R.C. Sproul's Dispensationalist View...

[No Nicolaitans]

Let me preface this by reminding everyone that though I agree with much of Dispensationalism, I don't consider myself to be a Dispensationalist...and I sure don't consider myself as a Covenant Theologian. It appears that this is similar to "you're either a Calvinist or an Arminian". Well, no I'm not; I'm neither. Now, I guess you're either a Dispensationalist or a Covenant Theologian. Well, not I'm not.

Anyway, R.C. Sproul has put a spin on Dispensationalism that I've never...Never...NEVER heard before. I've never heard any dispensationalist make the following claim.

Quote from R.C. Sproul...

“Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever. 

Source: http://5ptsalt.com/2013/11/04/r-c-sproul-dispensationalism-brought-us-the-carnal-christian-the-sinners-prayer-and-more-antinomianism/

Does anyone believe that statement, or does anyone agree with it? 

If you watch the video, you'll hear a lot of other nonsense (in my opinion)...and no, I don't read that blog. 

Edited to add: This statement (and the video) is from 2012. So I guess it's possible that he could have changed his view since then...

Edited July 1, 2015 by No Nicolaitans

[John81]

While the wording might have been a bit different, I've heard Charles Stanley and a few others say this. They claim that other than salvation having taken place, no other changes are evident. Furthermore, they claim one can be saved and continue to live like the devil for however long they live and they will be in heaven just anyone else who is saved.

It's not a new teaching, but I do believe it's a very dangerous one.

[No Nicolaitans]

While the wording might have been a bit different, I've heard Charles Stanley and a few others say this. They claim that other than salvation having taken place, no other changes are evident. Furthermore, they claim one can be saved and continue to live like the devil for however long they live and they will be in heaven just anyone else who is saved.

It's not a new teaching, but I do believe it's a very dangerous one.

Thanks John...yes, I realize that there are people who believe this. Perhaps I should have been a little more specific with my wording...I should have said...

Does anyone believe that the statement from R.C. Sproul is representative of the Dispensationalist viewpoint?

...or...

Does anyone agree that the statement from R.C. Sproul is representative of the Dispensationalist viewpoint?

I know that we've had discussions on the forum in the past that included people with a thorough knowledge of Dispensationalism and its history, so I guess I'm hoping some of them will give their view as to whether that statement is true or not. It would appear that I'm asking if anyone here holds that view, but I'm not. I'm just asking if anyone believes that statement or agrees with the statement...that it's the "classic Dispensational teaching".

Here is the statement again so that people won't have to scroll back up to read it...

“Well, classic dispensationalism teaches that when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, that person does not experience a change in their nature. So that you can have the Spirit in you, and you be in a state of salvation, without any change in your life whatsoever.

By the way...the bad grammar in the quote (and you be) is taken directly from the quote in the article. I copied and pasted it from the article.

Edited July 2, 2015 by No Nicolaitans

[MountainChristian]

Is this part of easy believism? 

[No Nicolaitans]

Is this part of easy believism? 

From what I watched of the video (I didn't watch it all), He is claiming that easy-believism, carnal Christians, the Sinner's Prayer, etc. are direct results of Dispensationalism.

[wretched]

Wow, what rubbish. The exact opposite is true in Scripture. I don't call myself anything but born again but I certainly believe there are differences in how God dealt with man through the History written in the Bible. Since Pentecost in Acts believers are sealed by the Spirit making it impossible to ever again repent from the true God. Prior to that there is no indication anywhere in Scripture of regeneration, renewing or sealing of the Spirit. IMO it is evident throughout the OT that Israel could turn away from the true God and worship idols. They had no Spirit living in them or sealing them.

Sure they sinned all over the place because they were never born again. As soon as the signs, wonders, miracles, visions, dreams, etc. stopped for a while, what did Israel do? They plunged deep back into sin and idol worship. So did pretty much every man and woman God used back then. Now we have a constant battle internally between the flesh and the Spirit.

The key here is not so much sins but idolatry and adultery against the true God. It is impossible for a born again believer to ever turn away from the true God and become a catholic or muslim or hindu or humanist. HAPPENED all the time in the OT, they could not keep their faith in the true God without constant signs, wonders, miracles, etc..

This sproul fella has it backward completely.

 

[John81]

In my readings of "older" Dispensationalists I really only read their sermons or writings on Dispensationalism and can't recall reading anything pertaining to the question at hand.

I know there are a number of contemporary Dispensationalists which what Sproul said could fit; but at the same time, there are also many that wouldn't.

Does anyone know from where "easy believism" originated? If it originated in the US, which I from what I've read it may have, considering the large number of Dispensationalists in America it's possible that came from those who were Dispensationalists. Even if that's so, it doesn't mean the Dispensational teaching fostered easy believism or directly led to it.

