Covenant vs. Dispensation

[BT]

Do you interpret the Bible using Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, or neither because you have no idea what I'm talking about?

[JM]

For the most part I'm a classic dispey, but do sometimes cross over to covenant theology, then cross back.

[bleechers]

Read AC Gaebelein's commentary on Matthew... if you're not a dispensationalist when you start... you will be when you're done! :)

[PaladinGirl]

Sorry but I have no idea what Covenental Theology or Dispensational Theology is. I am guessing that Covenental Theology has something to do with how Jesus made a new covenant for everyone with his death on the cross, thereby eliminating the old system of sacrifices and such in the Old Testament and that the Dispensational Theology somehow incorporates the Old Testament's legal system of sacrifices, dietary regulations, and other things into the New Testament. Am I right? I doubt that I am but that's the idea I got when I first saw the two terms.

[bleechers]

Dispensational Theology somehow incorporates the Old Testament's legal system of sacrifices, dietary regulations, and other things into the New Testament

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! You've got almost backwards! :) :) :)

In a nutshell: Dispensationalism teaches that God has one gospel, one message that functions in different economies, with each economy ending in the failure of man.

To wit: Adam and Eve had only one command, they failed, an animals blood was shed to cover them (picture of Christ)... Cain and Abel then brought sacrifices, Cain brought the fruit of his hands and ended murdering his brother who brought the sacrifice God demanded for sin (blood - pic of Christ)... men continue to get wicked and God ends up destroying the world by a flood only saving those who believe and who enter the ark of safety (pic of Christ)... after the flood, new sytem, government... this leads to babel and eventually to the Law and Temple sacrifices (pic of Christ)... the age of law ends with Jesus' rejection and crucifixion. The age of grace begins (the age of the church) and that is the economy we live in.

Adam = 1 rule = innocence =saved by grace
Noah = believed God = end Consience/ start Government =saved by grace
Abraham = no law = covenant = saved by grace
Moses = law = Tabernacle/Temple sacrifices =saved by grace
Gentiles = gospel = grace = saved by grace

Mankind failed in the garden, he failed with his conscience, he failed with a covenant, he failed with the Law; he failed when the Son of God walked the earth, he is failing in the age of grace... man will even fail after the Son of God rules and reigns for 1000 years... man always fails. God will triumph and only His grace will last. No ritual or "good works" need apply in any economy!

There are three strains in the scriptures : Israel Truth; Church Truth; Salvation Truth.

If you confuse these, you can get quite messed up. You need to know to whom God is speaking, why He is speaking, and how it applies. You need to understand types in the OT to fully see Christ in the Bible (this will illuminate the Book of Leviticus like you've never seen it before!).

Jesus and the Holy Spirit don't waste time in the gospels just doing things willy-nilly. There is a purpose to all. Didn't you ever wonder why Jesus heals different people at different times in different ways in the gospel? Is not just chaotic happenstance, there is a prophetic picture in all those "differences".

So dispensationalism absolutely rejects the injection of the Law, dietary restrictions, etc, into the Church-age dispensation. There are varying degrees of dispensationalism. One group (Mid-Acts) even reject baptism.

This post is a horrible simplification of Dispensationalism, but I hope it will suffice.

I love Dispensational theology and I teach a Bible study course on it... so this simplification kills me :) So I'd be more than happy to clarify or expound further if it would be helpful to you.

I won't comment on Covenant theology.

Good Dispensational Introduction here:

http://www.brethrenonline.org/dispens.htm

My site also features an article on the "Disharmony on the Gospels" and an article on Revelation 17-19. I won't post my site here (rules), but it is available on my user page.

[eldermike]

Bleechers, great post! It's good to see zero votes for covenant Theology in the baptist forum, all is well so far.

[FreeinChrist]

Classic Dispensationist here. :)

Charles Ryrie wrote: “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”
By the 'content of faith' he means the requirements of faith on the part of man. Abraham didn't have the Law but was given the requirement of circumcism. Adam to Abraham didn't have the requirement of the Law or of circumcism. Since the resurrection, we do not have the Law as given to Moses or the requirment of circumcism, but have a law of faith.

There have been dispensationist teachings throughout the centuries, though Darby was the first to put it under the name of Dispensationism. Here is some of what I have found:
Justin Martyr, ( 110-165 AD )Dialogue with Trypho: He spends a great deal of time showing what was required of Israel and why, and speaks of this present dispensation:

“Accordingly He(346 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4829_1051678)) rested, i.e., ceased, when He came, after whom, in the times of this dispensation wrought out by Him amongst men,(347 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4830_1051854)) it was requisite that such gifts should cease from you; and having received their rest in Him, should again, as had been predicted, become gifts which, from the grace of His Spirit's power, He imparts to those who believe in Him, according as He deems each man worthy thereof.” LXXXVII
“For if one should wish to ask you why, since Enoch, Noah with his sons, and all others in similar circumstances, who neither were circumcised nor kept the Sabbath, pleased God, God demanded by other leaders, and by the giving of the law after the lapse of so many generations, that those who lived between the times of Abraham and of Moses be justified by circumcision, and that those who lived after Moses be justified by circumcision and the other ordinances-to wit, the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and libations,(360 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4864_1064518)) and offerings;..” XCII
Regarding the future 1000 years dispensation:

“But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years(317 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4776_1030775)) in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.” LXXX
Chapter LXXXI.-He Endeavours to Prove This Opinion from Isaiah and the Apocalypse.
"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: `For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days.(318 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4780_1031749)) For the young man shall be an hundred years old;(319 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4781_1031824)) but the sinner who dies an hundred years old,(320 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4782_1031919)) he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound.(321 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4783_1032344)) Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.'(322 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4784_1032991)) Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, `According to the days of the tree [of life(323 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4785_1033130)) ] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, `The day of the Lord is as a thousand years, '(324 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4786_1033503)) is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell(325 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4787_1033770)) a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, `They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'(326 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/JustinMartyr/#P4788_1034202))


Clement of Alexandria ( 150-220) described 4 patriarchal dispensations – Adam, Noah , Abraham and Moses.
Augustine, To Marcellinus,CXXXVIII , :
In chapter 1, section 5 :“The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the uncHangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him.”
Section 7..”For as the man is not fickle who does one thing in the morning and another in the evening, one thing this month and another in the next, one thing this year and another next year, so there is no variableness with God, though in the former period of the world's history He enjoined one kind of offerings, and in the latter period another, therein ordering the symbolical actions pertaining to the blessed doctrine of true religion in harmony with the changes of successive epochs. without any change in Himself. …”
Section 8 “…If it is now established that that which was for one age rightly ordained may be in another age rightly changed,--the alteration indicating a change in the work, not in tile plan, of Him who makes the change, the plan being framed by His reasoning faculty, to which, unconditioned by succession in time, those things are simultaneously present which cannot be actually done at the same time because the ages succeed each other, …”

Now these folks were not dispensationists as we know the word today…but they taught the principles that later were formalized into a theology known as ‘dispensationism.”


Pierre Poiretwrote L’OEconomie Divine in 1687. It was published in 6 volumes in 1713, about 6 years before his death. It was a work about predestination, but it was also premillenial and he delineated 7 dispensations:
I – Infancy - to the Deluge
II. childhood - to Moses
III. Adolescence – to the prophets (mid Solomen)
IV. Youth – to the coming of Christ
V. – Manhood – “some time after that”
VI. Old Age - “time of man’s decay”
VII. Renovation of all things – the Millennium.

Jonathon Edwards, (1637 – 1716) – He published A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations in 1699 in England. He was a Calvinistic minister. In the church of England. He was not sure of the Millennium Reign ith Christ present on earth, but pointed out dispensations: Innocence (to the fall), Sin and Misery from the fall, Reconciliation: made up of 4 patriarchal periods – “Adamical”, “Noahical”, “Abrahamick”, “Mosaical” …with a concurrent Gentile period, and then the Christian periods – primitive past, present period, millennium, and ‘old age’ that involves the ‘loosening of Satan’ to the conflagration.

In other words, he believed in a future millennium followed by the loosening of Satan…just wasn’t sure that Jesus would be seen visably on earth in that time.
Issac Watts (1674 – 1748) defined 6 dispensations.

Which brings us to Darby, who defined 7 dispensations -:
I Paradise to flood
2. Noah
3. Abraham
4. Israel – subgroups - under law, under priesthood, under kings
5. Gentiles
6. The Spirit
7. the millennium

Scofield followed Watts dispensational pattern more than Darby’s, so the claim that Scofield popularized Darby’s dispensationism is wrong.

