...and your house...

Dispensationalism simply did not exist beyond the Plymouth Brethren before 1850 and it did not take any foothold among Baptists till after 1900. Dispensational theology was simply non-existent among Baptist, reformed or not, anabaptist or English Baptist. There is not ONE Baptist group before 1900 that accepted that peculiar Brethren doctrine, and most had not even heard of it.

Aren't you trying to prove something from silence? "Just because there were not confessions or creeds written by many baptists does not mean they were not there". Yes, and maybe they believed that angels get around in flying saucers - after all, there's nothing out there that says they didn't believe that.

 

I was taught all these in the independent Baptist church I gre up in way back.
Davidic Covenant covers the promise to David of his descedent being o nthe throne of Israel forever. Christ will fulfill this covenant when His Millinial Kingdom comes.

Abrahamic Covenant covers the nation Israel inheriting the land that Abraham walked on forever. The covenant of a set apart nation symbolized by the circumcision being passed to the son as an inheritence. The set apart people to serve God were all in the covenant (promise) given to Abraham.

Just to go over a few, and yet I am also a dispenationalist. That Noah lived in the day of human government, where the father was the head of the home as ruler. Abraham lived in the age of Promise. With Moses came the age of the Law.

With The Coming of The Holy spirit at Pentecost began our present age of GRace. In which the covenant of Grace applies. We are saved by Grace through faith, but so too were the Old Testament Believers, they looked forward to a coming saviour we look back to a saviour who has come, we both came to salvation by Grace through faith.

 

JD's reply in bold

 

Intruder comment: Dispensationalism is not the denial of covenants. It recognizes covenants but fails to place them at the head of Bible interpretation where they belong. Dispensationalism places time periods and differences in those time periods at the head of bible interpretation, as you did in your last paragraph. In dispensationalism, the bible "applies" or doesn't "apply", based on who you are, when you live, where you live, and so on. In CT, the whole Bible in some way applies to everyone of every age and place without exception.

 

The application of saved by Grace through faith applies to every generation of men. In the O.T. no matter the dispensation or the covenent it was always up to the individual to believe in the saviour, to the O.T. person it was to believe in the one who was to come. In our age it to believe in the one who has come. In the Tribulation they will believe in the one who has come and in the Millinium it will be to believe in the one who is reigning. But every dispensation has required the same thing for slavation and that is Faith.

The dispensations and covenants show how God dealt with man in each of them.

 

Sorry, again no. There was no 'process' of beliefs here as the early church fathers themselves can not be found to speak of such a hermeneutic - as I showed in a prior posting

His point was that the idea, was in relation to Covenant understanding today was not found back then. That is from a well respected Covenant theologian.


. The very best that can be said is that there as an IDEA of the Covenant view, but the fact is, premil and dispensationalists speak of the Covenants of God. To use the 'word' Covenant does not automatically place the view as being the precursor of Covenant theology, nor does the understanding of what the covenant did and was in it's general sense. There was NO Covenant system of theology, specifically protestant reformed, prior to the 17th century, that is an historical fact.

There you go with 'always' again. The only 'always' you can have brother is if you agree and conform to the Roman Catholic view of Covenant Theology. However again, just because the concept is used does not automatically place it under the CT either. That is like saying, just because a church holds to salvation by grace through faith - they hold to Calvinism which is totally false as that view goes across the board into other theological views as well.

Actually it is not purely superficial. Read the historians who quote the priests or bishops of the Roman Catholic Churches on the progressive development of CT, especially from the middle ages. While there are distinctions, main that the RCC hold to a works and grace covenant view, the protestants hold a to grace by faith covenant view.

That quote was from one of the many books on monergism about CT history. I would have put more but didn't want to over post to much.. everyone seems to get upset when I make rather long posts, in which I am trying to explain things.

There are various meanings to replacement theology, however I take mine from the historical context. It holds that the church replaces Israel as God's people (not a protestant Reformed view) AND that God will no longer deal with the Jews but has cast them aside. (both views are early Roman Church views, but both views were derived from the Covenant system of theology they had though it has over the centuries become something else). And yes, protestant CT is derived from the RCC Covenant views. Though it has been modified somewhat (specifically regarding justification by faith/salvation by grace), it has not been modified to any greater extent. Remember, the Reformers only desired to initially reform aspects of the RCC (specifically with regard to salvation and areas surrounding it) but did not want to over through it or change it completely.

I enjoy our interactions JD, you keep making me dig
But I need to sleep and most any in depth posts from me will disappear as I have a very full schedule. Thanks again JD.. it was fun as always

 

1. It seems to me that you find no historical continuum in the development of CT except where there may be a RC enfluence, suddenly you find a continuum.

2. Can you quote any sound theologian or church historian using the term "replacement theology"?

 

MK,
Labels can be helpful as they say alot in a short space.There are believers
and unbelievers...let the scripture speak.


Allan, revmac, good posts...will respond later tonight..must work now:type:

JD good posts...I think this thread will prove helpful to many.

 

Allen: Yep, I just had a noon-nap myself. I noticed that you and I both were online in the wee hours last night. I guess Mr. Sandman skipped our houses last night. Rest well.

 

MK yes we can be more specific,and we will.We can mostly leave end times, till the end. The reason it pops up early is when dispensationalism gets discussed.I have a better chart..I just have to locate it.

 

Allan

sure they would...Jesus told them they would.....after pentecost-

12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Clearly they could not understand yet.This changed after pentecost.

Allan.....what of these verses;

so not everyone agrees with this;

Who is Israel is a big question.....This is where John Macarthur, and dispensationals error.

 

revmac-

why not now?

