...and your house...

[J.D.]

Only Reformed Baptists wrote confessions and/or creeds and the others did not. Just because there were not confessions or creeds written by many baptists does not mean they were not there and to presume they spoke for all baptists is just silly.

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.

 

[revmwc]

MK,
Here are a few terms to get to know;

Covenant of Redemption
Covenant of Grace
Old Covenant
New Covenant
Noahic Covenant
Abrahamic Covenant
Mosaic Covenant
Davidic Covenant
Everlasting Covenant

Have you heard the terms before? From the pulpit or in bible study?
Here are some verses that I find interesting on this topic;





http://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_in_the_bible.htm

here is a sample from that site;

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.

 

[J.D.]

JD's reply in bold

Sorry, that does not establish Covenant 'theology' as even the premillinnialism AND dispensationalism talks about the Covenants of God. Just because the 'word' covenant issued does not make it covenant theology. Even the vast majority of reformed scholars agree there was not Covenant Theological system prior to 17th century. While many make the 'claim' aspects were present, or the idea was there but unformed is silly at best to try to say Covenant theology existed as a system of Christian beliefs. It shows the development of a covenantal hermeneutic. There is a continuous developmental process that culminates in the later crystalization of the covenantal systematic theology under the reformers.

So which is historically new? BOTH are. The church always had a covenantal view of the Church, the Family, and the Bible, even though they did not necessarily place those teachings under a heading titled "Covenant Theology".

Since you are referring to Augustine,
"The Covenant Of Grace Its Scriptural Origins and Development in Continental Reformed Theology" - Rev. C. A. Schouls I don't know who this is and I don't have time to research his opinions.


You must remember that his view was amillinnialism, NOT Covenant theology, which was also known as Replacement theolgoy. This supplantor theology of premil became the primary doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and over time because the foundation of the Reformed Covenant Theological system.
(not stating this as bad or good.. just the process of time and it roots). The similarities between the reformed theological system and the RC system are purely superficial. And what is the historically justified theologically sound definition of "replacement theology"?

 

[J.D.]

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.

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.

 

[revmwc]

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.

 

[Allan]

JD's reply in bold
It shows the development of a covenantal hermeneutic. There is a continuous developmental process that culminates in the later crystalization of the covenantal systematic theology under the reformers.

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

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

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.

The church always had a covenantal view of the Church, the Family, and the Bible, even though they did not necessarily place those teachings under a heading titled "Covenant Theology".

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.

The similarities between the reformed theological system and the RC system are purely superficial. And what is the historically justified theologically sound definition of "replacement theology"?

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

 

[J.D.]

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 great 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.

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"?

 

[Iconoclast]

Quick reply, cause this is a hugely busy week for me.

Iconoclast, my preacher hasn't been with us long enough for me to know how he stands in this regard. So far it seems his beliefs line up with my own, but since I have never defined where I stand (some mix of Covenant and Dispensalism perhaps?), I can't name his.

You already know I'm coming from a nonCal yet nonArm background. (one of the nameless ones) and the only "title" I hold to is Sola Scriptura.

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I feel a need to be more specific in our focus for this discussion. Can we discuss CT from past to present without geting much into end times theories? I know they are all related but I'd like to study what leads up to the end rather than the end itself.

Have you seen this kind of chart?

Yes, I've seen similar things. The particular one you posted seems to leave out things and lists others differently than I would. For instance the chart stuffs everything from Moses and the Law to the Fall of Israel into one period. It also list Noah's time period as a time of "civil government" rather than one of "patriarchal government". I believe the latter fits the period better.

I like the chart in the "preceptausin" link much better, though I'm still examining it.


JD and Allan, I'm learniing much from your discussion. :wavey:

 

[J.D.]

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

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

I feel a need to be more specific in our focus for this discussion. Can we discuss CT from past to present without geting much into end times theories? I know they are all related but I'd like to study what leads up to the end rather than the end itself.



Yes, I've seen similar things. The particular one you posted seems to leave out things and lists others differently than I would. For instance the chart stuffs everything from Moses and the Law to the Fall of Israel into one period. It also list Noah's time period as a time of "civil government" rather than one of "patriarchal government". I believe the latter fits the period better.

