Featured covenantal or dispensational

You are not only foaming at the mouth you are misrepresenting what I have posted. I have said nothing about what you believe. I have posted what certain dispensationalist writers apparently believe. Walvoord believes there are or will be a total of seven, count them, seven resurrections. I began the post, #20 as follows:

I then reproduced Walvoords argument. I said nothing about anyone else believing his argument or his seven resurrections. Apparently, from your response, you went to sleep while reading it. Don't make accusations you cannot support, it is unChristian to do so! Furthermore, I believe that you alone raised the question of the Scofield Reference Bible on this thread [posts#s 16&17]. So ease off there HOS!

 

Wake up HOSS! Wake up! No one on this thread has said anything relating Scofield with seven resurrections but you and you alone. Folks are concerned about you and have suggested you calm down. It would be wise to take that advice.

 

Ok...all that ...and you are right, and Scofield, and Walvoord, and blah blah...ok. I really do not care. I really don't think any dispy does...maybe..If those who in one breath lambast Scofield, and then, in the next quote "Walvoord" to get their magical "7" resurrections number would bother to distinguish between the two...I appreciate the "concern" and all...but my problem is...I happen to know your particular loathing for Scofield...You really fail to appreciate that I am admittedly posting in ignorance here...I am imminently convincible....and I tend to lose patience with those who are incapable of convincing me when I openly claim ignorance...and demand that you PLEASE coherently tell me more....I know only this:

1.) OR hates Dispensational Theology because we are slaves to Scofield and Darby and what-not
2.) Dispy's apparently hold to SEVEN different resurrections...
3.) Scofield doesn't say there are SEVEN resurections....but apparently "Dispensationalism" does...(site random "Walvoord" personage)
4.) Therefore we dispy's must defend Scofield's non-7-ressurection policy, and Walvoord's 7 resurrection policy all at the same time
5.) Dispy's apparently now believe in both 7 resurrections and they also believe in not-7 resurrections...
6.) Alternatively: A= A&B and not A and B

This logic is seriously not holding....it isn't...you really are thinking that I am dogmatically committed here...I am not. I simply want to know what it is that "Dispensationalism" supposedly believes that is garbage that we must repent of...I really do not know. On the one hand, I have you on record cursing C.I. Scofield to the lowest pits of hell for entrapping all of us into this "dispensationalism" thingy...and then I have you telling us that we all believe in 7 different resurrections or something...which we must assume Scofield was a party to...and yet when asked that you supply us with the quotes wherein Scofield taught us such a thing...you don't do so, and yet explain that apparently, although Scofield (Dispensationalist extraordinaire) makes no such claim...We are all by default adherents of this Walvoord character..and betwixt him and Scofield we all subsequently believe such a thing as this 7 ressurection idea. I am seriously at a loss. I am REALLY not being sarcastic here. What is it that we "dispy's" believe? And what is so wrong with it??? I am truly unaware of the novel ideas we are apparently party to.

I simply do not understand the objections here.....I have always thought of myself as a "Dispy", I have always used a Scofield...any yet I believe nothing that you are claiming I supposedly believe...and I do not think that anyone else on BB does. This isn't sarcasm...This is, I seriously don't understand what you are talking about. Which is it? Do dispy's believe in 7 resurrections or not?

 

There are several versions of Dispensationalism, I think. One has seven dispensations, or ages, in which it appears as if God tried one plan and it didn't work out, so He tried another and oops, didn't see that coming, oh well, try a third plan - up to seven, the perfect number, and God "finally gets it right," as it were. At least that's the impression it gave me when I examined it (not very closely though, because I was getting pretty steamed early on at the notion that God is anything less than All-knowing, All-sovereign and All-wise and All-powerful).

At school the Christians would invite their friends to watch "Rapture" movies and hear speakers talk about what happens to kids who get left behind to face the terrible wrath of the Beast. Other than getting the daylights scared out of me all the time, I found it strange that we were not so terrified of God's justice as we were of "the big bad Beast" and all that he was going to do to us "left behind" kids.

Seems to me that sinners should be taught to fear God's justice, not man's wrath. Terror of a holy God might lead to real repentance. Fear of man doesn't inspire repentance from sin as much as a desire for "insurance" and the guarantee of escape from the Big Bad Beast.