The Kingdom is now.

The covenant of grace has always applied,since Gen3:15

all of these exist in all ages, this is the downfall of dispensationalism.

it covers all believers. we will see how,shortly...stay tuned.:type:

 

I can only be here for a short period however...

First, Jesus statement was not that they could not know truth prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit.. otherwise they didn't know any spiritual truth at that point either and all of Jesus teaching up till then and during those 40 days after His resurrection were pointless because they learned and understood nothing.

In other words it isn't stating that Jesus couldn't explain it to them or that they could not understand anything but that there are things which He did not have time to teach them because He was going to be leaving. That is the context of the passage you cite. If he gave them everything at that point, which he could.. they would not be able to understand it all at once. Not that they could not understand till after the Spirit of God comes.. otherwise you would have the disciples not having any spiritual knowledge or understanding of anything that Jesus taught them.. yet we know this is not the case.

Again, the biggest issue here is that Jesus did not disagree with the disciples question about restoring again the Kingdom to Israel. Even if they didn't know any better, but Jesus did, and if it were not true, he would have corrected them. Did Jesus not correct the disciples about false beliefs and concepts? Yes, he did consistently and never once did he over look them. Even if some things they didn't yet understand (like His death) he still corrected them. Instead, what we have in the scriptures is that he didn't correct them but stated the 'when', relating to the restoring 'again' of the Kingdom to Israel, was for God to know not you but that 'you' need to focus on what is your work.

No, clearly the context of the passage is that He was leaving but was going to send another to continue His teachings because He could not give it all to them at once and them be able to comprehend it all.

First, please deal with what I gave.
It does neither of us any good to have one give passages of scripture and the other to state, what about this. Deal with the passages given, and then I will deal specifically with yours (when I can get a bit more time but I can't promise anything).

I agree that is a big question to be answered. However it can not be error and history supports this, not just the teaching of these men. For one the orthodox view of the early church for nearly 400 years after Christ ascended was that there will be a physical, earthly Kingdom of and to Israel.

Now here is what you have to answer historically to (and those of your position) If the Holy Spirit told the disciples of Christ Jesus differently - that the church is now Israel and there will be no literal Kingdom for Israel to be restored again - why do we not find their disciples teaching it to other believers so that it was the primary and orthodox teachings of early church?

That there will not be a literal Kingdom to and for Israel as prophesied in the OT, was not an orthodox concept taught in the early church for nearly 400 years. And according to historical works we can find from the first 200 years of church history no other teaching on subject at all. There was to be a literal, physical restoration again of the Kingdom to Israel. It was not till the 3rd century we find only 4 writers that we not in agreement (and disagreed with each other) over the current concept of orthodoxy at that time.

This included men such as Polycarp, whom it is recorded by Irenaeus (who heard him speak in his youth and claimed to be one of Polycarp's disciples. Another who makes the claim of Polycarp being John's disciple is Tertullian) that Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Apostle, taught and believed the very opposite you ascribe to regarding the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, which takes place during Christs literal 1000 years reign, in flesh from Jerusalem, on Earth.

Note church historian George N. H. Peters' presentation of Justin Martyr's(100-168) declaration:

Also we have church historian Chafer who goes on to write:

What can we then state but this is what the Holy Spirit taught the disciples, of which Jesus did not deny but told those original disciples regarding WHEN the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.. That (when) is the Fathers business.. you need to focus on what has been assigned to you - be my witnesses.

 

Why not now that the David Covenant isn't in effect, because Christ is not reigning on earth in his millenial Kingdom.

The Kingdom is not now, The Kingdom in which Christ is reigning upon this earth for 1000 years has not yet began.

The covenant of Grace, I said in many places that it has always been by Grace that everyone was saved. But we live in the Age of Grace in which instead of having to have a priest offer sacrifices for us and hear our confessions we can go directly to our High Priest we can go directly to God and confess our sins. In times past our great High Priest hadn't dierd on the cross as he has now. In the past dispensations the Holy Spirit did not indwell all believers He came upon who he would.

Each dispensation of time was noted by the way we were represented to God, in innocence Adam and Eve had the presence of God with them and had no need of a representative. In each age there was a distinct way that one was represented to God. With each dispensation came a new representative for people. But, each person was saved by Grace and believing in a saviour to come. Until the Age of Grace the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers but came upon who He would, in this age HE indwells us at salvation.

It is very apparent that there have been differnt methods and means in which to serve God in each dispensation, and our Age is so unique with the indweeling of the Holy Spirit and we don't have to offer sacrifices of animals just sacrifices of praise.

Now then as another note to this God has given man 7000 years of time in which His plan will carried out. Each in one day periods of time in which all these dispensations fall, some overlapped in years but it is clear God has given man 7000 years in a one week period of time. For instance the flood occured on Monday of the 1 week period of time as the flood occured in the year 1056.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Sunday 1000
Monday 1000
Tuesday 1000 Abraham and Isaac died in this time, Abraham died in the year 2048 Isaac in the year 2108. Over 2000 years had passed since the creation when these men died. Almost 2000 more had been completed when Christ came so God does deall with mankind in different ways in different dispensations.
Wednesday 1000
Thursday 1000
Friday 1000 we are in this day now
Saturday 1000 the millinial Kingdom and the 7th day of rest for mankind with the Saviour on the throne.

 

That is not mainstream dipsy.. that is a variant of it.

 

Sorry I hi the wrong date for the flood it was 1656, my mistake. The 1000 yesr periods hit perfectly with the timeline of God. It was approximately 4000 years of time when Christ came. By the Jewish calender we are currently in the year 5771