[No Nicolaitans]

Well, as a side note...in watching what I did from the video, it was as if they were implying that everyone was a Covenant Theologian until the 1800's when...ahem..."Darby came up with Dispensationalism".

[TheSword]

I think a key thing to not is that he seems to be specifically talking about "classic dispensationalism" of the variety that C. I. Scofield (ended life as a Presbyterian) and James Darby systematized in the early 1900s. There have been several varieties of dispensationalism since then. The current version, and the one I consider to be the most correct at the moment, is Progressive Dispensationalism, which definitely does not make such a claim.

In short, no, I do not believe Sproul's statement applies to all dispensationalists.

[Covenanter]

I agree with the various responses. If the contributors to this forum are typical dispensationalists, then this covenant theologian has no quarrel with the Gospel preached.

The problem with the Billy Graham type"decision" gospel is counting decisions as conversions, without repentance or a change of life. They change the grace of our God into lasciviousness.

 

[Old-Pilgrim]

I don't know, but I doubt if RC is right. I guess 'easy believe-ism'  is a slur or a misunderstanding of what teachers like Ralf Yankee Arnold  teach, I agree with Ralph as far as he goes, but he spends so much time trying to correct heretics like Mcarthur  (Lordship salvationists) on how a soul is saved that he barely gets past the new birth.

It isn't a prayer that saves a lost soul, but believing. Joh 5:24 and turnning Grace into Works doesn't keep a soul.

Scripture teaches salvation by faith without the works of the Law, and that is easy in that no work is involved and we enter into Gods rest. Ro 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law

We are not without law but we are EN-Lawed to Christ, he is the head we are the body, but we are not legally or legitimately  under the Law of Moses in any respect. we are not under the Law unless we fall from grace then we are under law like a prince who has wandered and been mistaken for and  taken as a slave-boy. Gal 5

Scripture also teaches us for the record, that their were some carnal Christians who never did too great. mostly the Corinthian ones, like the one who was having an affair with his fathers wife, 1Co 5:1-5 or the ones who were struck down dead or into sick beds due to their carnality at their 'own supper' 1Co 11:21  1Co 11:29-34

 

But perhaps this might be a good time to mention a tactic of the enemy, >>>"you're either a Calvinist or an Arminian". Well, no I'm not; I'm neither. Now, I guess you're either a Dispensationalist or a Covenant Theologian. Well, not I'm not.<<<  'No Nicolatians' you pointed it out their, the enemy try to split everyone into two camps so as to get them to argue and to digg their heels in, thus there is no way to progress into 'all truth' or any more accurate truth, then they pin every error onto the enemy badge so that their followers so how right they are and how wrong their opponents are. umbrella labels cause so much confusion I'm not sure a Christian should use them at all.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Old-Pilgrim
Ref.

[19DuggarFan]

Charles Grandison Finney is credited with starting easy believism.  Although I think this as been unjustly given to the man.  For Finney would hold a meeting and invite people to accept Jesus as their Savior.  But we as believers must remember that yes a Christians we can't lose our salvation but that is because our hearts are the good ground that the Seed falls on see Luke 8:8,!5; the Seed of course being the God's Word.  The rest of the passage of Luke 8:3-15 speaks of those who would follow under easy believism.  IMO this is what the writer of Hebrews was writing about in Hebrews 6:4-6.  John even speaks of these people in I John 2:19.

 

 

 

[2 Timothy 4:18]

I've never heard (classic) dispensationalism described that way before. I hate this compartmentalization that is done in all these different understandings.

I'm relatively new to bible study, but I can see both sides to this issue. I will discuss it from a standpoint of a person who has been saved and has the Holy Spirit indwelling them. This being the case, they have been made a new man, but it is the spirit that is made new, the flesh has yet to conform. The flesh and spirit of a regenerated man will war against each other and the Spirit of God will eventually bring the flesh into submission or the flesh will suffer, and the person may eventually even die physically.

I believe Christianity has become too compartmentalized. Truth is truth and it doesn't have to be called something other than truth. Recognizing that there are different "economies" in the bible in no way change the central theme of the gospel. The truth is, the grace of God is unconditional, and we are justified by faith alone. When a person hears the Word, and the Spirit of God moves them to make a decision, he either accepts the gift of salvation or he doesn't. Once accepted He is saved forever, and the life he lives in no way changes that fact. It's a matter of.....  A. did they actually have an experience with the Spirit of God?  B. did they receive the gift offered?

I don't know why this has to be called anything other than "salvation by gospel". It doesn't need all kinds of different names based on mans understanding of it. I know I don't have the experience in the bible and with God that most of you probably do. I'm just learning, but I can see how Satan has used this "compartmentalization" to confuse and divide.

I hope I haven't strayed too far from the OP.

Edited July 11, 2015 by 2 Timothy 4:18
Added the word "classic" to dispensationalism.