Is It Finished?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Mar 26, 2006.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    In His prayer for the Church prior to His Crucifixion Jesus Christ said:

    John 17:1-9
    1. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
    2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
    3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
    4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
    5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
    6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
    7. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
    8. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
    9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.



    There is much of interest in the above passage, however, consider the words of Jesus Christ in verse 4; Jesus Christ, God the Son, tells God the Father I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    Now just what work is Jesus Christ talking about? He has not yet gone to the cross so the above passage must anticipate that event. In fact in John 16:32 Jesus Christ tells His disciples:

    32. Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
    33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


    The betrayal of Jesus Christ to the Jews had already taken place [John 13:26-30] and He was giving Himself into the hands of those who would crucify Him.

    Again, what work is Jesus Christ talking about? That work had to include the formation of the New Testament Church as recorded in Matthew 16:13-20. A work given to Jesus Christ by God the Father which Jesus Christ completed.

    However, dispensationalists claim that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews and that they rejected Him [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. Now if Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom, and failed to do so, could He have told God the Father: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    Did Jesus Christ finish His work or does that work await some future 1000 year period as the dispensationalists claim, in effect denying the Words of Jesus Christ?
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Dispensationalism claim that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. The Church is often referred to as the ‘mystery parenthesis’ form of the Kingdom; mystery in that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Church and parenthesis in that God found it necessary to interrupt His program for the Jews because their leaders rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and He was unable to establish the Messianic kingdom.

    Lewis Sperry Chafer writes: “In fact, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalculation.” [Systematic Theology, 4:41]

    John F Walvoord writes: “the evidence if interpreted In His prliterally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine.” [Millennial Kingdom, 230]

    J Dwight Pentecost writes: “The church is manifestly an interruption of God’s program for Israel.” [Things to Come, 201]

    Charles C. Ryrie writes: “The Church age is not seen in God’s program for Israel. It is an intercalculation.” [Basis of Premillennial Faith, 136]
     
  3. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    At least a portion of your questions & answers is apples and oranges. However........

    Jesus died for original sin and daily sins. He paid the price in full. Tetelestai! Therefore, He finished the work God sent Him to do. Nothing can be added to what Jesus did at the Cross.

    During His ministry to the Jews He promised a Kingdom, available should they repent and accept their Messiah. They didn't repent. Therefore, His promise of a Kingdom for Israel will occur after the Tribulation, in what is known as "The Millenial Kingdom." He finished that work: offering a Kingdom then, then promising a Kingdom for later.

    The tragedy is that only 1/3rd of the Jews living in Israel will survive the Tribulation by fleeing from the death and destruction going on around them. Nevertheless, the remnant shall receive His promise. ;)
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You completely fail to address the question.

    Dispensationalism claims that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88].

    Jesus Christ in His prayer for the Church said that He had completed the work that the Father gave Him to do. Therefore, according to dispensational doctrine Jesus Christ lied since He did not do what they say God sent Him to do. He is going to have to do His job over some time in the future in the so-called millennial kingdom.

    Of course that fellow called Moon claims that he is the Messiah and will succeed where Jesus Christ failed.
     
  5. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a Baptist moving away from dispensationalism, I find the idea that the church is an interruption in God plan very distasteful.

    One interesting thing I began noticing is how often the word "eklesia" (church) is used of Israel in the LXX. I am beginning to see more of a continuity between the OT and NT, which I assume is compatible with Covenant Theology.

    The idea that Jesus was offering a literal physical kingdom to the Jews is also distasteful to me. If they had accepted the offer, there would have been no cross. We would all spend eternity in hell.

    Jesus' offer of the kingdom was a spiritual kingdom. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Entrance into the spiritual kingdom comes through repentance and faith. The Jews rejected this as well, which brought on the cross.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Actually I haven't seen much Moonism here in S.K. I think it may be more active in the States .
     
  7. KeithS

    KeithS
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    OldRegular -
    At first glance, the passage appears to be inverted parallelism (chiasmus). It is very common in the Gospel of John and in his epistles. Usually the point of a chiasmus is the innermost thought. Everything else builds outward from that in parallel.

