Dispensationalism

[Van]

On what basis were OT saints saved?

Does anyone think this is a genuine question, or does everyone know its purpose to hide his prior false statements? One Calvinist says the New Covenant was not new, because God is immutable, another Calvinist ignores this issue and foists another canard.

And for those not familiar with dodgy nature of Calvinist posts, ask yourselves why the OT saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom? I mean if the Calvinist "eternal covenant" was in full effect, why was it not applied and the OT saints taken directly to heaven? On the other hand, what if Calvinism is unbiblical?

Behold the hermeneutics of Calvinism, now "NEW" does not really mean "NEW" because apparently God being "immutable" means it is impossible for God to create anything new!!! Take all those verses that refer to our New Covenant and rip them right out of your bibles folks, and put your trust in Calvinism...

Were you looking for a new Jerusalem? Are you a new creature? How about a new heaven or a new earth. Throw all that on Calvinism's book burning replacement theology where new means old, since means before, and your faith means God's instilled faith. There is no end when you claim the bible does not mean what it says...

 

[Van]

Dispensationalism is a theological term used to describe a method of interpreting the Bible. Progressive Dispensation is one version of many that differs from Traditional Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists believe Christ will govern upon David’s throne here on earth for one thousand years, or in other words they take those passages literally. Therefore Dispensationalists like to excoriate the “Reformed, Replacement Theology, Amillennialists” as not interpreting the Bible literally and therefore we stand on higher ground. And so it goes in theological debate.

Sadly the first thing to grasp is that the main difference between Covenant Theology (errant Amillennialists) and we, the virtuous Dispensationalists, has little to do with the idea that God governs man in differing ways. Both schools of thought agree God deals with man in different ways. No the chief difference is in our views of an End Times dispensation. Basically both schools agree on: 1) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with man before the fall; 2) Dispensation of Conscious or how God deals with man without the Law; 3) Dispensation of the Law or how God deals with man with the Law; 4) Dispensation of Grace or how God deals with man in Christ Jesus before the Second Coming; 5) the Millennial Kingdom or how God deals with all Israel on earth after the Second Coming; and 6) the Eternal Kingdom or how God deals with his children in eternity. Now the chief difference is that the Amillennialists believe the fifth age is going on right now in heaven so the Second Coming will inaugurate the sixth dispensation. Hence, Amillennialists are against the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, they hold to the idea that the Church replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) and the promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled in heaven during the dispensation of grace.

Let me say here that the above represents my understanding of the issue and I am quite sure I have missed the mark in the details, but I believe the above properly represents the general idea. But now to the heart of the post, what is the difference between a traditional dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist?

“Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.” (Tim Warner)

Progressive dispensationalists see the Church Age as a progression where God deals with the faithful in a new covenant enabled by the blood of Christ, and this Dispensation of Grace is available to those with the Law (Jews) and those without the Law (Gentiles who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament). Some but not all Old Testament promises apply to the church now, and are not being held in abeyance pending the Second Coming. Thus I can read Galatians 3 and it matches my theology perfectly. Same for Romans 9-11.

Another area where I fundamentally disagree with many is that I believe God is using multiple dispensations at the same time. Therefore today, three dispensations are in effect, God is dealing with those without the Law, who have not heard the gospel presented in light of an understanding of the Old Testament (Dispensation of Conscience); God is dealing with those who have the Law which includes Jews and non Jews who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament but have not accepted the gospel and have not been born again (Dispensation of the Law); and three, God is dealing with born again believers, the Dispensation of Grace.

 

[thomas15]

duplicate sorry

 

[thomas15]

Does anyone think this is a genuine question, or does everyone know its purpose to hide his prior false statements? One Calvinist says the New Covenant was not new, because God is immutable, another Calvinist ignores this issue and foists another canard............................

You are in my judgement correct. Calvinists do this in many ways, one of them is the chest thumping rhetorical question regarding one or two peoples of God. It is better understood as saved vs. unsaved, righteous vs. unrighteous but by trying to make it an us vs. them is designed to make the foe of covenant theology look like they support two ways of salvation. This misses the distinction between saved and unsaved, it also tries to make the Church an extension of Israel and the misses the fact that most covenant theologians agree that there are dispensations in the plan of God. It also covers up the idea that covenant theology actually teaches two ways of salvation using the unsupported "covenant of works" along with the covenant of grace.

The other trick they use is to pile up a slew of Bible verses that they think support their position. That does two things, first it forces the foes of covenant theology to examine every single verse in context and tries to make us look weak on our view of Scripture when the exact opposite is true. Spend the time doing that and your work is dismissed out of hand so it's a fools errand.