[theseed]

Does Disp. see multiple Covenants, while Coveant Theology sees only one? Does each New Covenant incorperate the old?

[bleechers]

Bleechers, great post! It's good to see zero votes for covenant Theology in the baptist forum, all is well so far.

Sure, but I still can't get Glasheen to say I'm a great bassplayer!

;)

[BT]

Bleechers, great post! It's good to see zero votes for covenant Theology in the baptist forum, all is well so far.
Aye. But as our more calvinistic brothers find the thread we'll see it go up, which is expected. I've considered my friend to be somewhat of a minority in this regard.. that he is dispensational and calvinistic.

[FreeinChrist]

Does Disp. see multiple Covenants, while Coveant Theology sees only one? Does each New Covenant incorperate the old?Disp. theology sees multiple covenants and we are under the New Covenant.


This is an interesting article that I found:
http://4himnet.com/bnyberg/dispensationalism01.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/covtheol.htm

http://www.dispensationalism.com/

[theseed]

If there are mini Convenants, then does God adbandon those Covenants, or does he include them in the new covenants? Is there an over-arching covenant?

[JM]

A couple threads to look at.

http://christianforums.com/t716622
http://christianforums.com/t712820

[FreeinChrist]

If there are mini Convenants, then does God adbandon those Covenants, or does he include them in the new covenants? Is there an over-arching covenant?
I don't know that there are mini covenants.
When God told Noah that He would never destory the earth with water again, I take that as an everlasting promise. When God promised David that an heir of his would sit on the throne (as in the Messiah), I beleive that the promise will be fulfilled. The covenant with Abraham was not made obsolete when God made a covenant with Moses:
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is {only} a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

We are not under the Law, but I beleive that there are promises made under the Law that God will fulfill.
In this dispensation, we are under a law of faith.

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

gal . 3:15 ......Through it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man sets a side or addeth thereto.

[Ebb]

The greatest weakness that I see in dispensationalism is that it limits the grace of Christ to a limited time period, the "Church Age" (the past 2000 years), whereas Covenant Theology correctly spreads the same grace of Christ, Who is the Alpha and Omega, over all time, from the beginning to the end.

Salvation has always been by Christ alone, even in Old Testament times. The means of grace in the Old Testament, such as animal sacrifices, the obedience of Abraham, and the building of Noah's ark, were a foreshadow of Christ to come. The Old Testament saints' faith was accounted to them for righteousness.

Jesus said I am the way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me. This was and is true for both Old and New Testament saints.

At the last judgement, there is only one book that matters (not seven), that is the Book of Life.

[BT]

The greatest weakness that I see in dispensationalism is that it limits the grace of Christ to a limited time period, the "Church Age" (the past 2000 years), whereas Covenant Theology correctly spreads the same grace of Christ, Who is the Alpha and Omega, over all time, from the beginning to the end.

Salvation has always been by Christ alone, even in Old Testament times. The means of grace in the Old Testament, such as animal sacrifices, the obedience of Abraham, and the building of Noah's ark, were a foreshadow of Christ to come. The Old Testament saints' faith was accounted to them for righteousness.

Jesus said I am the way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me. This was and is true for both Old and New Testament saints.

At the last judgement, there is only one book that matters (not seven), that is the Book of Life.
Dispensationalism does not argue against this. There is only one way to salvation. Dispensationalism argues that the OT saints did not know this. How could they? They couldn't.

Salvation is by Christ alone.. this is not a covenant theology teaching, it is a Biblical teaching.

The primary error of covenant theology is that it ascribes understanding to the OT saints that they simply did not have. The error stems from looking at the OT as if they had the same amount of revelation that we currently have today. One has called it "determining the level of revelation carried by the OT saints using the 'goggles' of the New Testament". To think that the OT saints knew that the sacrifices were a foreshadow of Christ is utter foolishness. They had not been given that revelation. We have to take the OT Jew's understanding of things from the level of knowledge which God had given them at that time.. not according to what we know... That is the great error of covenentalism.

[cajunhillbilly]

Dispensation theology denies that the death of Christ has completely done away with the types and shadows of the OT, as taught by the book of Hebrwes, and expects the entire sacrificial system to be reinstated during an earthly millenium. :scratch: :confused:

[BT]

Dispensation theology denies that the death of Christ has completely done away with the types and shadows of the OT, as taught by the book of Hebrwes, and expects the entire sacrificial system to be reinstated during an earthly millenium. :scratch: :confused:
Not exactly. Dispensationalism teaches that the types and shadows were not known as types and shadows until the NT. The sacrificial system will be reinstated during the millenium, but that's not dispenstational theology it's scriptural...

[BT]

I should add that dispensationalists aren't (IMO) as typological as covenentalists, but that's a matter of preaching and interpretation..

[bleechers]

Dispensation theology denies that the death of Christ has completely done away with the types and shadows of the OT,

Romans 3
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Romans 3
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.


Really? The primary reason given for infant baptism by prominent Covenant theologians (RC Sproul, etc) is that it is the NT equivalent of circumcision. You will also see far more OT garb and leftovers in the covenant churches because they teach replacement theology.

The covenant theologians teach that babies are brought into some mystical union and covenant with God by baptism. They are part of the "Christian family" (although they must declare their own faith at another ritual called "confirmation" or similar).

The Law itself is a shadow, yet you see far more of the Law in covenant churches than in the most dispensational churches. This is bound to happen when you teach that Israel = church. For dispensationalists, we believe that the Law was given to Israel. It couldn't save them and has no claim on the church or on Christians. It is but a shadow.

The sacrifices in the millenium temple will not be for the remission of sin. They will be as a remembrance feast for Israel. Today, in the church age, our remembrance feast is the Lord's Supper. We would never confuse the Lord's Supper with the actual sacrifice of Christ, yet the covenant theologians who teach "consubstantiation" do.

Look at the Plymouth Brethren groups: no garb, no "holy days", no "church calendar", no "symbols", no priest-class, no "church" buildings, no "Sabbaths", no infant baptism or christenings or even dedications... etc.

Since dispenational theology teaches the clear distinction between the church and Israel, there is far less of a danger of Jewish "shadows" being introduced into the church than there is from theologians who believe that the church is Israel (see: Infant baptism).

[BT]

Well said, as usual, bleechers!

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

The greatest weakness that I see in dispensationalism is that it limits the grace of Christ to a limited time period, the "Church Age" (the past 2000 years), whereas Covenant Theology correctly spreads the same grace of Christ, Who is the Alpha and Omega, over all time, from the beginning to the end.God decides who is saved thus he give grace to who He decided to give it too..

Church age as God's word says gets to be with Him

as for the Law Jews get the earth ...Still graceSalvation has always been by Christ alone, even in Old Testament times. The means of grace in the Old Testament, such as animal sacrifices, the obedience of Abraham, and the building of Noah's ark, were a foreshadow of Christ to come. The Old Testament saints' faith was accounted to them for righteousness.

Jesus said I am the way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me. This was and is true for both Old and New Testament saints.

At the last judgement, there is only one book that matters (not seven), that is the Book of Life.what?

[BT]

I think he's a bit confused and possibly referring to the usually accepted 7 dispensations... I could be wrong though and he could be talking about some other 7 books or something...

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

No longer considering myself Baptist, I realise that I am not to debate this issue. I must say, however, that terminology seems to be a bit confusing here.

Prior to attending a Presbyterian church, I had never heard the term dispensation or covenant theology (gotta love the lack of teaching at my old Southern Baptist church!). Our minister started out Baptist but is now an ordained PCA minister. In his sermons, I have understood covenant theology to be the following.

Christ died for both New Testiment saints and Old Testiment saints. God declared his intention to redeem His fallen creation in Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [4] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Old Testiment saints looked forward to the comming of Christ. One of the references I have seen is in the Psalms but I cannot remember where. God continued to reveal His plan through convenants.

1. Noadic covenant
2. Abrahamic covenant.
3. Mosiac covenant.
4. Davidic covenant.
5. The Covenant of Grace (Christ).

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. From glancing through many of these posts, my understanding of covenant theology seems to mix with other people's beliefs of dispensationalism.

Just my two cents.

[BT]

No longer considering myself Baptist, I realise that I am not to debate this issue. I must say, however, that terminology seems to be a bit confusing here.

Prior to attending a Presbyterian church, I had never heard the term dispensation or covenant theology (gotta love the lack of teaching at my old Southern Baptist church!). Our minister started out Baptist but is now an ordained PCA minister. In his sermons, I have understood covenant theology to be the following.

