sound" church, most broadly defined would be a Reformational church (at least) grounded in God's Word as confessed by the confessional Reformed (including confessional Anglicans) or Lutherans. I would rather, however, work with the category used by the Reformed in the Reformation of "true" and "false" churches.

Here Belgic Confession Art 29 is most helpful, however difficult it may to apply in our time:

Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ.

They love the true God and their neighbors, They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

From a confessional Reformed point of view, does any Dispensational congregation have all three marks? Can it? I suppose theoretically, but then how relevant would the dispensationalism be in the life and doctrine of such a congregation?

 

[jrdnoland]

I also like a lot of what John MacArthur teaches, but if you are sure the church you are attending is teaching something falsely that may affect your view of God, then I think you'd have to at least look into other churches.

I just started reading Calvins Institutes and I think this section is relevant to your concerns, I especially like the quote "No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth."

Book One Chapter 4

3.We are not to fashion God according to our own whim

In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be,not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and is no spectra or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses,mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either contemptuously overlooks, or even undisguisedly rejects, the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured that he takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own childish conceits. Hence that vague and wandering opinion of Deity is declared by an apostle to be ignorance of God: "Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."(Gal.4:8) And he elsewhere declares, that the Ephesians were "without God" (Eph. 2: 12) at the time when they wandered without any correct knowledge of him. It makes little difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by departing from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable idol. It remains, therefore, to conclude with Lactantius, (Instit.Div. lib i. 2,, 6,) "No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth."