Daniel Fuller's Gospel and Law is a discussion on the hermeneutics of Covenant and Dispensational theologies. Fuller argues that Dispensationalists have changed their position on Old Testament Law and Salvation to such an extent that there is no longer any substantial difference between Covenant theology
...
再读一些...
Daniel Fuller's Gospel and Law is a discussion on the hermeneutics of Covenant and Dispensational theologies. Fuller argues that Dispensationalists have changed their position on Old Testament Law and Salvation to such an extent that there is no longer any substantial difference between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism on the issue of Gospel and Law. Dispensationalism still holds tenaciously to the idea of a separation between the Church and Israel even though, according to Fuller, the basis for doing so has been eliminated.Fuller summarizes the dilemma pointing out that on the one hand we can divide the Bible up into specific passages for the Church and Israel and postulate two ways of salvation, works and grace, as did Chafer and Scofield. Or we can suppose that grace and law exist side-by-side throughout the Bible, even alternating within a single literary unit, as Covenant theologians have done (63). Fuller believes there is a better answer.That answer is summed up very simply in Paul's phrase, "The obedience of faith". Passages which seem to speak of salvation by works are no longer troubling to those who understand that a "work of faith" presupposes "an inseparable connection between faith and the resulting works. Since the connection is inseparable, and genuine faith cannot but produce works, the Bible sometimes speaks of faith and sometimes of works when it speaks of the condition to be met in receiving forgiveness... So there is no need for establishing an elaborate division in Scripture as is done in covenant theology and Dispensationalism." (113). Dispensationalists dispute Fuller's claim that early Dispensationalists believed in two ways of salvation. Those who knew Chafer personally say he never taught or believed that. The written evidence produced by Fuller, however, is quite convincing. Early dispensationalists either believed in two ways of salvation, or they expressed themselves very poorly. In light of this, Fuller is convincing in his conclusion that later Dispensationalists like Charles Ryrie changed the original system. In so doing, they have erased some of the difference between Covenant and Dispensational systems. As a result Dispensationalism is still in flux. There is a broad range of beliefs in Dispensationalism today; from those who hold to the traditional system of Ryrie, to contemporary Dispensationalists whose theology is, in some ways, very similar to Covenant Premillennialism.