Christ died for both New Testiment saints and Old Testiment saints. God declared his intention to redeem His fallen creation in Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [4] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Old Testiment saints looked forward to the comming of Christ. One of the references I have seen is in the Psalms but I cannot remember where. God continued to reveal His plan through convenants.

1. Noadid covenant
2. Abrahamic covenant.
3. Mosiac covenant.
4. Davidic covenant.
5. The Covenant of Grace (Christ).

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. From glancing through many of these posts, my understanding of covenant theology seems to mix with other people's beliefs of dispensationalism.

Just my two cents.
No you aren't too far off. One charge that is often given to dispensationalists is that we do not accept the covenants of the Bible as in the covenants given to Noah and Moses and Abraham etc. This is not true. We don't discount those covenants...those are part of the Bible which we wholly accept. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation... it's not like we delete any covenant of the Bible (which I'm not implying you were saying).

But you hit the nail on the head...with this

Old Testiment saints looked forward to the comming of Christ. One of the references I have seen is in the Psalms but I cannot remember where. God continued to reveal His plan through convenants.
This is the difference... ^

And this ...

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. That also goes somewhat with convenant theology ^

Yeah you're not too far off Wil.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

No you aren't too far off. One charge that is often given to dispensationalists is that we do not accept the covenants of the Bible as in the covenants given to Noah and Moses and Abraham etc. This is not true. We don't discount those covenants...those are part of the Bible which we wholly accept. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation... it's not like we delete any covenant of the Bible (which I'm not implying you were saying).

But you hit the nail on the head...with this

This is the difference... ^

And this ...
That also goes somewhat with convenant theology ^

Yeah you're not too far off Wil.

:)

I'm not trying to debate this, but to understand the dispensatinal system better, I must ask for a reply to this question (its probably buried in a previous post but I'm too busy/lazy to look for it). If Old Testiment saints were not putting their faith/looking forward to Christ, then how were they saved? My interpretation of Hebrews seems to rule out the sacrificial system.

As to infant baptism, a reformed baptist brother and I have both acknowledged that there are holes in both of our beliefs on this issue. Personally, I am convinced of it enough to accept it, but never to push it on another.

[bleechers]

Infants of beliving parents are brought into the covenant in the same manner that males at 8 days old were, only through baptism and not circumcision. From glancing through many of these posts, my understanding of covenant theology seems to mix with other people's beliefs of dispensationalism.

I never said they were circumsized... but you make my point: this doctrine that you have noted (infant baptism) is built upon an OT doctrine that Paul discards rather vehemently for the church. There is no equivalent given.

If an outward circumcision amounted to absolutely nothing in terms of either covenant or salvation when it came to grace, how on earth could a doctrine that is not even taught in the NT (infant baptism) profit anyone? Circumcision profits nothing. Infant baptism profits nothing.

In this thread, dispensationalists have twice been accused of bringing the OT into the NT church, when the exact opposite is true!

Do you want to bring infants into the Old Covenant?

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Do you want to put Christians back under the Law?

Romans 2
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


Circumcision amounts to nothing. Infant baptism amounts to nothing. At least circumcision is taught to Israel. The doctrine of infant baptism is foreign to the scriptiures.

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


I've got 4 kids. It's safe to say none of them believed with all his heart as an infant.

:)

[cajunhillbilly]

I no longer debate this issue. I have reached by view based on reading Scripture and books from both camps. I used to be dispensationalist. I can no longer accept that view in light of my research. I see covenantal theology to be closer to the teachings of Scripture, but don't fully agree with it either. I will not debate it, though, as such debates cause more heat than light.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I never said they were circumsized... but you make my point: this doctrine that you have noted (infant baptism) is built upon an OT doctrine that Paul discards rather vehemently for the church. There is no equivalent given.

If an outward circumcision amounted to absolutely nothing in terms of either covenant or salvation when it came to grace, how on earth could a doctrine that is not even taught in the NT (infant baptism) profit anyone? Circumcision profits nothing. Infant baptism profits nothing.

In this thread, dispensationalists have twice been accused of bringing the OT into the NT church, when the exact opposite is true!

Do you want to bring infants into the Old Covenant?

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Do you want to put Christians back under the Law?

Romans 2
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


Circumcision amounts to nothing. Infant baptism amounts to nothing. At least circumcision is taught to Israel. The doctrine of infant baptism is foreign to the scriptiures.

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


I've got 4 kids. It's safe to say none of them believed with all his heart as an infant.

:)

A perfectly good question. Like I have said, I am not big on debating this issue because I believe it to be of second importance. But if you wish, I will answer these questions.... later, I've got to go tour a few buildings for work.... ;)

[BT]

:)
If Old Testiment saints were not putting their faith/looking forward to Christ, then how were they saved? My interpretation of Hebrews seems to rule out the sacrificial system.

That's an excellent, and common question. The answer. Read Leviticus. Though may I add that the OT saints were not saved per say. They were counted righteous right. However without the shed blood of Christ they could not be saved. So anyway to answer the question.. Read Leviticus and then study "Abraham's Bosom" aka Paradise....

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

That's an excellent, and common question. The answer. Read Leviticus. Though may I add that the OT saints were not saved per say. They were counted righteous right. However without the shed blood of Christ they could not be saved. So anyway to answer the question.. Read Leviticus and then study "Abraham's Bosom" aka Paradise....


Okay, I kind of see where you are going with this. Romans 4:5, Abraham believed, and it was counted unto him as righteousness. Basically, righteousness was imputed to Abraham, as with all believers, due to faith (which as I Calvinist I credit God with). So Abraham's bosom is kind of a holding room for the righteous of God until the final sacrifice, our risen saviour, came to Earth. At that point, the old testiment saved are transported to Heaven. My next question is what exacltly did Abraham believe? He believed the promise of God. Was it only God's promise of covenant, or was it the belief in the promise of the messiah as laid out in Genesis 3:15?

I am by no means knowledgeable in this area and I really appreciate the kind and curtious manner in which my quetsions are being answered!

[Ebb]

what?I was referring to the "7 (for some it is less) dispensations" (or 7 "mini-covenants", as one poster has put it), versus the one "covenant of grace" of Covenant Theology.

[BT]

Okay, I kind of see where you are going with this. Romans 4:5, Abraham believed, and it was counted unto him as righteousness. Basically, righteousness was imputed to Abraham, as with all believers, due to faith (which as I Calvinist I credit God with). So Abraham's bosom is kind of a holding room for the righteous of God until the final sacrifice, our risen saviour, came to Earth. At that point, the old testiment saved are transported to Heaven. My next question is what exacltly did Abraham believe? He believed the promise of God. Was it only God's promise of covenant, or was it the belief in the promise of the messiah as laid out in Genesis 3:15?

I am by no means knowledgeable in this area and I really appreciate the kind and curtious manner in which my quetsions are being answered!
Abraham believed in exactly what God had told him (the extent of the revelation at that time). Abraham's bosom is where Christ went after He died.. he went there and led captivity free.... recall: after He had risen he said to the women "Touch me not for I have not ascended to the father yet" (John 20:17) So he went to where David and the rest of the OT saints were waiting, known as paradise, and or Abraham's bosom.

Each dispensation has an amount of revelation and responsibility, as the revelation progressed the responsibility changed.... I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not..

[FreeinChrist]

Abraham believed in exactly what God had told him (the extent of the revelation at that time). Abraham's bosom is where Christ went after He died.. he went there and led captivity free.... recall: after He had risen he said to the women "Touch me not for I have not ascended to the father yet" (John 20:17) So he went to where David and the rest of the OT saints were waiting, known as paradise, and or Abraham's bosom.

Each dispensation has an amount of revelation and responsibility, as the revelation progressed the responsibility changed.... I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not..
Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, {saying,} "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is {only} a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I beleive that Abraham had faith that God would keep His promise of a future Seed, that would come through his own seed, which was Issac. That is why he was accounted righteous...he had faith.

[BT]

Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, {saying,} "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is {only} a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as {referring} to many, but {rather} to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I beleive that Abraham had faith that God would keep His promise of a future Seed, that would come through his own seed, which was Issac. That is why he was accounted righteous...he had faith.


You are absolutely right my friend! Abraham believed God! Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise! But you've quite missed the point of Galations 3. Paul is explaining this for probably the first time! They didn't understand, you see, this was a mystery. Abraham believed God and believed the promise of God, but he didn't understand what God was saying. Remember Abraham didn't have all of the information that we have. I know that this can be hard to understand, but let me give you another example from the life of Abraham.

Ok, follow this, because it's important.