But what sticks in my craw most of all is that I grew up believing that all Christians held to this "left behind" eschatology because none of the other Christians ever spoke up and said, "Waitaminute now, that scenario is little more than 100 years old! Christians throughout history until only recently were taught something much different! Let me share what Christians believed for most of the 2000 year history of Christianity before this "left behind" scenario took hold..."

And no one in the Historic Premil, Amil, and Postmil camps ever really speaks up about it. "End times stuff" is just not very exciting without a Big Bad Beast to scare kids into running to the altar for their ticket on the escape flight, I guess. But I really do wish that non-dispies would get their message out with as much evangelistic fervor as the "left behind" folks have done.

And I understand Dispensationalism to "wrongly divide the people of God" into two camps with two apparently different plans of salvation. One by grace through faith (Gentiles) and the other by covenant succession (Jews).

 

If I recall correctly covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism. It does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon. Am I recalling my study correct?

 

I would say that you are mostly correct. Covenant theologians claim that their theology stems from the WCF and that of Augustine (roman catholic monk from Hippo). The whole ball of wax however rises and falls on the allegorical method of Scripture interpretation and relpacement theology.

Here are three characterists of those who shout out their disdaine for the dispies here on the BaptistBoard:

1. They claim either to be former dispies or very knowledgable on the theology then proceed to misrepresent it on a public forum

2. They base their own theology on covenants or works, redemption and grace which are found in some of the writings of the reformers, not the Bible

3. They search for an area which dispies disagree among themselves and try to make the claim that dispies are disorganized kooks at the same time treat differences of oppinions among covenant theologians as simply a matter of academic jousting.

One poster on this forum claims that we cannot take anything in the book of Revelation literally because it is "apocalyptic" and in his humble opinion gives him the sole reasonable ability to decode the message but then he can use a literal meaning from Ezekiel to attempt to make his point in favor of a preterists scheme of history. He can do this and not even blush.

 

So according to your standards, there is not one non-dispo that can legitimately or altruistically have anything of substance against dispyism. Really?

I fall into #1 except I have not misrepresented dispyism at all. I showed places where Scofield and other dispos both claim and have to believe in multiple resurrections. An older view (like Chafer) believed in 2 new covenants. You have to believe in 2 peoples of God (either in word or deed).

And I am knowledgeable on this. I published a couple of articles in the Journal of Dispensational Theology (not my best work either; but that is for a different reason) while I was working on a PhD doing a dissertation topic on a more consistent dispensational view of the Kingdom of God.

All I know is, you have set it up where no one here on BB can compete with you b/c we are all deficient. You have claimed victory before we've even begun! Is that really correct?

 

Thanks Thomas, as you pointed out I was taught about in Alexandria they developed a system of Biblical interpretation based on allegory.
Augustine used this allegorical method of interpretation to explain away the literal return of Christ and thus amillennialism was born. Augustine's book, The City of God, Augustine taught that the Universal Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the millennium began with Christ's first coming. The seeds of false interpretation bore fruit giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a works-based religion.

 

A very apt description of what classic dispensationalism seems to have taught at one time. I believe that in recent years some have confessed to Salvation by Grace in all dispensations. The hypers, who knows?

From the response of dispensationalists on this Forum perhaps you see why those of Covenant persuasion hold their opinions. The most common response from dispensationalists is: You don't believe the Bible. Then there is the meaningless acrimony that you read from those like your neighbor down there in Ocala!

Apparently most dispensationalists on this Board are so Rapture Ready that they know nothing else about dispensational doctrine.

I have stated on this Board that the Book of Revelation is the story of the Victory of Jesus Christ and His Church over Sin and Satan or words to that effect.

All you have written above is very well said!

I have also noted on this Board that classic dispensationalism raises again [in the so-called millennium, and beyond according to Chafer and Ryrie] that wall that Jesus Christ tore down [Ephesians 2:11ff], symbolized by the rending of the veil in the Temple at His death.[Mark 15:38]

 

How ironic. :flower:

 

I believe that the method of allegorical interpretation fell out of favor about the time Margaret MacDonald had her vision and Darby fell for it!:thumbs:

Then instead of ranting and dumping on these "unwashed and unlearned folks" why don't you educate them!:thumbs:

I thought that salvation by works was the point of all dispensations up until the current "Church Age, or Grace, dispensation, and then in the Jewish millennium it is blood sacrifices and works all over again!

It is people like you and HOSS who spout meaningless acrimony that give the impression

I have stated that much of Revelation is written in "apocalyptic" language, which it is.:thumbs: Tom is more than capable of defending his own views!:thumbs:

 

You are the one lone special case that is not typical. Two halos for you sir!