I like the chart in the "preceptausin" link much better, though I'm still examining it.


JD and Allan, I'm learniing much from your discussion. :wavey:

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Let us look:

Well first, they would not have viewed it any differently than 'before' pentecost.

Here we see that after the resurrection, for 40 days, he was speaking to his chosen disciples of the "things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".

Then we see Jesus tell them to go to Jerusalem and wait for the the Holy Spirit and the baptism thereof.
Next:

So, after Jesus spent the last 40 days teaching these disciples about the Kingdom of God (what was, is, and will come to pass)... we see them come to him and ask - when he will RESTORE -again- the Kingdom to Israel.

It is of importance here to note what they were asking, in light of the fact that the last 40 days, they were under Jesus specific teachings specifically pertaining to the Kingdom of God. And then we see the disciples ask when he would -restore again- the Kingdom TO Israel.

To 'restore again', means that at one time it existed but does not any longer yet shall once again be so. Now what it is that will be again that no longer was.. the Kingdom of Israel. And the fact they asked when 'HE" was going to restore it, was part of the OT prophesies regarding the Messiah.

Now since we 'know' the Kingdom of God has never been removed and that it was NOT, no longer in existence, we know that this was speaking NOT of spiritual Israel but of literal physical Israel.

Some try to state that Jesus did not answer them regarding their question, but we find in fact not only did He answer them, but He answered them specifically regarding the question they posed.


Note He addressed their question.. it is not for you know when the Father will do so. Again, note this.. He did not deny their question, nor did He tell them they misunderstood, or that they are asking the wrong question, No His answer was in agreement with the question posed but was refocusing them on what they should be more concerned with. Why? Because that is the Father's business. Don't get caught up on when the Father will accomplish what He promised..

He then goes on to tell them what they ARE to be concerned about.. to be His witnesses everywhere. Basically telling them - The Father will bring to pass what is His to worry about. You however need to worry about the tasks that you have been placed in charge of.

Just on Acts 1 alone, there is no dispute that Jesus taught of a literal physical Kingdom of Israel HE will re-establish, and the disciples wanted to know when He was planning on doing this (which is the fulfillment of God's promises) because it was part of the teachings he conveyed.

We also know this not only because of scripture (and in more than just that one place) but also because of the early church fathers and we know that one of these was one of Johns (the writer of Revelation) disciples and he is noted for teaching this very same view. Justin Martyr (one of the early church fathers) is noted as stating this is/was the orthodox teaching of the church. Thus the earliest works we have of disciples of Christ (scripture) as well as those who were taught by His disciple's disciples state this was the common teachings of the church.


Apparently they thought and asked if Jesus was going to RE-establish the Kingdom.

Allan

Well first, they would not have viewed it any differently than 'before' pentecost.

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.

Just on Acts 1 alone, there is no dispute that Jesus taught of a literal physical Kingdom of Israel HE will re-establish, and the disciples wanted to know when He was planning on doing this (which is the fulfillment of God's promises) because it was part of the teachings he conveyed

Allan.....what of these verses;

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

so not everyone agrees with this;

Now since we 'know' the Kingdom of God has never been removed and that it was NOT, no longer in existence, we know that this was speaking NOT of spiritual Israel but of literal physical Israel

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

revmac-

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.

why not now?

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

The Kingdom is now.

With The Coming of The Holy spirit at Pentecost began our present age of GRace. In which the covenant of Grace applies.

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

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.

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

Abrahamic Covenant covers the nation Israel

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

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

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

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.

Allan.....what of these verses;

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).