Abraham is walking up the mountain with his son Isaac. He tells Isaac we're going to make a sacrifice right? So then Isaac asks him where is the animal. Now Abraham gives a prophecy with far reaching implications that were not understood through the ages until the events of the book of Matthew. He says:

Genesis 22:8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

Ok... so the story goes on and at this time God provides a ram...they sacrifice it and life goes on..... ok so now skip to the events of Matthew... We've got John the Baptist ok? He's dunkin people in the river. Jesus comes strolling up and John says (something he didn't even understand...we'll come back to this later).. so John says:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Now we read this and it makes perfect sense. But, this is the key, the important thing to realize is that The people who said these things did not understand what they were saying at the time. We all know how Peter told Jesus (paraphrase).. "No way you're going to die, don't say these things" in fact the Bible says that Peter "rebuked" Him. Ack!

The Jews even at the time of the events of the Gospel did not understand that the Christ had to die!! How in the world could Abraham know that and believe on the Christ in this way!!?! It's impossible....

As I said John the Baptist (who was a prophet) didn't understand the "lamb of God" we see this because he later asked Jesus:

Luke 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

Pretty coool :cool:

[bleechers]

Excellent post, BT... and done in a very gentle way! :)

[FreeinChrist]

You are absolutely right my friend! Abraham believed God! Abraham had faith that God would keep his promise! But you've quite missed the point of Galations 3. Paul is explaining this for probably the first time! They didn't understand, you see, this was a mystery. Abraham believed God and believed the promise of God, but he didn't understand what God was saying. Remember Abraham didn't have all of the information that we have. I know that this can be hard to understand, but let me give you another example from the life of Abraham.

Ok, follow this, because it's important.

Abraham is walking up the mountain with his son Isaac. He tells Isaac we're going to make a sacrifice right? So then Isaac asks him where is the animal. Now Abraham gives a prophecy with far reaching implications that were not understood through the ages until the events of the book of Matthew. He says:

Genesis 22:8 "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."

Ok... so the story goes on and at this time God provides a ram...they sacrifice it and life goes on..... ok so now skip to the events of Matthew... We've got John the Baptist ok? He's dunkin people in the river. Jesus comes strolling up and John says (something he didn't even understand...we'll come back to this later).. so John says:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Now we read this and it makes perfect sense. But, this is the key, the important thing to realize is that The people who said these things did not understand what they were saying at the time. We all know how Peter told Jesus (paraphrase).. "No way you're going to die, don't say these things" in fact the Bible says that Peter "rebuked" Him. Ack!

The Jews even at the time of the events of the Gospel did not understand that the Christ had to die!! How in the world could Abraham know that and believe on the Christ in this way!!?! It's impossible....

As I said John the Baptist (who was a prophet) didn't understand the "lamb of God" we see this because he later asked Jesus:

Luke 7:19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

Pretty coool :cool:No. I disagree. I beleive Abraham knew and had faith, and that is what Paul is expressing...and that the promise of the seed was given in Genesis 3:15 - and known.

In regards to Issac:


Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten {son;}
Hbr 11:18 {it was he} to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
Hbr 11:19 He considered that God is able to raise {people} even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.


Paul wrote that the gospel was preached to Abraham ahead of time...Abraham would have known of the promise of the seed (Genesis 3:15), Abraham had faith that if he sacrificed Issac, God woud raise him up because God promised that he would be the father of nations through Issac.

So I would say that the OT saints were saved by grace through faith in a future Messiah (seed) but that salvation was not realized until the death and resurrection of Christ:

Hbr 11:39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,

Hbr 11:40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

And don't forget that Abraham met Melchizedek (Genesis 14) before receiving the promise of a son (Genesis 15). consider that melchizedek was an example of Christophany in scripture:

Hbr 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

Hbr 7:2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all {the spoils,} was first of all, by the translation {of his name,} king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

Hbr 7:4 Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek - a priest king who Abraham met at Salem the future site of Jerusalem, and the king of righteousness and king of peace.

Hbr 7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

Hbr 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

[Mary_Magdalene]

just fillin' in some blanks above.... :)


Galatians 3:9-3:15:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations:

even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.


Galatians 3:17: What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

[Mary_Magdalene]

in agreement, FreeInChrist.

and i believe that Jews today still believe the promise of Messiah (promised in the Torah) and are awaiting Him(they just dont believe Jesus is Him).

[FreeinChrist]

I also think you might be missing some inteesting points about the sotry of Abraham and Issac.

Issac is the child of the promise - the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (she received the promise too!)

Abraham is told he must sacrifice this only begotten son.

They traveled there with a donkey - as Christ rode in on a donkey (keep reading).

Issac had to the carry the wood for the fire up the mountain - like Christ carried the cross.

The mountain the sacrifice was to take place on was Mt. Moriah - the mountain on which Solomon built the temple, and a bit aways from the temple was a place called Calvary.

When Abraham said, " the Lord will provide the sacrifice" - it was prophetic that God would would send His only begotten Son as the sacrifice for sin.

Now Abraham didn't understand the prophetic meaning of all this...but he knew that God promised nations from that one son.

[BT]

FreeinChrist. I'm sorry but you don't understand the scripture that you are using. Do you want to agree to disagree, or do you want me to exegete it all? I don't want to make this into a debate or anything by making you angry, and it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Sorry.

[BT]

I also think you might be missing some inteesting points about the sotry of Abraham and Issac.

Issac is the child of the promise - the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (she received the promise too!)

Abraham is told he must sacrifice this only begotten son.

They traveled there with a donkey - as Christ rode in on a donkey (keep reading).

Issac had to the carry the wood for the fire up the mountain - like Christ carried the cross.

The mountain the sacrifice was to take place on was Mt. Moriah - the mountain on which Solomon built the temple, and a bit aways from the temple was a place called Calvary.

When Abraham said, " the Lord will provide the sacrifice" - it was prophetic that God would would send His only begotten Son as the sacrifice for sin.

Now Abraham didn't understand the prophetic meaning of all this...but he knew that God promised nations from that one son.
Sorry but are you trying to prove my point or yours? Because in one post you say that Abraham understood it but now you say that he didn't...

[Mary_Magdalene]

BT,

What is your opinion on why the Jewish faith is still waiting on Messiah? If they just follow the Torah why would they be waiting on the Messiah?

[BT]

BT,

What is your opinion on why the Jewish faith is still waiting on Messiah? If they just follow the Torah why would they be waiting on the Messiah?
You're from that neck of the woods so you tell me.

[bleechers]

I believe that Eve was expecting the Messiah. I think when her first son was born she rejoiced thinking it was the promised one from Gen 3:15.

Note of interest (to me anyway): I named my second daughter "Moriah."

[FreeinChrist]

FreeinChrist. I'm sorry but you don't understand the scripture that you are using. Do you want to agree to disagree, or do you want me to exegete it all? I don't want to make this into a debate or anything by making you angry, and it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Sorry.First, I am not angry.

Second, this statement: "it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway" was uncalled for, IMHO. Why are you attributing such a negative attitude to me? I wasn't being unkind to you. :(

Three, I don't understand the scripture I am using? :) Well, a whole lot of scholars understand it as I do.

What is funny is that I agree with regarding the fact that the OT saints did not receive salvation and went to Abraham's bosum and they were retrieved from there when Christ died and was resurrected. It was not hell that Christ went into but 'Abraham's bosum'.
The only thing I disagreed on was how much Abraham understood about the Messiah. The implication I saw from what you wrote is that Abraham probably had no clue about the future Seed. You had written:
" I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not.."


I beleive I posted scripture to show that Abraham did know about a future Seed. Did he know what town he would be born in, or what His name would be, or understand the sacrifice? I don't beleive he did.

[FreeinChrist]

Sorry but are you trying to prove my point or yours? Because in one post you say that Abraham understood it but now you say that he didn't...
Then please try to read my posts closer, BT. I don't really understand your problem with me. :(

I am a classic dispensationist. I beleive God progressively revealed His plan of salvation.

I see no reason why Abraham wouldn't have known about the promised seed of the woman from Genesis 3:15. And he had that encounter with Melchizedek AND communed directly with God, receiving his promises directly from God. But he didn't know what wasn't fully revealed yet.

[Mary_Magdalene]

You're from that neck of the woods so you tell me.

actually, im from Georgia, USA. Just flying the Isreal flag in support of them. Just asking your opinion- isnt that what this forum is for?

I actually asked this in the MJ forum and am waiting a reply...

[BT]

First, I am not angry.