I'm not saying that reformed Calvinists Covenant theology relies on a less than honorable methodology to defend itself. But I will say that they need to resort to allegory in places of the Bible where Jehovah is clearly talking about the future of the nation of Israel. They need to put emphasis on the judgments against Israel for disobedience to get control of the Covenants, they then need to discount those same judgments as applicable to themselves in order to escape the same fate.

A careful study of the seven churches in Asia will confirm that the Church is not entirely without blame but make Revelation allegory and the problem goes away.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are in my judgement correct. Calvinists do this in many ways, one of them is the chest thumping rhetorical question regarding one or two peoples of God. It is better understood as saved vs. unsaved, righteous vs. unrighteous but by trying to make it an us vs. them is designed to make the foe of covenant theology look like they support two ways of salvation. This misses the distinction between saved and unsaved, it also tries to make the Church an extension of Israel and the misses the fact that most covenant theologians agree that there are dispensations in the plan of God. It also covers up the idea that covenant theology actually teaches two ways of salvation using the unsupported "covenant of works" along with the covenant of grace.

The other trick they use is to pile up a slew of Bible verses that they think support their position. That does two things, first it forces the foes of covenant theology to examine every single verse in context and tries to make us look weak on our view of Scripture when the exact opposite is true. Spend the time doing that and your work is dismissed out of hand so it's a fools errand.

I'm not saying that reformed Calvinists Covenant theology relies on a less than honorable methodology to defend itself. But I will say that they need to resort to allegory in places of the Bible where Jehovah is clearly talking about the future of the nation of Israel. They need to put emphasis on the judgments against Israel for disobedience to get control of the Covenants, they then need to discount those same judgments as applicable to themselves in order to escape the same fate.

A careful study of the seven churches in Asia will confirm that the Church is not entirely without blame but make Revelation allegory and the problem goes away.

Such posts show you do not have basic understanding of Covenant theology.
You claimed to have read up on it....but your posts tell a different story

 

[Covenanter]

A couple of minutes in, the younger man says that a problem with dispensationalism is "an over-commitment to grammatical-historical interpretation." Really? So simply taking God at His Word and interpreting according to the grammar is "over-commitment"? I say that it is exactly what modern Christians need. When God says "Go ye" He didn't mean "Stay ye." It's not rocket science, believe me--I actually have two friends who are rocket scientists, and they are both literalists--Tom in Japan, who worked on the Space Shuttle, and Dr. K, who is currently with NASA.

We need to understand that grammatical-historical interpretation is only the beginning when seeking to understand Scripture, particularly prophecy! Prophecy is understood by its fulfilment. (Deut. 18)

The G-H method is generally applied to prove prophecy relating to Israel applies specifically to Israel - and is yet to be fulfilled in the nation of Israel and Abraham's physical descendants. That is not supported by the NT writers.

Jesus and the Apostles make it clear that prophecy concerning Abraham's Seed refers to Jesus, and that Abraham's seed comprise all believers regardless of ethnicity. (Galatians 3)

 

[John of Japan]

We need to understand that grammatical-historical interpretation is only the beginning when seeking to understand Scripture, particularly prophecy! Prophecy is understood by its fulfilment. (Deut. 18)

As soon as someone proceeds past or without grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, they have descended into subjectivity, called in Scripture "private interpretation."

As for fulfillment, true; however, all prophecy of of Christ's incarnation was fulfilled literally. Therefore, all prophecy of the 2nd Coming will be fulfilled literally.

The G-H method is generally applied to prove prophecy relating to Israel applies specifically to Israel - and is yet to be fulfilled in the nation of Israel and Abraham's physical descendants. That is not supported by the NT writers.

It is completely supported by the NT writers, who always point to literal fulfillment of prophecy.

Jesus and the Apostles make it clear that prophecy concerning Abraham's Seed refers to Jesus, and that Abraham's seed comprise all believers regardless of ethnicity. (Galatians 3)

That's a bald statement with no proof.

 

[Iconoclast]

John
Galatians 3:26-29 teaches that exact thing.
What do you see different on that?
I do not think this could be written any clearer.

 

[kyredneck]

That's a bald statement with no proof.

That's a bald statement with no proof, especially since he indeed DID reference Gal 3, so this statement of yours' is false.

 

[John of Japan]

John
Galatians 3:26-29 teaches that exact thing.
What do you see different on that?
I do not think this could be written any clearer.