    Point A is verse 2 with its parallel at verse 9. Notice that both verses refer to those given to Jesus.

    Point B is verse 3 with its parallel at verses 7 and 8. Notice both verses refer to knowing God.

    Point C is verse 4 with its parallel at verse 6. Notice both verses refer to bringing glory to God.

    Point D is verse 5 - the center of the chiasmum (the main point). Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with the Father's glory.


    So...what is the work that Christ finished that was given Him to do? Christ glorified the Father on earth (v. 4). This is further explained in verse 6 where Jesus says that he has manifested the Father's name to the men given to Him out of the world.

    This passage has nothing to do with dispensationalism or calvinism or covenant theology or any other system.
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    OldRegular -
    At first glance, the passage appears to be inverted parallelism (chiasmus). It is very common in the Gospel of John and in his epistles. Usually the point of a chiasmus is the innermost thought. Everything else builds outward from that in parallel.

    Point A is verse 2 with its parallel at verse 9. Notice that both verses refer to those given to Jesus.

    Point B is verse 3 with its parallel at verses 7 and 8. Notice both verses refer to knowing God.

    Point C is verse 4 with its parallel at verse 6. Notice both verses refer to bringing glory to God.

    Point D is verse 5 - the center of the chiasmum (the main point). Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with the Father's glory.


    So...what is the work that Christ finished that was given Him to do? Christ glorified the Father on earth (v. 4). This is further explained in verse 6 where Jesus says that he has manifested the Father's name to the men given to Him out of the world.

    This passage has nothing to do with dispensationalism or calvinism or covenant theology or any other system.
    </font>[/QUOTE]An interesting approach and certainly Jesus Christ made God known among men. However, that does not fully explain the work that Jesus Christ did while on earth. In John 4:34 Jesus Christ said to His disciples: "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.". In John 6:38 Jesus Christ states "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Now Jesus Christ established the Church in its New Testament form. Did he do that on His own initiative or was it the will of the Father. According to John 6:38 Jesus Christ did nothing that was not the will of the Father. Therefore, establishing the Church in its New Testament form was a part of the work that the Father gave Jesus Christ.

    As for the so-called Messianic Kingdom it was not established and was, therefore, not a work that Jesus Christ was supposed to accomplish otherwise He could not have made the statements recorded in John 6:38 and John 17:4.

    As I stated you have made an interesting observation but I disagree with your conclusion:
     
  9. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    OR,

    Been a while since I have gotten too entrenched in the Dispy vss CT debate, and I am also debating whether to jump in on the Free Will vss Sovereign Election debate. I have hesitated to engage, but here goes, at least on this one for now. I am probably a strange breed to a few of you, a Dispy (the closest label to what I believe) and a Calvinist (again, the closest label to what I believe). However, anytime you accept a label, you automatically know that some will paint you in ways that do not accurately describe your beliefs.

    First, as noted in your OP, Jesus had not finished ALL the work He was given to do. He had not died on the cross; He had not risen from the dead; He had not completed His 40 day post-resurrection ministry to the disciples; He had not yet ascended and taken His seat at the right hand of the Father.

    Second, there is no clear statement that Jesus established the Church in Matt 16. In fact, He clearly states, “I will build my church” NOT “this is the foundation and beginning of the church”. 1Cor 12:13 tells us that “by one spirit are we all baptized into one body” and Jesus plainly tells the disciples in Acts 1 to “wait for the promise” and that they “shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”. When did the church begin? When the Holy Spirit baptized them into the body of Christ. This did not happen in Matt 16, but in Acts 2, as Peter recounts before the church in Acts 11:15, “the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (emphasis added).

    Third, I am a Dispy, and I do not agree with your statement that “dispensationalists claim that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews and that they rejected Him”. Further, I know of NO dispys who claim that Jesus came to ESTABLISH the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, He came to OFFER the kingdom with full knowledge that they would reject the kingdom and crucify their king. He was neither surprised that they rejected Him nor was His plan frustrated, rather, their rebellion was the means of fulfilling His plan of going to the cross. He said over and over again that He came to give Himself as a sacrifice.

