Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

Would this be 'Israelology' that you mentioned on another thread? I'm curious about that. I googled it and seen where there's a book out by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, founder and head of Ariel Ministries http://www.ariel.org/ with that title. Could you tell me something about it?

[edit] Correction, it was post #21 of this thread that you mentioned 'Israelology'.

 

Robert, you really need to lighten up with the Calvin stuff. I will lay heavy odds that you did not arrive at your dispensational theology JUST from the study of Scripture. You were taught this system and/or read it as notes in a study Bible. You did not invent the system on your own.

So, if you are going to paint the Calvinist with that brush, you had better check to see if you are slopping the same paint on yourself.

By the way, just how much Calvin have you actually read? And if none, why not? John Calvin was one of the influential persons in the history of Baptists everywhere. We are indebted to him for much of our current theology. It would be good to know what HE says instead of whomever you are listening to says about him.

I'd really like for you to rebut Calvin's actual writings instead of this straw man that you continually prop up.

Additionally, you do know that Arminianism stems from Calvin, right? Jacob Arminius was a student of Calvin's work. The least you could do is follow your esteemed theologian's example and deal with Calvin himself.

 

GL: How do you know that Robert is arminian? Has he stated so? If so, well fine. If not, then you are assuming anyone not holding to the DoG is by necessity arminian.

 

Go ahead J.D., make your case.

 

That's true... He could be Pelagian. :laugh:

 

glfredrick, you start out the above paragraph very well but after the first sentence things start to go downhill. Don't take this personally because it's not intended to be personal but you do what many reformed/covenant theologians do. What is that you ask? Good question.

First, they think that because they are smarter than the average bear that their personal experience along the theological bunny trail is the ultimate end-all experience. But all is not lost until they (and i'm speaking in a general sense) start to define a theological system that they claim to have been born in, incorrectly. My good friend Dr. Riddlebarger does it, right out of the shoot, he informs his readers that he was born into dispensationalism but one day he matured in his understanding and presto chango, he converted to covenant A-mil. And of course, if the dear reader wants to be heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team, they will follow in his footsteps.

Of course, being in a dispensational church does not make one a dispensationalist. And to use Dr. Riddlebarger as an example, he many times describes a dispensationalism that is unique to himself and no one in his camp ever calls him out on it. Why? because they do it also. There is a name for this kind of behavior.

I fully realize that I can say this until I turn blue in the face, that is the preceived "issues" in dispensationalism are nothing compared to the preceived "issues" in covenant theology but until and individual gets past the "wall chart" or "left behind" mentality, mine are wasted words. I say this because at the core of the covenant/dispensational debate is how do you handle the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, not does Jesus return before, during or after the tribulation or how do we define the millinnium. And those waters are not going to be entered by anyone other than an individual who is determined to get to the nub of the issue, which by the way once entered is by no means a slam dunk for either side.

Not that it matters to me personally, but when foes of dispensationalism cut and past Bible verses or quote from The Christ of the Covenants to make their point they make little impression on people like me because some of us, odd as it may seem, have considered their arguments already. This is where a little humility on the part of some reformed/covenant hobbiest would be helpful in their cause because they seem to think (some of them anyway) that they are expounding some bright light from on high that the poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed.

Food for thought.

 

I didnt know Robert was a Pelican....does he have a big nose?

 

I reject dispensational theology for reasons I outlined above -- not as a reaction to the fact that I somehow "graduated" into a higher form of knowledge. Plainly, dispensational theology has fatal flaws that have been detailed very well in book length works that are available for anyone to read.

Also note that I am neither arguing for a covenantal view. It too is deficient, starting with its (almost universally misunderstood) covenants -- the covenant of works (Pre-fall Adam) and the covenant of grace (all else). Neither of these were in fact covenants, which makes the whole rest of the system suspect. Yes, there were covenants, but they do not make for an overarching "center" or theology of the entire Bible.

So far, only Election seems to fit the bill for an overarching "center" theology that has explanatory power for the entire text of Scripture, but this theology is in its infancy stages, and so is not yet widely available. One must dig through a myriad of theological journals to follow the discussion as it envelops.

Finally, the entire tenor of your post indicates that I am somehow ignorant of the actual tenets of dispensationalism or covenantalism. I am not. I simply reject both as having a "center" that can adequately deal with the theology of the entire Bible, both having fatal flaws.

If you would like to examine the points of both contrasted to a different view, bring specific points to the table. I would be willing to engage an orderly debate of the issues without leaning to ad hominem attacks,which you appear to bring against me, simply for suggesting that dispensationalism is flawed and that I have changed.

 

Well said Guy....:applause:

 

I think it is safe to say that in spite of the fact we are in basic agreement on many things you missed my point on some things and make my point on others. But again, as a general rule I only worry about my theology and not yours or anyone elses.

I'm sorry that you think I ad hominemed you as I didn't set out to specifically do that. But it is interesting that you find fault with everything out there as having some error, a point I agree with you on (I don't claim to have perfect theology). I don't think anyone this side of the pearly gates has it 100% correct, but I think some things are clearly easy to toss out. As far as my tone is concerned, take no offense as I'm a really nice guy.

 

:thumbs:

BTW: This is the first time I have ever seen "ad hominem" conjugated to be an adverb. May I have permission to use it, although I hope I can refrain from "ad homineming" anyone.

 

What exactly did you say, or I say that lead to this remark?

i guess that ther something we need to examine point-by-point?

Okay... Let's take a look.

Ill try not to take this personally, but you make it personal when you launch out with a statement like, "you do what many reformed/covenant theologians do."

