Reformed vs. Dispensational

You could write a book on this answer. I will just add a few lines and let others contribute. BTW, when you say Reformed I am taking you to mean full blown Covenant Theology.

Covenant Theology: Unable to recogize that Israel was not the church as it is today. Unable to recognize that the New Covenant is actually New and different then the old Covenant, and not just a "renewed" covenant. There is not complete continuity of all the covenants under some larger Covenant "the covenant of grace". Unable to recognize that the prophecies they allorgorize don't seem to be completly fullfilled today in all respects.

Dispensational: Unable to recognize that the New Covenant is RIGHT NOW and not some different New Covenant (how could it be new?). Unable to recognize that Israel wasn't rejected (as they like to characterize CT theology) but the gentiles were added in so now anyone who believes in Jesus is the true Israel. Unable to recognize that New testament writers claimed that some prophesies in the Old Testament were being fullilled in their time, in the church (not in the church as replacing Israel, but in the church as a combination of the true Israel (those circumsized in hearts), and the gentiles who were also of the faith of Abraham; ISRAEL wasn't replaced, it WAS ADDED TO!!!). They often accuse CT of allogizing, but CT only points to Peter and Paul for setting the precedent. If you open up Ryrie and see his comments on say, chapter 2 of Acts, he seems to dodge that Peter says "This is" the prophecy of Joel 2, and changes it to "This is LIKE" the prophecy of Joel that will be fullfilled later. They also believe the kindgom of God and Kingdom of Heaven to be two different things and Jesus really offered the millenium right then, which was rejected. Sermon on the Mount was only for the Millenium, and will be for the millenium when it comes. Ryrie has softened this a bit by claiming that the Sermon was meant for then, but only because it was "right before the kindgom was established", so it is the rule of faith for the kindgom or right before the kindgom, just not now.

A branch of theology circling Reformed Baptist Churches in New Covenant Theology, (so named as a theology of the New Covenant, not "New" Covenant Theology as in New Presbyterian Theology) which seems to smooth out some of the objections of classical Covenant Theology listed above. Likewise, the movement in Dispensational circles, Progressive Dispensational, seems to correct some of the areas of dispensationalism I don't find convincing. These two camps have moved rather close to each other and I find either of them more convincing then their more classical brothers.

That said, this is all just my opinion. I know Godly and learned men and women in all four positions and respect them all, even as consistent within themselves if not nessisarily consistent with the Biblical text. I attend a church which is a strong supporter of New Covenant Theology who desires to start the first seminary whose major heumenutic is such. I don't have a strong position yet.

 

Maybe not, but at least you have a thinline ESV, the basis of all true truth, since it is the preserved word of God.

 

Preach it, brother!

 

No other takers? I thought for sure I was going to offend some more tradional Dispensational thinkers (don't think a lot of Covenant theologians hang around on this board).

 

It would be impossible for a full fledged Covenant Theologian to post on this board becasue they would have to accept Infant Baptism. Any Baptist who hold to "Covenant Theology" does so by putting up some division in the Covenants that classical covenant theology does not accept.

Bryan
SDG

 

Agreed. But the Reformed Baptist Association of America comes pretty close. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is pretty much the Westminster Confession with the parts about infant baptism changed. Indeed, I have even heard it rumored that it was actually written by Presbyterians in and only altered enough to make the baptists happy. I have no idea whether that is true.

 

Pete, I think your assessments of each are pretty accurate. I remember the days of being in the classical dispensationalist camp. Ahhh, the days of ignoring 2 Cor. 3 and Hebrews 8 and Matt. 5-7 and...

I agree with much of New Covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism, but not completely with either.

N.C. guys tend to be amillenial. PD guys tend to blurr lines too much.

Basically, I am a New Covenant guy who is pretrib/premill.

 

Dr. Bob Griffin, you saying, you hold 1689 London Baptist Confession. Also, you say, And fully historic Dispesnational. Pre-trib. Pre-Mill, looking for the blessed hope!

Please look at http://www.gty.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part32

1689 London Baptist Confession is not same as your belief. That confession is not speak of pre-trib and pre-mill.

That confession believes Christ shall come at once on the last day(see part 31) about the judgement of people. They believed the only one judgement day, and the only one future coming.

Also, please read all of these confessions - http://www.gty.org/~phil/creeds.htm

All of these were obivously believed one future coming of Christ. None of them teaching on two stages or phases of the second coming. It was not teaching till in the late 19th Century.

Their teachings are not same as what you believe.

Remember, the Bible teaches us, there shall be the only one future coming of Christ. None of them hear of two stages or phases of the second coming, because it was not yet exist in their time.

In fact, many of them were Calvinists and Reformers, they were not pretrib in their time. Their beliefs are not same as yours.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DPT, Bob is saying that he holds to the LBC with a pretrib/premill eschatology.

We know they weren't pretrib. They weren't right about everything you know.

 

Keep in mind, nearly every Christians in Great British and Europe in their time, they believed one future coming if Christ, because what they believed the Bible saying so. They do not see two stages or phases of the second coming in the Bible. Myself do not see two stages or phases of the second advent in the Bible. Bible never teaching two phases or stages of the second coming. That doctrine was not yet exist in their time. That doctrine was developed in the late 19th Century, thank to John Darby.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

DPT, they were also heavy 5 point calvinists. Are you?

 

I want to tell you something about Reformed and Calvinism. I am not Reformed or Calvinism either. I do not agree with their belief on 5 points - T.U.L.I.P. Also, today, lot of Reformers and Calvinists are not pretrib, they are either posttrib, preterists, postmill, and amill too. Many areas that I agree with reformed/calvinism on eschatology doctrine, I impress with reformers study Bible and interpeting scriptures on Eschatology more deeper than IFB does.

There are divisions among baptists because of salvation doctrine through Centuries. Some baptists are arminians, some baptists are calvinists. But, many baptists saying they are neutral- neither calvinist or arminian either.

Today, many baptists who are pretrib, saying the Church history on Escahtology doctrine was flaw and not clear up on what their positional on rapture timing, because they have no positional on rapture timing. They are partially correct. Because, during in their time, they were no debate on the end times, the reason was, they all agreed that Christ is coming again - one event, also, two stages of the second coming was not yet exist in their time.

I consider that they were posttrib, because they believed Christ shall come again at once. Because of what they believed the Bible teaches on the second coming.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!