BaptistBoard.com  
     

Increase font size: 0, 10, 25, 50%
Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Left Container Right Container
 
Go Back   BaptistBoard.com > Christian DEBATE Forums (All Christians) > Other Christian Denominations

Other Christian Denominations Debate other denominations' doctrines/beliefs here.

Fewer Ads for Registered Users - Register Now!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-20-2005, 11:23 AM
ascund ascund is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Back in deep south
Posts: 767
Post

Greetings

Quote:
The philosophy of history is ďa systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning.Ē
[Karl Lowith, Meaning in History (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1949), 1 in Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 1.]
To be valid, an exposition must have the following elements:
_1. It must contain an ultimate purpose for history and the end to which all history moves.
_2. It must recognize distinctions.
_3. It must have a proper concept of the progress of revelation.
_4. It must have a unifying principle which ties the distinctions and progressive stages and directs them toward the fulfillment of the purpose of history.
_5. It must give a valid explanation of why things have happened, the way they are, and the why things happen.

It is my supposition that only dispensationalism can provide the necessary view.
Lloyd
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-20-2005, 11:28 AM
ascund ascund is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Back in deep south
Posts: 767
Post

Greetings

Covenant Theology (CT) is the major alternative to biblical Dispensational Theology (DT). CT is not necessarily wrong - but it cannot handle the 5 elements given in the first post.

CT is to be commended as it:
_1. emphasizes Godís grace, Christís redemptive work, and salvation by grace through faith.
_2. recognizes Jesus as the central figure of world history.
_3. makes an honest attempt to be faithful to the Scriptures.

CT has certain problems.
_1. It is too limited in focusing only on Godís redemption of the elect,
_2. It denies or weakens some key distinctions:
___ Abrahamic vrs Mosaic Covenants
___ Mosaic vrs New Covenants
___ Israel and the Church,
_3. CT is mistaken when it teaches that each of the biblical covenants is a continuation and newer phase of the Covenant of Grace,
_4. CT unifying principle is too limited or narrow. CT holds that the Covenant of Grace unifies history. But this covenant only deals with the elect. It does not deal with Godís other programs or prefall history.
_5. CT employs a double hermeneutic.
While it recognizes and uses the historical-grammatical method of interpreting most of the Bible, it uses the symbolic allegorical method when dealing with Israel and the future Kingdom of God.

Lloyd
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-20-2005, 11:34 AM
4His_glory 4His_glory is offline
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Detroit
Posts: 2,884
Post

Those of us that are Calvinistic in our theology are told that we can not be dispensationalists at the same time this makes no sense since the early supporters of dispensationalism was Calvinists.

http://www.conservativeonline.org/jo...v4n12_id01.htm
__________________
Pity the nations, O our God!
Constrain the earth to come;
Send Thy victorious Word abroad,
And bring the strangers home.
(Isaac Watts- "How sweet and awful is the place")


La pluma es la lengua de la mente.
(The pen is the tongue of the mind)
en Don Quijote
SeŮor, digno eres de recibir la gloria y la honra y el poder; porque tķ creaste todas las cosas, y por tu voluntad existen y fueron creadas. (Apocalipsis 4:11
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-20-2005, 11:39 AM
ascund ascund is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Back in deep south
Posts: 767
Post

Greetings

DT did not exist as a developed system in the early Church. Some early theologians did recognize some of the biblical principles.
_ Clement of Alexandria recognized four dispensations.
_ Augustine noted that god employed several distinct ways of working in the world as He executes His plan for history.
_ The first person on record to develop a genuine system was Pierre Poiret (1687).
_ In the 19th century, John Darby was a significant developer of dispensational theology.
_ In the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible contains intensive references to dispensational theology.
_ Charles Ryrie is a significant recent promoter of dispensational theology.

BTW, most of this stuff is from: Renald Showers, There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990).

The word "dispensation" comes from the Greek word oikonomia which is translated stewardship or dispensation in six NT uses referring to a responsible office. It is translated dispensation, fellowship, or edifying referring to God's administrative rule over the world.

Thus, a dispensation is:
Quote:
Godís administrative rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose for world history. Showers, 30.
The word "dispensation" is used in the Bible and the theological concept is easily derived from historical theology.

Lloyd
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:14 PM
Matt Black Matt Black is offline
9,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hampshire, England
Posts: 9,086
Post

THe word can also be translated 'economy' or 'administration'; one tends to have a slightly different theological take depending on one's Bible translation in my experience!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:30 PM
ascund ascund is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Back in deep south
Posts: 767
Post

Hey Brit

(Hopes that's not an insult. If so, public apology will be forthcoming.)

I've heard that only 1-2% of England goes to church. Is that true? Sadly, USA is headed that direction.

Is there any other nation on earth that has legalised the murder of their unborn?