I'm glad that you will explain yourself below...

If, what "many reformed/covenant theologians do..." is what you describe above, I would be very inclined to believe what you wrote. However, I wonder just how many "reformed/covenant theologians" you have met, studied, etc. That is not self-evident from your remarks.

I am, however, in awe of your ability to describe these so-called "smarter than the average bear ... theological bunny trail..." persons. I also note that your "good friend" is introduced as "Dr. Riddlebarger. There seems to be a bit of disparity between the two remarks that could (could) indicate that you have less respect for the scholarship on one side of this discussion than the other, no?

Then, you seem to supply the explanation you referenced in the first paragraph when you said, "What is that you ask? Good question..." with this statement of erudite wisdom: "but one day he matured in his understanding and presto chango, he converted to covenant A-mil. And of course, if the dear reader wants to be heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team, they will follow in his footsteps."

No chance that the individual ACTUALLY studied out the Scriptures, examined the points of the theology, and found them lacking or critically flawed? Just a "me too" bandwagon effect? Sounds rather shallow, but since you seem to want to paint me in that camp, perhaps I am indeed that shallow! We'll have to prove that out.

Are there many persons in dispensational churches who are not dispensationalists? Just wondering. Is there some objective way to know this? It seems that dear Dr. Riddlebarger is one example, but how do we know that there are others, or if so, how many? And, are those others "heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team?"

What IS the name for "this kind of behavior?" I don't recall that you mentioned that. It may indeed be germane to the discussion and I'd hate to miss an important point like that!

It would seem that you have an unusual talent. I've met a few guys in my childhood who could pitch a fit and turn blue in the face, but I've never seen an adult Bible scholar do so. Could you you-tube that so we can all give God glory for your talent?

About "perceived issues," we may have something therein to discuss. The reason it is so difficult to "get past the "wall chart" or "left behind" mentality is that those "mentalities" are driven by dispensational theology! I do not notice other theologians who do not hold to dispensational theology writing such works, nor making such wall charts. But the dispensational theology seems to thrive on that sort of orientation.

I well understand the issues surrounding "how do you handle the Old Testament in light of the New Testament"and I have said as much in my posts. I do not find that dispensational OR covenantal theology adequately deal with handling the OT in light of the progressive revelation and fulfillment seen in the NT. Neither do! What is your proposed solution?

You suggest that only "an individual who is determined to get to the nub of the issue, which by the way once entered is by no means a slam dunk for either side...." can handle the issue. Are you suggesting that you are that person, or that I am not? I'm not sure that you know my level of study, nor what it is that I do or do not know about the topic at hand, and to be fair, neither do I know your level in this discussion, but your use of third person here indicates that you rely on the scholarship of others. But cannot both sides, "get to the nub of the issue?"

Can you supply an example of where I or anyone else who does not see dispensational theology as a sound theology "cut and past [paste] Bible verses or quote from The Christ of the Covenants to make their point?" What I've typically found is that the whole of Scripture is examined in order to formulate a theology of the Bible. That is the main point, no? It is not a theology of a covenant, nor a theology of a period of time, nor a theology of the rapture, or the fall, or Israel or any other individual part of the Scriptures, it is a theology of the entire Bible, which would indicate that the entire Bible is part of the study.

You say, "they make little impression on people like me because some of us, odd as it may seem, have considered their arguments already." Somehow, I have a problem believing that you have indeed done the level of study needed to have set this issue into stone, either for yourself or for others, but that may indeed be the case! I wish to take you at your word, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you have indeed invested of your time to study out all the various positions -- of dispensational, covenantal, modified dispensational, modified covenantal, and other theologies that are coming into the greater church world even as we hash out this debate. Would you then bring some specific points to bear so we actually have something to debate?

You continue (not personally, for sure!), "This is where a little humility on the part of some reformed/covenant hobbiest would be helpful in their cause because they seem to think (some of them anyway) that they are expounding some bright light from on high that the poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed."


I am reasonably sure that some "poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed..." all sorts of things that I am willing to debate here in this thread. But I'll not hold their ignorance against them. They have equal access to the books and journal articles as do those "reformed/covenant hobbiest..."

I would encourage you to bring your entire "professional" dispensational theology to the table so we can examine it point-by-point against the Scriptures and other competing theologies.

Please don't take what I wrote above personally... :thumbsup:

 

Yup... So, why did you make the comment about me learning my theology from someone else as if you had not? Not really a great way to debate a point, right?

I also HIGHLY suggest that you actually read Calvin. He wrote a massive commentary on the Bible that is still widely in use today. His level of scholarship is second to none, and we must remember that he was on the front lines in the battle to regain the Bible as the means by which we know God and God's will! If not for Calvin and some of the other early Reformers, we would not be here today having this discussion.

Pick a favorite Bible passage and dig in.

 

Calvin on John 3:

 

You are so very correct, God does not need us or ANYTHING, but he sure does love us.

Jesus Loves me this I know
For the Bible tells (shows) me so.....

 

More Calvin:

 

You have "read into" my comments. I'm only saying that Calvin was one of the men that God used mightily to make a dent in the darkness and that his biblical work is solid and worthy.

God "needing" Calvin, etc., is just a means of firing but another argument. We both know that God doesn't need anyone -- including you and I. But God does USE persons that He has gifted as teachers, evangelists, pastors, etc., and the Word says so...

In truth, the very name "Calvin" sets your teeth on edge because you have been somewhat conditioned to see him that way. I HIGHLY suggest doing some investigation on your own. You may be pleasantly surprised.

I posted a bit of Calvin above, just for the record.