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

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:

... "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17) 'Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,' etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and, in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God."[/I]." -- The Theocratic Kingdom, I, 480

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

There have always been those, as Justin Martyr testifies with regard to his day, who oppose the plain teaching of the Bible on the millennial question. Modern denials move in one of three directions. They belittle the Scriptures bearing on the theme; they belittle the subject itself; or they belittle the scholarship of those who defend chiliasm. Some modern writers seem to realize but little that chiliasm or premillennialism was the all-but-universal belief of the early church, or the extent of that conviction in all centuries when any truth has been received at all. It is hardly worthy of any scholar to assert that this is a modern departure, or, if held in the early centuries, was looked upon as a heresy. It has been conceded that it was "lost," along with other vital truths, at the end of the third century and remained hidden until the Reformation. It, like other truths, has had to be rediscovered and restated, all of which requires much time and study.

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.

 

[revmwc]

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:

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

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.

This whole idea that the eath has only 7000 years to fulfill God's plan is where dispensationalim falls apart for me. Man cannot put God on a timetable! IF that were the context of the verse you quoted, then Christ didn't really mean it when He said "no man knows the day or time of my return except the father".

However, let me see if I can fill in your chart as well as I did with the Iconoclast's Covenant list:

Sunday 1000 Creation unitil the Flood
Monday 1000 Flood until Abraham
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. Abraham to Moses
Wednesday 1000 Moses thru David
Thursday 1000 David until Christ
Friday 1000 we are in this day now Here lies the problem, we've been in this "day" for 2000 years
Saturday 1000 the millinial Kingdom and the 7th day of rest for mankind with the Saviour on the throne. Armeggedon (sp) thru Judgement

Now I understand you are going to say that I've counted wrongly somewhere and there are only 4000 years between Adam and Christ, leaving approximately two for the present age. But if God had intended to be precise in His timeline, you'd think by your count He'd have been here already because apparantly 6000 years are done with! (yes I know this is why we have the current trend of watching for signs etc that the Lord's return is imminent, however, the apostles also watched for His return without ever considering how long it might take to "bring in the Gentiles".)

I dislike timetables. I believe that timetables limit God to man's understanding.

Of course, this is why we are having this discussion (to discuss CT and its differences with Disp) so feel absolutely free to tell me where I am wrong and convince me that you are right!

 

[Allan]

This whole idea that the eath has only 7000 years to fulfill God's plan is where dispensationalim falls apart for me. Man cannot put God on a timetable! IF that were the context of the verse you quoted, then Christ didn't really mean it when He said "no man knows the day or time of my return except the father".

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

 

[menageriekeeper]

I suspected as much Allan, but it is the same varient I was taught as a young person.

 

[revmwc]

This whole idea that the eath has only 7000 years to fulfill God's plan is where dispensationalim falls apart for me. Man cannot put God on a timetable! IF that were the context of the verse you quoted, then Christ didn't really mean it when He said "no man knows the day or time of my return except the father".

However, let me see if I can fill in your chart as well as I did with the Iconoclast's Covenant list:



Now I understand you are going to say that I've counted wrongly somewhere and there are only 4000 years between Adam and Christ, leaving approximately two for the present age. But if God had intended to be precise in His timeline, you'd think by your count He'd have been here already because apparantly 6000 years are done with! (yes I know this is why we have the current trend of watching for signs etc that the Lord's return is imminent, however, the apostles also watched for His return without ever considering how long it might take to "bring in the Gentiles".)

I dislike timetables. I believe that timetables limit God to man's understanding.

Of course, this is why we are having this discussion (to discuss CT and its differences with Disp) so feel absolutely free to tell me where I am wrong and convince me that you are right!

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

 

[menageriekeeper]

Don't mind me while I roll my eyes. Jewish Calendar?

Done now. What Jew in what year made the first so called Jewish calendar? How did falliable man keep track of time passing before that first calendar was written down with rules to divide the days, months and seasons and the length of each?

I'm going to tell you: by the count of generations and reverse mathematics. The problem is, men didn't always count each and every generation. It's like poor Prince Charles over there in England who may never see the throne because his mother has lived so long. If he dies before she, his generation won't count! People will count the reign from his mother to his son and leave him out entirely.

This sort of count is not reliable. You can't tied God to man's timetable. That is what the verse you quoted says in context! It's not meant to be a mathmatical formula for figuring up how old the earth is (and we are warned against worrying about genealogies in 1 Tim 4:1).