    PLEASE NOTE: ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL DEBATE IS TO STATE THE POSITION OF THE OTHER SIDE IN TERMS WITH WHICH THEY WOULD AGREE!!! (I AM NOT SHOUTING, I AM SPEAKING EMPHATICALLY.) Very few CTs have accurately represented Dispensationalism before beginning to attack the false caricature that they have erected.

    You ask, “Now if Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom, and failed to do so, could He have told God the Father: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.”

    This question is based on the false premise that Jesus intended to ESTABLISH the kingdom in His first advent. Very early in His ministry, Jesus made it clear that He came to fulfill Isa 61:1-2a and not 2b. When He read this passage in the Synagogue at Nazareth, after finding the passage and reading verse one and the first part of verse two, He stopped in the middle of verse 2 and closed the scroll. Then He announced, “This day is this Scripture fulfilled” (Luke 4:21). He did not come to bring vengeance the first time, but He will execute judgement when He returns the second time!

    Jesus did exactly what HE PLANNED to do, but He did not do all He desired to do BECAUSE HIS PLAN INCLUDES THE FREE WILL OF MEN. He desired to gather Israel to Himself as a mother hen gathers her chicks. But Israel would not. He knew they would not before He came. He knew they would not before He spoke the first creative word! He knew that He would die on the cross and Jerusalem would be destroyed by the armies of Rome in 70 AD.

    BUT, even as early as Deut 30:1, God foretold that the Jewish nation would reject His grace and mercy and be scattered among the nations. This looks way past the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities to a scattering throughout the world. BUT EVEN THEN, God promised that one day He would bring them back. I used to say that if you are going to understand Bible prophecy regarding the end times, you must start in Daniel. Now I say, “If you want to understand Bible prophecy regarding the end times, you must start in GENESIS. God knew the plan.

    Did the fact that God knew they would rebel when they got into the land mean that His promises for blessing in the land (Deut 28) were meaningless? Absolutely not. If they had obeyed in the land, they would have experienced the blessing and not the cursing. If the Jews had accepted their Messiah, somehow He would have established the literal kingdom promised to the patriarchs. BUT, God knew that they would not and God’s sovereign plan included their rebellion in such as way as to fulfill His plan perfectly. David foretold the rejection of Christ in Psalm 2 as quoted by Peter in Acts 4:26-28.

    Has Jesus finished ALL THE WORK that they Father gave Him to do? No. He has yet to return in glory and stand on the Mount of Olives as foretold in Zech 14. The Jews have yet to look on the one whom they pierced and mourn for Him (Zech 12:10). He has yet to cause the desert to blossom as a rose when He comes in power and glory as prophesied in Isa 35. He has yet to save all Israel as promised in Rom 11:25-27. Has He finished His work? Not hardly.

    So what does the passage you cited mean?

    Simply this – Jesus had finished what He needed to do in His earthly ministry. He had not finished His cross ministry. He had not finished His post res ministry. But to this point, He had faithfully fulfilled EVERYTHING to bring Him to the Cross.

    Amazing, how you assume that “I have finished the work” is an indisputable reference to the widely disputed notion that the church was somehow formed in Matt 16. On what basis can you make such an outlandish and unfounded assertion?


    THE CHURCH IS NOT AN INTERRUPTION IN GOD’S PLAN. IT IS AN INTERRUPTION IN GOD’S PLAN FOR ISRAEL. AS SOON AS THE AGE OF THE GENTILES IS COMPLETE, GOD WILL RESUME HIS LITERAL PROMISES TO ISRAEL.

    Luke 21:24, 27b-28 – “they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled... And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

    The only problem with preterist interpretation of this passage is that in AD 70, the Jews did not experience redemption... they experienced the scattering foretold in Deut 30:1.

    Rom 11:25-27 – “25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

    In the second post you write, “according to dispensational doctrine Jesus Christ lied since He did not do what they say God sent Him to do”.

