I can see how Joe might have understood Steve as saying what he did.
If Joe were a new believer, not a pastor and shepherd of the sheep, and had little knowledge of spiritual things and had not interacted with Steve, an elder in a reformed Baptist church, to any degree then, I too, could see how he "might" have understood him as he did.
But I must agree with Susan that that comment struck me as being unproductive and uncharitable and, I would add, superior sounding, similarly to the "dispensationalist" labeling that has been used in these discussions. It is in my view another form of a type of approach to "discussion" that is characterized by such thinking and phrases as: "oh, I know what the (read "your") problem is", as if all the answers reside with the speaker and it is only a matter of undeluding the poor confused soul.
I agree with Steve that I don't like being called dispensational no matter how you couch and qualify the term and neither, I suspect, would Spurgeon. Would that he were here to give us his response.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> To this reformed person, to be called a little bit dispensational is like being called a litte bit homosexual, as, by it's very nature, it carries all sorts of negative connotations with it that cannot be "word engineered away".
I would add that I don't really care how many times one has had lunch with Roger Nicole, or is personal friends with Charles Stanley, etc., for the Lord is not a respector of persons.
And finally, I would just suggest that if our friend's workload is too heavy that he consider taking a few less hours of class work. "In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength: Is 30:15