But then you proceed to lose one halo for making my point for me. Having said that I'm sure in person your a nice nice guy and a good conversationalist.

And then there is my point #4. It relates to BB posters who have too much time and a agenda on their hands (comment not directed to you Tim).

 

Covenant theology isn't located to the Reformers but can be properly traced back to the earliest days of the Church.

Covenant theology did not arise from the allegorical school but finds its formative articulations in many of the patristic theologians who rejected exclusively allegorical interpretation.

Dispensational theology is truly a "Johnny come lately" paradigm, though that isn't necessarily a mark against it. In its classical articulation, dispensationalism runs into many difficulties when we consider the vast testimony of Scripture and how systematic theology has come to conclusions on many topics. Though the Dispensationalist proponents might have plenty of great charts and sermons, it is not a thorough systematic theology in its classical articulation.

Anyone saying that covenantal theology is allegorical and dispensational is literal doesn't understand either paradigm well.

 

HoS, there are plenty of "moderate" dispensationalists like you who use the old Scofield Reference Bible who may not understand the entirety of what Scofield's classical dispensationalism actually taught. This is understandable. I used to be a "moderate" dispensationalist like you, and I was associated with Baptists who were KJVSRB-O, yet there were plenty of things they would be shocked about if they really sat down and studied Scofield's whole theology systematically.

If there are people here who are falsely accusing you of agreeing with Scofield on everything because you use his Reference Bible, they would be wrong.

According to Scofield's classic dispensationalism, there are seven dispensations ("set of rules" "by which man is tested"), with each one "ending in judgment." Therefore, Scofield basically had to prove that the end of each dispensation was a "failure" of man, resulting in the ushering of the next one. According to Scofield in his article "The Seven Dispensations" "Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment, marking his utter failure in every dispensation."

1. The Dispensation of Innocence
Failure: The Fall of Adam and Eve
Judgment: Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden of Eden

2. The Dispensation of Conscience
Failure: The corrupt world under Noah
Judgment: The Flood

3. The Dispensation of Human Government
Failure: The tower of Babel
Judgment: The confounding of languages and dispersion of man

4. The Dispensation of Promise
Failure: "Israel rashly accepted the law...at Sinai they exchanged grace for law"[1] From the link above "Instead of humbly pleading for a continued relation of grace, they presumptuously answered: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.'" This is one of the weirdest conclusions of Scofield. The covenant of the Law was a "test" of Israel's commitment to the grace of the Abrahamic covenant, yet their "failure" was that they basically "took the bait" out of pride. They "failed the test" by accepting the law.
Judgment: God held Israel to their word and bound them under the Law

5. The Dispensation of Law
Failure: Israel rejected their Messiah
Judgment: Israel is cast aside temporarily

6. The Dispensation of Grace
Failure: The church apostatizes. "The predicted result of this testing of man under grace is judgment upon an unbelieving world and an apostate church."
Judgment: The Church is raptured away and God judges the world

7. The Dispensation of the Kingdom (Millenium)
Failure: Satan deceives the nations for a season and they gather for battle against Christ.
Judgment: Christ crushes His foes and sets up the Great White Throne judgment.

 

This is the place where you insert the names of theologians who with respect to Biblical interpretation are:

1. allegorical dispensationalists
2. literal covenant theologians

***page intentionally left blank***

And also missing is your admission that the covenant position has a major flaw in that there is a lack of Biblical teaching of the covenants of works, redemption and/or grace.

 

Two things are certain.

1. There is no mention of dispensations in the Old Testament but much discussion of Covenants!

2. The entire Bible is a discussion of the Grace of God in dealing with man!

 

Will David himself be resurrected to reign in the Millenium?

Eze 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
Eze 34:24 And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it.

Eze 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Jer 30:9 But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.


:type:

 

Maybe what was taught to me in church history is wrong, I don't think so.

Louis Berkhof, a covenant theologian, wrote, "In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all."

I don't believe it was taught in the early church or not as a main doctrine. Wasn't it the Westminster Confession the first said about it in any of the confessions of faith that we know about?

 

Actually, there is ample discussion of covenants in the NT as well as the OT. But there is no mention of a covenant of works/redemption/grace in the Bible.

 

Actually any covenant between God and man would have to be one of Grace. That God would deal with sinful man at all is a marvelous demonstration of His Grace.