    UNBELIEVABLE!!! (THIS TIME I AM SHOUTING) THAT YOU SUGGEST THAT DISPENSATIONALISTS MAKE JESUS OUT TO BE A LIAR WHEN COVENANT THEOLOGY ALLEGORIZES SUCH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF OT PROPHECY SO AS TO BLATANTLY DENY GOD’S CLEAR PROMISES TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB (ISRAEL), DAVID, et al.!!! Gentile believers may be the Spiritual seed of Abraham, but Gentiles are never said to be the seed of Israel! I have never seen ANY dispy make such a quantum leap as that!!! (though I have seen a few miss some other things)

    All my intensity aside for a moment, the fact that a few dispensationalists may not have stated their position clearly, or may even have been incorrect in what they did state, does not mean that Dispensationalism as representative of a theological system of interpretation is flawed. I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY COVENANT THEOLOGIAN CLEARLY STATE DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY ON THIS SITE!!! IN FACT I HAVE YET TO SEE ANY COVENANT THEOLOGIAN REPRESENT DISPENSATIONALISM CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY IN ANY OF THEIR WORKS!!! Dispensationalists are still awaiting the “profound apology” for having “failed to understand dispensational theology correctly” as promised in Sproul’s forward to Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing”. But, few of us are holding our breaths...

    Why is that CTs cannot clearly state D theology? It is because they do not understand it! They are stuck in what has been called the “incomplete reformation” – Protestant in soteriology and ecclesiology, but sound Roman Catholic in their eschatology! We claim “sola scriptura” and then wholeheartedly embrace the allegorical method of Origen embodied in Augustine’s City of God, effectively denying clear words of Holy Writ...

    But, I have figured out why no Covenant Theologian can clearly state the position of Dispensationalism as clearly explained in Ryrie’s “Dispensationalism”. The reason is that those who fully understand D are no longer CT’s! They are Ds!


    Calvibaptist,

    Get Ryrie’s Dispensationalism and read it carefully and prayerfully. Do not reject Dispensationalism on the basis of the arguments of those who do not understand it.

    The fact that the LXX translates congregation with the word ecclessia no more makes it a church than the mob in Ephesus was a church (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

    OReg

    I have always tried to read the very best that I could of those who argued against my position. My works of Gentry, DeMar, Sproul, Gerstner, Matthison, have been thoroughly devoured and ruminated over. I do not reject CT on the basis of what D’s have said about it. I reject after having thoroughly worked trough as much of their material as I could get my hands on. I have read the works and their reviews, both friendly and unfriendly, in BibSac, Grace Journal, JETS, Westminster, et al.

    Next thing you know, some of the Baptists here will start accepting the notion that Paedobaptism is the symbol of the New Covenant! Not all that big of a stretch with these methods of hermeneutics!


    Keith S,

    The issue is not whether this passage HAS anything to do with CT or D or Calvinism, the issue for OldReg, is can I use this passage to launch an attack against Dispensational Theology?! Your explanation certainly fits the context of Jesus’ statement which was used as the springboard for the attacks against D on this thread.


    Finally to all.

    I bear no malice to anyone on this board. If the intensity of my argument has been offensive, I most humbly apologize for my manner. However, I absolutely refuse to back down from my position, unless it can be shown to be contrary to a consistent interpretation of Scripture. Here I stand. I can do nought else.

    Ray
     
  10. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calvibapt,

    You wrote,

    “The idea that Jesus was offering a literal physical kingdom to the Jews is also distasteful to me. If they had accepted the offer, there would have been no cross.”

    Allow me a parallel...

    The idea of Adam having free choice as to eat of the fruit or not eat is also distasteful to me. If Adam had not eaten, Christ need not have died and He could not have been the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

    Followup:

    Adam sinned. Adam could have NOT sinned. God did not make Him sin, but God is that architect of a plan that included Adam’s sin and God’s provision for his sin, and ours. God’s plan also presented Israel with a choice to accept their Messiah, or to crucify Him. He was not surprised when the Jews crucified their Messiah. He knew that was what they would chose to do. Their free choice to reject their King and therefore their kingdom fits perfectly into His plan. The return of Jesus to fulfill the promises to the Jews will demonstrate both the greatness of His grace in redeeming the nation that killed His Son and His faithfulness to the many promises of His Word.