Second, this statement: "it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway" was called for, IMHO. Why are you attributing such a negative attitude to me? I wasn't being unkind to you. :(



I didn't mean it in the way that it was taken. I only meant that you seem to have your mind firmly made up. I gave you some Biblical examples and use, and you skipped them and just threw out some more scripture. You've missed an important principle: You can not prove one piece of scripture (interpretation) wrong by setting another scripture at it. This is a bad thing. Either God's word is true or not. So if you want to prove the point you have to show where the scripture is improperly exegeted or understood. Then you move one.. That's all I meant. I certainly didn't mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize.


Three, I don't understand the scripture I am using? :) Well, a whole lot of scholars understand it as I do.

Yes you're right and that is the point really isn't it? You have some scholars that think in the same way as you. I mean it's not like I think you invented covenant theology ;)
But you see this is yet another error (most especially of covenentalists not you in particular). When they find a conflict they run to the "scholars". It may interest you to know that I care not at all what the "scholars" say in most cases. I only care about what the Bible shows. Scholars are not divinely inspired (this is a beef with calvinism in particular...)




What is funny is that I agree with regarding the fact that the OT saints did not receive salvation and went to Abraham's bosum and they were retrieved from there when Christ died and was resurrected. It was not hell that Christ went into but 'Abraham's bosum'.

And you are absolutely correct.


The only thing I disagreed on was how much Abraham understood about the Messiah. The implication I saw from what you wrote is that Abraham probably had no clue about the future Seed. You had written:
" I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not.."


I beleive I posted scripture to show that Abraham did know about a future Seed. Did he know what town he would be born in, or what His name would be, or understand the sacrifice? I don't beleive he did.


Right on. This is the disagreement, and what I meant. The scriptures you posted were not about Abraham's understanding they were about his faith. When I say this is the disagreement I mean of the two sides not you and I (though we do disagree on this). The 11th chapter of Hebrews is the "faith" chapter, and I'm not sure which version of the Bible you are using but it seems to have muddied some of the doctrine (this only according to what I've read). The KJ language is quite clear. In only comparing what you quoted with my Bible I see huge differences (recall: I'm a KJV only). Differences in the doctrinal implications in particular for example you have that Abraham received Isaac as a "type" from Hebrews 11:19, but what it actually says is that he received him "in a figure", which is a wholly different thing...

On the whole there is not, I don't think, a huge difference in our opinion, and once again if I offended you I sincerely apologize.

[BT]

actually, im from Georgia, USA. Just flying the Isreal flag in support of them. Just asking your opinion- isnt that what this forum is for?

I actually asked this in the MJ forum and am waiting a reply...
Ah ok. And yes you can ask opinions...

The Jews are waiting for the Messiah, but they understand him to be a political leader, they don't see him as what we know Jesus was... the Son of God, and God, One with God...

Moses was the first messiah of the Jews... they are waiting for someone like that to come....

(I work and witness to Orthodox Jews so I have a little understanding about this... but not anywhere near what you'll find on the MJ boards for sure)

[FreeinChrist]

[/color][/size]

I didn't mean it in the way that it was taken. I only meant that you seem to have your mind firmly made up. I gave you some Biblical examples and use, and you skipped them and just threw out some more scripture. You've missed an important principle: You can not prove one piece of scripture (interpretation) wrong by setting another scripture at it. This is a bad thing. Either God's word is true or not. So if you want to prove the point you have to show where the scripture is improperly exegeted or understood. Then you move one.. That's all I meant. I certainly didn't mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize.


Apology accepted. I'm sorry I misunderstood.

You are right that I have my mind pretty well made up...but that is because I have been really studying this stuff for years. Like in classes with homework, and deep study. I came to dispensationism slowly but I did through scripture study.

I don't think your response actually dealt with my first post. I didn't ignore it, but I never claimed that Abraham knew EVERYTHING about Christ.
John the Baptist and the disciploes beleived that Jesus was to be the victorious messiah and didn't see that He would die for their sins. That isn't in question.
My point was that Paul stated the gospel was preached to Abraham, and I see no reason why Abraham wouldn't know about God's promise of the seed of the woman. The scripture I posted was to show that.





Yes you're right and that is the point really isn't it? You have some scholars that think in the same way as you. I mean it's not like I think you invented covenant theology ;)
But you see this is yet another error (most especially of covenentalists not you in particular). When they find a conflict they run to the "scholars". It may interest you to know that I care not at all what the "scholars" say in most cases. I only care about what the Bible shows. Scholars are not divinely inspired (this is a beef with calvinism in particular...)



And you are absolutely correct.
I think you are making a big assumption here.

I am not a believer in covenant theology. I am a classic dispensationist. :clap: have even posted about classic dispensationism in this forum and in the Eschatology forum and GT.

I came to my beliefs through scripture study as opposed to commentaries. I mentioned the scholars because you claimed I didn't understand the scriptures I was quoting....but I do.


Right on. This is the disagreement, and what I meant. The scriptures you posted were not about Abraham's understanding they were about his faith. When I say this is the disagreement I mean of the two sides not you and I (though we do disagree on this). The 11th chapter of Hebrews is the "faith" chapter, and I'm not sure which version of the Bible you are using but it seems to have muddied some of the doctrine (this only according to what I've read). The KJ language is quite clear. In only comparing what you quoted with my Bible I see huge differences (recall: I'm a KJV only). Differences in the doctrinal implications in particular for example you have that Abraham received Isaac as a "type" from Hebrews 11:19, but what it actually says is that he received him "in a figure", which is a wholly different thing...
It was NASB, but I have studied in KJV most of my life. No doctrine was muddied because I checked most of it with Greek too. Quoting the KJV wouldn't change what scripture says. Yes, Hebrews 11 is about faith, but it does not imply absolute ignorance on Abraham's part of Genesis 3:15. In fact, faith in God requires some knowlede on who God is. And in studying the faith chapter, I spent the time to go back and study the accounts in Genesis...as in when Abraham was told what. In fact, I took a class on Covenant which spent a great deal of time with the interactions of Abraham and God. Abraham had the promise of descendents through issac before God told him to take Issac to Mt. Moriah and sacrifice him. In Hebrews we are told:
Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

Hbr 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Hbr 11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

(KJV for you)
Abraham knew God was able to raise Issac up from the dead to fulfill the promise that God had given him in regards to Issac.

On the whole there is not, I don't think, a huge difference in our opinion, and once again if I offended you I sincerely apologize.We are both dispensationists, so there isn't really much difference.

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I was referring to the "7 (for some it is less) dispensations" (or 7 "mini-covenants", as one poster has put it), versus the one "covenant of grace" of Covenant Theology.
I believe in 7 dispensations
but I also believe we are under the covenant of
#1
Luke 1:67-72
Gal 3:15-16,29
Gen 22:16-18 seed is singular meaning Christ is this seed then read Gal 3:29
#2 1 cor 11:25 new covenant
#3 eternal covenant Hebrew 13:20

But we are not under abrahamic covenant or davidic covenant since Gal 3:15-16

[BT]

[/color][/size]




I think you are making a big assumption here.

I am not a believer in covenant theology. I am a classic dispensationist. :clap: have even posted about classic
You're right I was under the impression that you on the covenental bench. But you aren't and I think I see where you are coming from now. Sorry for the misunderstanding! :hug:

[Ebb]

I have studied Dispensationalism for about 12 years as a layman and while it's an interesting way to interpret current events in the world, I have always had some problems with it. I have begun to read more about Covenant Theology, and it makes more and more sense to me. And I've found that this is a much more established and time-tested theology among Baptists than is Dispensationalism.

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which affirms Covenant Theology:


Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant

1._____ The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
( Luke 17:10; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Luke+17:10)Job 35:7,8 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Job+35:7-8) )
2._____ Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
( Genesis 2:17; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Genesis+2:17)Galatians 3:10; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Galatians+3:10)Romans 3:20, 21; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Romans+3:20-21)Romans 8:3; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Romans+8:3)Mark 16:15, 16; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Mark+16:15-16)John 3:16; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=John+3:16)Ezekiel 36:26, 27; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Ezekiel+36:26-27)John 6:44, 45; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=John+6:44-45)Psalms 110:3 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Psalms+110:3) )

3._____ This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
( Genesis 3:15; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Genesis+3:15)Hebrews 1:1; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+1:1)2 Timothy 1:9; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=2Timothy+1:9)Titus 1:2; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Titus+1:2)Hebrews 11;6, 13; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+11;6-13)Romans 4:1, 2, &c.; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Romans+4:1-5)Acts 4:12; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Acts+4:12)John 8:56 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=John+8:56) )

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc07.html

[Ebb]

(continued)

Chapter 8 "Of Christ the Mediator"

1._____ It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and saviour of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
( Isaiah 42:1; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Isaiah+42:1)1 Peter 1:19, 20; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=1Peter+1:19-20)Acts 3:22; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Acts+3:22)Hebrews 5:5, 6; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+5:5-6)Psalms 2:6; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Psalms+2:6)Luke 1:33; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1:33)Ephesians 1:22, 23; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Ephesians+1:22-23)Hebrews 1:2; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Hebrews+1:2)Acts 17:31; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Acts+17:31)Isaiah 53:10; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Isaiah+53:10)John 17:6; (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=John+17:6)Romans 8:30 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=Romans+8:30) )

9._____ This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from him to any other.
( 1 Timothy 2:5 (http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NASB&passage=1Timothy+2:5) )

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc00.html

[BT]

I have studied Dispensationalism for about 12 years as a layman and while it's an interesting way to interpret current events in the world, I have always had some problems with it.Such as?