Great! You added proof to the bald statement.

There are two kinds of Abraham's seed. You are referring to the spiritual. That does not rule out the physical, and Jesus acknowledged that the Jews were Abraham's seed in John 8:37.

 

[kyredneck]

There are two kinds of Abraham's seed. You are referring to the spiritual. That does not rule out the physical, and Jesus acknowledged that the Jews were Abraham's seed in John 8:37.

It's the spiritual that counts. It is not the children of the flesh that are children of God.

6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9

 

[John of Japan]

That's a bald statement with no proof, especially since he indeed DID reference Gal 3, so this statement of yours' is false.

He only referenced Gal. 3 after my statement. Please pay attention.

 

[kyredneck]

He only referenced Gal. 3 after my statement. Please pay attention.

Is this another false statement from you? His post shows NO EDIT was made. And your post INCLUDES his reference to Gal 3.

 

[John of Japan]

Is this another false statement from you? His post shows NO EDIT was made. And your post INCLUDES his reference to Gal 3.

I don't appreciate being accused of lying. That he simply stated "Gal. 3" did not constitute proof.

You know, you could be less prickly, and that would make it easier to interact with you. As it is, my desire to do so is fast fading.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't appreciate being accused of lying.

It certainly appears that your statement(s) are false. Whether that 's 'lying' or not is up for interpretation.

 

[John of Japan]

It certainly appears that your statement(s) are false. Whether that 's 'lying' or not is up for interpretation.

It's possible to say, "You are mistaken," rather than "You made a false statement," which intimates purposeful misstatement.

 

[Yeshua1]

As soon as someone proceeds past or without grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, they have descended into subjectivity, called in Scripture "private interpretation."

As for fulfillment, true; however, all prophecy of of Christ's incarnation was fulfilled literally. Therefore, all prophecy of the 2nd Coming will be fulfilled literally.


It is completely supported by the NT writers, who always point to literal fulfillment of prophecy.


That's a bald statement with no proof.

Jesus fulfilled literally the OT prophecies regarding His First Coming, so why not same for His Second?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are in my judgement correct. Calvinists do this in many ways, one of them is the chest thumping rhetorical question regarding one or two peoples of God. It is better understood as saved vs. unsaved, righteous vs. unrighteous but by trying to make it an us vs. them is designed to make the foe of covenant theology look like they support two ways of salvation. This misses the distinction between saved and unsaved, it also tries to make the Church an extension of Israel and the misses the fact that most covenant theologians agree that there are dispensations in the plan of God. It also covers up the idea that covenant theology actually teaches two ways of salvation using the unsupported "covenant of works" along with the covenant of grace.

The other trick they use is to pile up a slew of Bible verses that they think support their position. That does two things, first it forces the foes of covenant theology to examine every single verse in context and tries to make us look weak on our view of Scripture when the exact opposite is true. Spend the time doing that and your work is dismissed out of hand so it's a fools errand.

I'm not saying that reformed Calvinists Covenant theology relies on a less than honorable methodology to defend itself. But I will say that they need to resort to allegory in places of the Bible where Jehovah is clearly talking about the future of the nation of Israel. They need to put emphasis on the judgments against Israel for disobedience to get control of the Covenants, they then need to discount those same judgments as applicable to themselves in order to escape the same fate.

A careful study of the seven churches in Asia will confirm that the Church is not entirely without blame but make Revelation allegory and the problem goes away.

Think that in Covenant theology, one must discern between Sotierology proper and eschatology, as do see prophecy as being literal, not all symbolic nor allegory!

 

[thomas15]

Think that in Covenant theology, one must discern between Sotierology proper and eschatology, as do see prophecy as being literal, not all symbolic nor allegory!

Hard to agree/disagree with this because I have misplaced by Captain Marvel code-decoder ring LOL!

Covenant theology takes a literal /historical/grammatical approach to the Scriptures in many areas but certainly not in eschatology. Reformed covenant theology, Roman Catholic and EO theology start with the idea that the Church in some way or another depending of the flavor replaces national Israel in the promises actually given to Israel. Historically it started out as a way to give the corporate NT church authority not mentioned in the Bible. While Luther and the reformers made great progress in giving believers access to the Scriptures, the social/political influence of the Roman Church still lingers in modern evangelical society in spite of the free access the western world has to the Scriptures. Where the Scriptures disagree with covenant theology the proponents ether make it allegory, ignore it all together or call those who disagree disparaging names, all in the name of academia.

 

[Salty]

This thread is closed