    Ray
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I am neither a dispensationalist or a Calvinist. I believe in the historic Baptist Doctrines of Grace as enumerated in the Abstract of Principles for the Southern [Baptist} Seminary and the 1689 London Confession of Faith. I will not attempt to address your post in entirety but will address certain points.

    You correctly note that Jesus Christ clearly states I will build my church. You incorrectly note that he makes no reference to the foundation of the Church. In fact He states And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [Matthew 16:18] Now I recognize that people may want to argue what Jesus Christ means here. I believe He speaks in reference to Peter's statement: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [Matthew 16:16] The Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesisns 2: 19-22, speaking of the Church:

    19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
    20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
    21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
    22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


    The Church is built on Jesus Christ and the work of Jesus Christ. The question must be asked here, are the Apostles [excluding Judas] a part of the Church. I believe so even though they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.


    May I call your attention to John 20:20-22

    20. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
    21. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
    22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:


    So we see that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. Is there conflict with Acts 1:5, 8 and Acts 2:4? There is none for me, you will have to answer for yourself.

    I noted in the OP:
    On page 86 of that book Hoyt states: “This finally culminated in the death of Christ, the rejection of the kingdom and its suspension for the present [Matthew 12:38-40]. Having rejected the King, the nation of Israel rejected the kingdom Christ came to establish.”

    Actually Jesus Christ did not come to offer a natural [Messianic] kingdom, rather he came to offer a spiritual kingdom, He came to establish the Church. [Please note I use bold for emphasis avoiding the necessity of explaining myself.] The Jews simply thought he came to throw off the yoke of Rome and reestablish the glory of David’s kingdom. They could not accept the requirements of a Spiritual kingdom, true to form. May I also note that on one occasion the people wanted to make Him king. [John 6:14, 15]

    I agree that the teaching that Jesus Christ intended to establish an earthly kingdom is false. But let us be very clear about one thing; I did not say that Jesus Christ came to establish an earthly kingdom rather that dispensational doctrine states that he came to establish an earthly [Messianic] kingdom. I give reference above to prove this. If you don't know what dispensational doctrine is????


    FREE WILL OF MEN, and I thought you were a Calvinist.

    Isaiah 6:8-10 was fulfilled as Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 13:14, 15 and by the Apostle Paul in Acts 28:25-27.

    Well you can argue with Jesus Christ if that suits your fancy. I notice dispensationalists have a tendency to do so, particularly when it comes to John 5:28, 29.. I choose otherwise. He did say: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. [John 17:4]

    Whether the Church in its New Testament form was founded when Jesus Christ made His statements in Matthew 16 or when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 or at Pentecost does not alter the fact that Jesus Christ stated that He had finished the work the Father gave Him. You will note that I stated:

    You are emphasizing again! But at least you agree with Chafer, Walvoord, Pentecost, and Ryrie though they are all mistaken.

    The truth hurts doesn’t it?

    The New Testament Church is one with Spiritual Israel of the Old Testament. If you don’t believe this just read the story of the vine in Romans 11. It is quite obvious if you take this passage literally, as dispensationalists claim they consistently do.

    You are shouting again and moreover you are shouting that which is not true. But that is so often so true. If you can’t win based on the truth; shout!


    I have read Ryrie. He does a clever job of distorting the truth of Scripture. He is honest enough to note that classic dispensationalism is evolving into progressive dispensationalism, which is just a pseudonym for covenant premillennialism.


    Read and reread the prophecy of Isaiah 6:8-10 and Jesus Christ’s remarks in Matthew 13:14, 15 and the Apostle Paul’s in Acts 28:25-27 confirming that this prophecy was fulfilled by the Jews until the light shines through.
     
  12. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    OldRegular, please understand that by this question I am not debating you, I am just curious.

    I understand how you could hold to the Abstract and the London Confession and not be a dispensationalist. It says very little regarding eschatology. And what it does is close to Covenant.