I have begun to read more about Covenant Theology, and it makes more and more sense to me. And I've found that this is a much more established and time-tested theology among Baptists than is Dispensationalism.

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which affirms Covenant Theology:

Because if it's older then it must be right! LOL. I guess you ought to be a Catholic then. Ack!

[Ebb]

Such as?



In its soteriology, especially. Specificly, its contradictions of the postions of the Baptists in London in 1689 (as given above).

I understand that there are now "progressive" dispensationlists who have abandoned some of the more hyper-dispensationalist positions. Perhaps this is where you and Free In Christ differed?

I have been downloading some of the sermons on the problems of Dispensationalism here (from a Covenant Theology perspective):

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=covenant%20theology&entiresite=true

[FreeinChrist]

In its soteriology, especially. Specificly, its contradictions of the postions of the Baptists in London in 1689 (as given above).

I understand that there are now "progressive" dispensationlists who have abandoned some of the more hyper-dispensationalist positions. Perhaps this is where you and Free In Christ differed?

I have been downloading some of the sermons on the problems of Dispensationalism here (from a Covenant Theology perspective):

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=covenant%20theology&entiresite=true
The only things I disagree with in the 1689 London confession has to do its Calvinistic statements.

I wonder if you understand what progressive dispensation and hyperdispensation even are.

[Ebb]

I wonder if you understand what progressive dispensation and hyperdispensation even are.I had not heard of these terms until just recently.

[Iosias]

Do you interpret the Bible using Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, or neither because you have no idea what I'm talking about?
Dispensationalist!

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Okay, finally have time to come back and respond. I'm going to switch some of the order to what I think is best.


I've got 4 kids. It's safe to say none of them believed with all his heart as an infant.


Don't worry :) No reformed Christian would ever claim that their child believed on Christ as an infant.

My wife is pregnant with our first child and I've been assured by my reformed friends that I will never truly understand the doctrine of total depravity till I am the father of an infant. My understanding is that there are two crowds in the infant baptism group:

Roman Catholic doctrine states, I believe, that infant baptism takes away original sin and begins the journey towards salvation. Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine states that infant baptism is a seal of the convenat. That we as believing parents are pledging to raise the child in a Christian environment. Having been Baptist most of my life, I would liken this baptism to a baby dedication other than the water.

Coming from a Baptist perspective, I had a lot of questions concerning the whole idea of a covenant. I've heard the scriptures in support of them, which I will address below. Some of the intellectual arguments I've heard are as follows. Unbelieving children should not be considered members of church until they profess faith. Parents should not teach them to pray to God, or to Jesus or even teach them Bible stories until they profess faith. Granted, few parents do this, but this is perhaps what should be done. They should only be told that they are sinners who must believe on Christ and repent. However, by bringing them into God's everlasting covenant, parents can teach their children about God and how to pray to him.

I never said they were circumsized... but you make my point: this doctrine that you have noted (infant baptism) is built upon an OT doctrine that Paul discards rather vehemently for the church. There is no equivalent given.

If an outward circumcision amounted to absolutely nothing in terms of either covenant or salvation when it came to grace, how on earth could a doctrine that is not even taught in the NT (infant baptism) profit anyone? Circumcision profits nothing. Infant baptism profits nothing.


Agreed! Infant Baptism into God's covenant amounts to absolutely, positively nothing if the parents are unfaithful in their promise to raise the child in both church and a godly environment. Also, such a covenantal seal means nothing if, in spite of the diligence of the parents, God's electing grace is not present.


In this thread, dispensationalists have twice been accused of bringing the OT into the NT church, when the exact opposite is true!


Do you want to bring infants into the Old Covenant?

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Do you want to put Christians back under the Law?

Romans 2
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.


Circumcision amounts to nothing. Infant baptism amounts to nothing. At least circumcision is taught to Israel. The doctrine of infant baptism is foreign to the scriptiures.


As stated above, we don't advocate that infant baptism is anything more than a an introduction into the covenant. I would not say that the concept is foreign to the scriptures completely. There is neither a verse which specifically prohibits or commands such a baptism. However, there are verses that imply baptism on non-professing infants.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

We consider infant baptism to be God's promise of covenant to the children of believing parents.

Acts 16:15 And after she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33 And he [The Phillipian jailor] took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

Both of these verses speak of whole households being baptised. We are not necessarily told if all did or were old enough to make a profession of faith.


Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.




This verse speaks of believers baptism. This verse does not command that only belivers may be baptised.


I've got 4 kids. It's safe to say none of them believed with all his heart as an infant.

:)

Well, thats my 2 cents worth!

[Ebb]

I wonder if you understand what progressive dispensation and hyperdispensation even are.

I am a classic dispensationist. I beleive God progressively revealed His plan of salvation.

I guess I was confused by the second quote, especially since I have just recently heard of these terms. I did some reading and classic dispensationalists are more in line with Scofield. Progressive dispensationalists, like the "revised" dispensationalists have addressed some of the soteriological problems of Scofield and are closer to Covenant Theology. I guess hyper-dispensationalists could be dispensationalists who are easily agitated or use bigger fonts (ha ha!), but they are actually dispensationalists who believe in certain cut-off times in the book of Acts.

I am a Calvinist, and have studied dispensationalism from that perspective, particularly from J. Vernon McGee, who is of both camps. I still listen to McGee, and am still learning and feel his soteriology is correct. As long as salvation is by Jesus alone in both the OT and NT, that is my test as to what is truth and what is error in today's dispensationalist thought.

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I believe in 7 dispensations

but I also believe we are under the covenant of

#1
Luke 1:67-72
Gal 3:15-16,29
Gen 22:16-18 seed is singular meaning Christ is this seed then read Gal 3:29

#2 1 cor 11:25 new covenant

#3 eternal covenant Hebrew 13:20

But we are not under abrahamic covenant or davidic covenant since Gal 3:15-16

we as christian can not pick a promise and say hey that mine promise when it is given to someone else

[@@Paul@@]

[/color][/size][/font]
I guess I was confused by the second quote, especially since I have just recently heard of these terms. I did some reading and classic dispensationalists are more in line with Scofield. Progressive dispensationalists, like the "revised" dispensationalists have addressed some of the soteriological problems of Scofield and are closer to Covenant Theology. I guess hyper-dispensationalists could be dispensationalists who are easily agitated or use bigger fonts (ha ha!), but they are actually dispensationalists who believe in certain cut-off times in the book of Acts.

I am a Calvinist, and have studied dispensationalism from that perspective, particularly from J. Vernon McGee, who is of both camps. I still listen to McGee, and am still learning and feel his soteriology is correct. As long as salvation is by Jesus alone in both the OT and NT, that is my test as to what is truth and what is error in today's dispensationalist thought.
I believe the basic hyper-dispentational definition would be one who does not necessarily believe God "progressively revealed" His plan for this church age. The book of Acts was not a transition into the church age, but a final offer of the kingdom to Israel...

Most hyper-dispensationalist would say God plan for this age began somewhere between acts 26 & 28...

[Ebb]

How were those before the "dispensational cut-off point" saved? If they believe anything other than the finished, saving work of Christ, isn't this teaching a works-based salvation? After the "dispensational cut-off point", does God return to a works-based salvation?

Does God wait on us or depend on us to save us?

[@@Paul@@]

How were those before the "dispensational cut-off point" saved? If they believe anything other than the finished, saving work of Christ, isn't this teaching a works-based salvation? After the "dispensational cut-off point", does God return to a works-based salvation?

Does God wait on us or depend on us to save us?
Scripture clearly defines HOW grace was given (well it's clear to me ;) ), not when it was given..... When did Law stop and Grace start?