Is there any other nation that has sanctioned the union of perverts?

Is there grounds for God's blessing on the USA? If so, what?

Lloyd
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:42 PM
Monergist Monergist is offline
1,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northeast TN
Posts: 1,122
Post

Quote:
_5. CT employs a double hermeneutic.
While it recognizes and uses the historical-grammatical method of interpreting most of the Bible, it uses the symbolic allegorical method when dealing with Israel and the future Kingdom of God.
In the midst of a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, this one jumps out as the most patently false. So forgive me if I ignore the rest of this smoke and mirrors and focus in on this glaring error.

There is a vast difference between employing a "symbolic allegorical method" and merely allowing scripture to interpret scripture. Scripture itself is its own best interpreter, not some artificial "literal" grid through which scripture must be squeezed.

This is a classic example of the pot prouncing that the kettle is black. While claiming to hold to a literal interpretation of scripture, many dispensationalists have no problem "allegorizing" certain texts when it suits their artificial system. The prophecy found in Ezekiel 38-39 is a prime example. It seems that Dispensationalists are very selective in what is to be taken literally; and quite often forced to take figuretively what is historical.


I believe in dispensations. I do not believe in Dispensationalism. And as long as Dispensationalists keep putting forth arguments like this, I expect that I never will be convinced.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:58 PM
Pastor Larry Pastor Larry is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 21,763
Post

The issue there, Monergist, is the consistent use of it. Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture would never lead to covenantalism, apart from teh presupposition of covenantalism. "Literal grammatical historical interpretation" means you treat langauge normally, as the author intended. There are certainly symbolic, or figurative passages of Scripture. DT recognizes this. What DT avoids is assigning a symbolic or figurative interpretation to a passage that is clearly not to be taken that way. And that is where CT so often fails ... They take plainly literal passages and make them figurative in order to fit it into their system.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-20-2005, 01:11 PM
ascund ascund is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Back in deep south
Posts: 767
Post

Hey Monergist

Quote:
Originally posted by Monergist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> _5. CT employs a double hermeneutic.
While it recognizes and uses the historical-grammatical method of interpreting most of the Bible, it uses the symbolic allegorical method when dealing with Israel and the future Kingdom of God.
In the midst of a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, this one jumps out as the most patently false. So forgive me if I ignore the rest of this smoke and mirrors and focus in on this glaring error.</font>[/QUOTE]So how do you view Israel? Has the Church replaced Israel wrt God's promises or not?


Quote:
There is a vast difference between employing a "symbolic allegorical method" and merely allowing scripture to interpret scripture. Scripture itself is its own best interpreter, not some artificial "literal" grid through which scripture must be squeezed.

This is a classic example of the pot prouncing that the kettle is black. While claiming to hold to a literal interpretation of scripture, many dispensationalists have no problem "allegorizing" certain texts when it suits their artificial system. The prophecy found in Ezekiel 38-39 is a prime example. It seems that Dispensationalists are very selective in what is to be taken literally; and quite often forced to take figuretively what is historical.
Context rules! That it refers to national Israel is without question. But does it refer to any historic period of Israel's history? If not, it must either be future or transferred to the Church. Which do you hold?

Rather than vainly ranting about the negatives, step up to the plate and provide your "correct" historical-grammatical interpretation - if you can.

How would you interpret Eze 38-39?
Lloyd
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-20-2005, 01:15 PM
Monergist Monergist is offline
1,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northeast TN
Posts: 1,122
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The issue there, Monergist, is the consistent use of it. Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture would never lead to covenantalism, apart from teh presupposition of covenantalism. "Literal grammatical historical interpretation" means you treat langauge normally, as the author intended. There are certainly symbolic, or figurative passages of Scripture. DT recognizes this. What DT avoids is assigning a symbolic or figurative interpretation to a passage that is clearly not to be taken that way. And that is where CT so often fails ... They take plainly literal passages and make them figurative in order to fit it into their system.
This is where I see CT's and Dispensationalist talking past each other. You say "Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture would never lead to covenantalism, apart from teh presupposition of covenantalism" and someone holding to CT could also say "Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture would never lead to Dispensationalism, apart from the presupposition of Dispensationalism. Quite honestly, I started out studying Dispensationalism far more thoroughly than CT, and I never could get it. And I can't see why these 'truths,' if they come from the simple study of scripture itself, remained hidden for 1800 years.

I don't hate Dispensationalism. Some of its teachers I have great respect for. And I've seen enough of your posts in the past here to know that you have high regard for scripture. I respect that in anyone, even when I disagree.

But what I do hate are muddled arguments that confuse the issues. Which arguments of this type do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.


The Fundamental Top 500   The Best Baptist Web Sites at Baptist411.com  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Copyright: Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forum
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
 
 

Christian Web Hosting for BaptistBoard.com is provided by BaptistHost.net