    But when you say you are not a Calvinist are you just saying you don't hold to everything Calvin believed? Because, both the Abstract and the London Confession are very calvinistic in the popular sense of the word. I guess I'm just wondering if you have some different view.
     
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    OldRegular, please understand that by this question I am not debating you, I am just curious.

    I understand how you could hold to the Abstract and the London Confession and not be a dispensationalist. It says very little regarding eschatology. And what it does is close to Covenant.

    But when you say you are not a Calvinist are you just saying you don't hold to everything Calvin believed? Because, both the Abstract and the London Confession are very calvinistic in the popular sense of the word. I guess I'm just wondering if you have some different view.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I understand that when most people say Calvinist they are only referring to Calvins doctrine on Salvation. However Calvin held many doctrines that I do not agree with. Among these are the baptism of infants, the mode of baptism, baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, the receiving of grace through partaking in the Lord's supper, etc. Therefore I reject the name Calvinist.

    Although I have not made a word to word comparison of the Westminister Confession and the 1689 Confession I believe that the Reformed Church [Calvin] held some different views on governing bodies, that is, Calvin believed in closer ties between the civil authorities and the Church than Baptists do.

    May I also state that my difference with dispensationalists on eschatology is not the major problem I have with their doctrine even though I enjoy pulling their chain on it. It is my belief that the only thing most people claiming to be dispensationalists know about their doctrine is the pretrib rapture and the millennial reign. The major problem I have with dispensationalists is their doctrine of two peoples of God: the Jews, an earthly people throughout eternity and the Church, a heavenly people throughout eternity. I believe that the progressive dispensationalists are moving away from this error.
     
  14. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Old Reg. I agree with you about your disagreements with Calvin. That is why I would hold to the London Confession (or the American version - Philadelphia Confession) instead of the WCF.

    I have the same major problem with dispensationalism. Even though they deny it, because of the complete separation of Jews and the Church. I took a class in progressive dispy when at DTS, taught by Craig Blaising. They admit this problem and deny the separation. In that, they are moving away from Classical Dispy. They also deny the Classical division between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.

    I don't currently have a label for myself. I am still pre-millenial, mostly because I have not seen enough biblical evidence to move me away from that position yet.
     
  15. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND LONDON CONFESSION
     
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct me if I am wrong, here, but I believe the Abstract of Principles is a 'binding document' on only two Southern Baptist Seminaries that have adopted it for their 'Statement of faith', so to speak. I am not aware that it is 'binding' on any other SBC entity. While I may or may not agree with what is in it, unless I as [or not as] an SBC church member were teaching or maybe even otherwise employed there, it has no specific reference to me. Is that correct?
    Ed
     
  17. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are correct Ed. It is an SBC document. I am not sure if it was only adopted by 2 seminaries or if it was more of a convention-wide historical document. I am not SBC, so you would have to get an answer from someone else on that one.

    It was only being discussed because, as a statement of what that group believes the Scripture teaches, it helps to know what one believes.
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    As far as I am aware the Abstract of Principles which were adopted by the Southern Seminary when it was founded by Boyce, Broadus, and Manly are still in force there. I am not aware of their adoption by any other Seminaries.

    I am of the opinion that the Southern Baptist Convention should adopt the 1689 London Confession [with updated English]. That might, of course, eliminate dispensationalism and Arminianism but we would be returning to our historic, and I believe, Biblical Faith
     
  19. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    Unbelievable. How anyone could arrive at that conclusion (especially a student of dispensationalism) is -- well -- unbelievable. But I guess Ray has already addressed the issue.

    In other news --- Ryrie certainly doesn't depart from classic dispensationalism in his textbook, Basic Theology. There he points out the flaws of progressive dispensationalism, along with a lot of other 'isms'.
     
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND LONDON CONFESSION </font>[/QUOTE]rsr

    Thanks. I now recall reading your post. Also read something similar in Lumpkin's book Baptist Confessions of Faith.

    [ March 29, 2006, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: OldRegular ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...