Feel free to start a new thread or PM me. :)

[BT]

How were those before the "dispensational cut-off point" saved? If they believe anything other than the finished, saving work of Christ, isn't this teaching a works-based salvation? After the "dispensational cut-off point", does God return to a works-based salvation?

Does God wait on us or depend on us to save us?
Read Leviticus.

[FreeinChrist]

[/color][/size][/font]

I guess I was confused by the second quote, especially since I have just recently heard of these terms. I did some reading and classic dispensationalists are more in line with Scofield. Progressive dispensationalists, like the "revised" dispensationalists have addressed some of the soteriological problems of Scofield and are closer to Covenant Theology. I guess hyper-dispensationalists could be dispensationalists who are easily agitated or use bigger fonts (ha ha!), but they are actually dispensationalists who believe in certain cut-off times in the book of Acts.

I am a Calvinist, and have studied dispensationalism from that perspective, particularly from J. Vernon McGee, who is of both camps. I still listen to McGee, and am still learning and feel his soteriology is correct. As long as salvation is by Jesus alone in both the OT and NT, that is my test as to what is truth and what is error in today's dispensationalist thought.
You are fairly close. Classic dispensationism beleives that God progressively revealed His plan of salvation. Progressive dispensationism sees only 4 dispensations, doesn't view the church as distinctive from Israel, and blend the Millennium with the eternal state as the final dispensation.

Hyperdispensationism is probably what Ryrie calls ultradispensationism, and I would call Pauline dispensationism. They beleive the church started around Acts 28, not at Pentecost. They also see the great comission as only to the Jews and that Israel is the Bride of Christ. I don't agree with pregressive disp. or ultradisp.

Classic dispensationism, per Charles Ryrie, sees salvation as having always been by grace through faith. “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”

One who had faith in God and who was under the Mosiac Law, followed the Mosiac Law. Abraham was not under the Law, but did receive the instruction of circumcism - so those after him, til Christ, needed to follow that instruction. Noah had neither the Law nor circumcism, but showed faith in doing what God asked of him.

You could say that that those before Christ had faith in God and His promise of a Messiah, and we have faith in God's fulfilled promise of a Messiah.

[Iosias]

Classic dispensationism, per Charles Ryrie, sees salvation as having always been by grace through faith. “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”
Ryrie is a revised dispensationalist!

[Iosias]

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s)
Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition. 9

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The “heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.” 10

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption. 11 In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer


2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985)
Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present)
What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another. 12 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13

“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.” 14

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

[FreeinChrist]

Ryrie is a revised dispensationalist!
I took my information from Ryries book "Dispensationism" where he compares dispesationism with progressive dispensationism, ultradispenationism and covenant theology.

He doesn't state that there is 'classic dispensationism' and 'revised dispensationism' but does make it clear that (classic) dispensationism has grown, and there have been varying ideas on exactly what are the dispensations themselves.

[Razorbuck]

Just gotta say I'm really glad I read this thread! My head is still reeling from all the information and I've got two pages of notes and my hand is sore. This ought to keep me digging for a month!

Thanks everone!

not worthy but His,

Razorbuck

[Ebb]

Scofield wrote in his 1917 Reference Notes for John 1:17:

(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation...Doesn't this teach more than one way of salvation, salvation by legal obedience? Scofield obviously made a mistake here in his reasoning.

[FreeinChrist]

Scofield wrote in his 1917 Reference Notes for John 1:17:

Doesn't this teach more than one way of salvation, salvation by legal obedience? Scofield obviously made a mistake here in his reasoning.
Scofield just did a bad job of explaining grace in dispensationism.
From my notes that I took from Ryrie's book:
God’s Grace through the Ages

God has shown His grace since the beginning. He planned the future redemption of the world from the beginning (Gen. 3:15). He showed grace by selecting Israel – which was unmerited grace. He repeatedly forgave Israel, who broke the law before they ever received it. His covenant with David was an act of grace. And of course, the Incarnation, the death and resurrection of Jesus are all acts of grace. God continues to show unmerited grace in that all that believe in Jesus will be saved. (John 3:16).


We, of the church, are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We do not have to sacrifice animals or do all the ritual cleasnings of the Law. We are not under the curse of the Law. We are under a law of faith.

[Ebb]

Scofield just did a bad job of explaining grace in dispensationism.
I understand that this was true of the other "classic dispensationalists" too, such as Chafer and Darby. Chafer also misstated salvation in the Old Testament, just as Scofield did:

But Chafer's treatment of the subject of grace never arrives at the right view of the law of God. According to Dr. Chafer, the law was a condition of salvation placed upon the people of God in the Old Testament during a special and limited time period-the Dispensation of Law.

This condition, Chafer contended, no longer has application to the New Testament believer since we relate to God under a new dispensation, the Dispensation of Grace. Since, as he put it, "we are no longer under law, but under grace," Chafer argued that there is no necessary relationship between law and grace. Here is law without grace, and grace without law. Always and in every sense, law and grace are opposed to each other.

This teaching appears to be scriptural, but in reality it was the ancient error of Antinomianism (anti-law) which denies that the law has application to the Christian. Chafer defended this view by means of a radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures (p. 31).

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/EREIS1.HTM
It is these errors (or misstatements) of "classic dispensationalism" that Ryrie and others have tried to fix and explain, which would make Ryrie a "revised dispensationalist".

[bleechers]

Presbyterian doctrine states that infant baptism is a seal of the convenat. That we as believing parents are pledging to raise the child in a Christian environment. Having been Baptist most of my life, I would liken this baptism to a baby dedication other than the water.

"Seal of the covenant"? That is imposed on the scriptures. It is nowhere taught in the NT. A "dedication" is also essentially worthless. And even if I approved of "dedications" that is still far less than a "seal of the covenant" would imply.

They should only be told that they are sinners who must believe...

Of course they should be told this. I teach my children this. I do not allow them to call themselves Christians... but Timothy was taught the scriptures as a child and they were "able to make [him] wise unto salvation". The principle in Deut 6 states that my job is to teach my children the scriptures. I do not covert them, the scripture does.

"Infant baptism" is forced into this equation and has no biblical basis and is essentially meaningless.


Agreed! Infant Baptism into God's covenant amounts to absolutely, positively nothing if the parents are unfaithful in their promise to raise the child in both church and a godly environment. Also, such a covenantal seal means nothing if, in spite of the diligence of the parents, God's electing grace is not present.

You're half right... you should have stopped before the "if" statement. What on earth is the need for a ritual involving the baby? Can't a parent just do as commanded without a man-made ritual?

Even in your own theology, ALL is meaningless unless "God's electing grace is present." In this equation, the actions of the parents amount to nothing anyway. "Pledging to raise the child in a Christian environment" is meaningless is you hold to Covenant theology in any case. So why complicate your own theology bay adding a man-made ritual?

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Disregarding that this is in a Jewish context, are you suggesting we baptize a group of people who have not professed faith in Christ, who have not "believed with their whole heart" merely because they are "far off"?

Should I go to India and baptize unbelievers into "the Covenant" even before they believe? Why only read "for your children" into the baptism of 38, what about those "who are far off." You can't have one without the other.

Sure "the Promise" is for all men. "For the promise" has nothing to do with the "be baptized" in the previous verse. It does violence to read it that way. You have to come to the text looking for infant baptism to see verse 39 as an extension of the baptism mentioned in verse 38.

Follow the logic: if you hold that verse 39 refers back to the baptism of 38, then you MUST hold that there is such a thing a "far off baptism".

Also, if you hold that "the promise" is for those who "the Lord our God calls to Himself" means the elect, of what use is baptism anyway? You must see that creating "infant baptism" from these verses is frought with problems. Certainly, there is no "seal of the covenant" taught anywhere in either verse.

Both of these verses speak of whole households being baptised. We are not necessarily told if all did or were old enough to make a profession of faith.

So you want to institute a doctrine based on something we are "not necessarily told"? Acts 8 necessarily states that baptism is for those who believe. It makes no distinction from any other water "baptism".

This verse speaks of believers baptism. This verse does not command that only belivers may be baptised.

I don't believe the verse says "believer's baptism" anywhere. The NT makes no distinctions like this. Paul does not say in 1 Cor "I came not to do believer's baptism, but to preach the gospel." The distinction the "infant baptism" people want to force something never taught in the scripture on to the church.

When you come to the Bible with a doctrine, you get a pretext.

Also, you're admission that there is a separate "believer's" baptism denies the doctrine of infant baptism as taught in the Augsburg Confession. The AC teaches only infant baptism and condemns in the strongest terms "Ana-baptism". Calvin himself condemned Ana-baptism and persecuted the practice mercilessly.

He didn't just separate an "infant baptism" from "believer's baptism". The originators of the doctrines of Reformed infant baptism who condemned Anabaptism never accepted the second and the Bible does not teach the first.

The amalgamation of the both doctrines in some churches denies both history and the Bible.

1.5 Cents :)

[FreeinChrist]

I understand that this was true of the other "classic dispensationalists" too, such as Chafer and Darby. Chafer also misstated salvation in the Old Testament, just as Scofield did:


It is these errors (or misstatements) of "classic dispensationalism" that Ryrie and others have tried to fix and explain, which would make Ryrie a "revised dispensationalist".

I see Ryrie, in his book anyway, saying much the same as Chafer. When one is under the Law as given to Moses, showing faith meant following the Law. Not following the Law means you didn't really believe.
Ryrie wrote:
“The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”
'content of faith' in the days of the Old Covenant made at Mt. Sinai means following the Law was part of having faith. And God was not happy when Israel didn't follow His Law. They had stopped giving the land a Sabbath rest, and God punished them for that.


If Ryrie calls himself a "revised dispensationist", then he is. I haven't read that he calls himself this. The statements about classic dispensationism vs. revised disp. vs. progressive disp. posted earlier in one post do not have a source listing. I don't have any idea where it comes from.

[Ebb]

Even after these "salvation by the law" errors are addressed by revised dispensationalists for the Old Testament, there still is the problem of separation of two peoples and two plans of God for the Church and national Israel.

I believe that Covenant Theology correctly sees one grace in the OT and NT and one people of God, the Church, which is made up of both elect Jews and Gentiles of all ages and whose head is Christ.

[BT]

Even after these "salvation by the law" errors are addressed by revised dispensationalists for the Old Testament, there still is the problem of separation of two peoples and two plans of God for the Church and national Israel.

I believe that Covenant Theology correctly sees one grace in the OT and NT and one people of God, the Church, which is made up of both elect Jews and Gentiles of all ages and whose head is Christ.
The church is made up of both Jews and Gentiles, yet there is a clear division between the church and Israel. This is where we get into sticky territory. The Jews who were in the OT were not part of the church, because the church did not exist. Jews today and since the formation of the church, who have been saved by the belief in the Christ are part of the church. However there is a plan for Israel that has yet to be played out.

[Ebb]

If Ryrie calls himself a "revised dispensationist", then he is. I haven't read that he calls himself this. The statements about classic dispensationism vs. revised disp. vs. progressive disp. posted earlier in one post do not have a source listing. I don't have any idea where it comes from.I found the source of the "copy and paste" (at the bottom of the page):
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html

And here is another source that uses the same classification of "revised" for Ryrie:
http://www.reformationonline.com/israel2.htm

[bleechers]

The Church is rightly spoken of as a "mystery" by Paul (Eph 3, etc.) If the church, born on Pentecost, pre-existed Pentecost or was just a continuation of some Israeli-church, then it would hardly be a "mystery".

Jesus stated: "I will build my church." Future tense.

[Ebb]

The Church is rightly spoken of as a "mystery" by Paul (Eph 3, etc.) If the church, born on Pentecost, pre-existed Pentecost or was just a continuation of some Israeli-church, then it would hardly be a "mystery".

Jesus stated: "I will build my church." Future tense.What does Paul say the mystery was? Was it the Church itself? Or that Gentiles would be part of the Church?

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" Ephesians 3:6

The Church itself is prophecied many times in the Old Testament:

http://www.pbministries.org/Eschatology/bonar/bonar_01.htm

...Old Testament believers did not occupy a lower level than we do; nor did they walk in legal bondage because they had not yet seen the cross. They were "saints" as truly as we are (Ex. 19 :6; Lev. 11 :44, 19:2; Deut. 33 :3; Ps. 89:5-7); dwelt in, and filled with the Holy Spirit (Ex. 28:3, 31:3, 35:31; Num. 11:17, 25; 2 Sam. 23:2; Prov. 1:23; Isa. 44:3, 63:11; Micah 3:8; 2 Pet. 1:21); soils of God (Ex. 4:22, 23; Prov. 3:11; Jer. 31:9-20; Hosea 1:10; Heb. 12:5); God’s royal priesthood (Ex. 19 :6) ; God’s portion and inheritance (Deut. 32:9); heirs of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11); strangers upon earth (1 Chron. 29:15; Ps. 39:12; Heb. 11:13); partakers of the first resurrection (Heb. 11:35) ; members of Christ’s body (Isa. 26:19); His spouse and bride (Ps. 45:10-14; Cant. 4:8; Isa. 54:5; 62:5); partakers of the heavenly calling (Heb. 11:10, 16). In short, there is nothing affirmed of New Testament saints that is not affirmed of Old Testament ones; and to say that because Israel as a nation had the earthly things, therefore the" saints in Israel had not the heavenly, is to overlook some of the clearest declarations of the Word. The mystery or secret which the apostle announces (Eph. 3:6), was not that a new thing called the church had commenced at Pentecost (there is no hint of such a thing), but that into the old and well-known body, THE CHURCH, so often spoken of in the Old Testament, and symbolized in the Song of Solomon as THE church without spot or wrinkle (Song 4:7), the Gentiles were to be introduced and set on the same level as the Old Testament members. "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs (with the ancient saints), and of the same body" (with them), is the fair interpretation of the apostle’s language.
See also Charles Spurgeon:

http://www.pbministries.org/articles/Spurgeon/spurgeon01_02.htm

[bleechers]

The Church itself is prophecied many times in the Old Testament:

"Prophecied" = future tense.

I will build my church.

were "saints" as truly as we are...

This doesn't change the dispensational aspect of the church being a temporary, new creation post Pentecost. The difference is, that in the church age we have full knowledge and we no longer function in shadows.

Colossians 2
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


The "Body of Christ" is separate from OT saints. They were not sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The HS could come and go from them, not so in the church.

That does not make the church "superior," just in a better position in terms of knowledge. The OT "saints" went to Paradise at death, we enter directly into the presence of God.

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The new creation of God, the church - the Body of Christ, is in a "better" position that the OT saints. The Apostles after the resurrection were in a better position before. Jesus even told them that He could not reveal certain truths to them because they were not able to handle them pre-Calvary.

Again, Covenant theology likes to thrust arguments upon dispensationalists that we do not make.

Since you obviously believe that the temple system did not exist before the temple and that the temple system no longer exists... you then believe in at least 3 different dispensation. :)

[@@Paul@@]

What does Paul say the mystery was? Was it the Church itself? Or that Gentiles would be part of the Church?

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" Ephesians 3:6

The Church itself is prophecied many times in the Old Testament:

Actually, Paul made is pretty clear the "fellowship of the mystery" was Hid in God, and revealed to him.....

Can something that's hidden in God, be more deeply revealed from the scriptures of the prophets??

Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
...........when was the "fellowship of the mystery" revealed to us?

[Ebb]

This doesn't change the dispensational aspect of the church being a temporary, new creation post Pentecost. The difference is, that in the church age we have full knowledge and we no longer function in shadows.

I believe you have misstated the Church being "temporary", even in dispensational circles. The Church is without end.

"Prophesy" is not necessarily future, but is defined variously:

To reveal the will or message of God.
To predict the future as if by divine inspiration.
To speak as a prophet.
Dispensationalism's view of the Church and Israel being separate and Covenant Theology's one Church of both Jew and Gentile is something we will just have to agree to disagree on.

[bleechers]

I believe you have misstated the Church being "temporary", even in dispensational circles. The Church is without end.

Temporary in the sense that it comes to an earthly end at the Rapture. It is separate and distinct from the Tribulation saints. In the heavenlies of eternity, "the church" becomes a somewhat insignificant distinction.

The "Church Age" (The Dispensation of Grace) is temporal. It had a beginning (Pentecost) and it will end (Rapture).

"Prophesy" is not necessarily future, but is defined variously:

I actually thought about this after I posted last... I realize this, but my self-mulling was along these lines: I don't think the church was seen in the OT, even prophetically. Gentile salvation was seen (Gentiles were saved in the OT, but not large-scale), but not necessarily "the church". Like Christ's first coming, it was not understood.

Even accepting your A, B, and C... why would "the church" need to be continually "revealed" to Israel if Israel was "the church"? That is a rhetorical question, not a topic for debate. :)

is something we will just have to agree to disagree on.

Agreed... or diagreed, depending on how you look at it, I guess...? ;)

:)