Robert Snow
New Member
Here is an article I found that is interersting.
http://www.4himnet.com/bnyberg/dispensationalism01.html
http://www.4himnet.com/bnyberg/dispensationalism01.html
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism
- Thread starter Robert Snow
- Start date
Thanks for posting this horrendous article. With it being infested with so many errors it makes the truth stand out so clearly.I will get back to it,and point out how it starts out bad and gets worse.I need to sleep now, but I will get back to cleanse this article ,like running spybot on the computer identifies and removes what does not belong.
Jarthur001
Active Member
I read most of the link. Why do you think this is interesting? Because of the error?
Please don't tell me that you feel this is a fine scholarly piece of work. If so, you too need to do your homework.
Robert Snow
New Member
Yes, I agree with it completely. I know to you scholarly type nothing but Spurgeon will do, but I will take Dispensationalists like Ryrie any day over the errors taught by the reformists.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
In reading the article with the idea one would comment on it, the biggest task is trying to figure out where to begin. I'm sure everyone else here would agree with that statement. The author references MacArthur The Gospel According to Jesus p. 25 which say's nothing relevant to what is being discussed.
To quote the same book at p. 217 "Much of modern evangelism is building on the sand. It allows no time for conviction of sin, no opportunity for deep repentance, no chance to understand why we must come to grips with the reality of our lostness, and no occasion for the Holy Spirit to work. The bandwagon is moving, and if you want to jump on, you had better do it. Arthur Pink wrote "There are some who say they are saved before they have any feeling sense that they are lost"".
So in one article I have learned that John MacArthur, Charles Stanley and Arthur Pink don't think we have a sin nature and that MacArthur is doing a lot of harm to the cause of dispensationalism.
Simply amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Thanks for sharing Robert. I found it interesting, but have not enough knowledge to comment. I wait with "baited breath" to be given insight and illumination as to the "falsehoods" perpetrated in this article?
I have and admiration for Ryrie. However, when I was listening to lectures he delivered on dispesnationalism 12 years ago, I began to question dispesnationalism. From there, I began to read the Bible beginning in the Gospels and what I came up with, without ever reading a Covenant Theologian, was closer to Covenant Theology than Dispensationalism.
From there, for the first time, I began to read Covenant Theologians from their own words. Up to that time, I had only read works by Dispensationalists and went to Dispensational Schools and churches. When I finally read some of the works from Covenant theologians, I saw their view as not only Biblical, but helped to put the entirety of God's plan in context.
To me, the final exposition that convinced me, not the only one have you, was Jeremiah 31 and it being quoted in Hebrews 8... referring directly to the church.
I find the Dispensational argument of Jeremiah 31 in most books either non-existent or not truly dealing with the text in an expository manner. I cannot reconcile their arguments.
I love Ryrie and respect him as a man of God. Yet, my greatest learning experience from him allowed me to see that dispensational thought had much to be desired.
When I read through the Bible, I approached the New Testament with the following presuppositions:
1. Clear passages in the Bible take precedent over unclear.
2. In the Old Concealed, the New Revealed. Thus, the New Testament is more clear than the Old.
3. Teaching in the Bible takes precedence over revelatory literature, which is more unclear.
I began with Matthew... from there I took Jesus' words which led me to reject the Pre-trib position I once held. I then began to hold to something akin to Historic Pre-mil (though, not as well thought out). Again, Hebrews and Romans finally gave me enough to reject Dispensationalism and embrace Covenant Theology.
For the most part, most who reject Covenant Theology have barely read our literature. I was often shocked at the mistatements made by many Dispensationalists about Covenant Theologians. Some were better than others, and both sides sometimes mischaracterize the other side (a sign of our depravity). Yet, having studied under great dispensationalists, I have been more exposed by the mischaracterization from dispensationalists.
Now, I am covenental and while I respect many who disagree with me... and still read their books, I am convinced not because of lack of training in dispensationalism, but because of it.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Good, honest, respectful and like Fox News, "fair and balanced" post.
Robert Snow
New Member
I have looked at both sides and cannot see how a person could agree with the likes of Calvin or Edwards, but I don't see how a person can be a Roman Catholic and say they believe the bible either.
For me, Dispensationalism is as clear as clean air, but I guess others see things differently.
glfredrick
New Member
Indeed... Dispensational theology is going by the wayside just like other bad theology from times past, such as Barth's mythology, Rauschenbusch's social gospel, etc. Arriving late in the history of the church, largely pressed forward by one man who thought he figured a lot of stuff out, and promulgated by a set of study notes that some took as "scripture" and tent revivals led by evangelists that did not have the scrutiny of theologians), the theology of dispensationalism is rather a dead issue these days.
For the record, covenantal theology also has its problems. There is no "covenant of works" proclaimed to Adam, nor is there a covenant of grace proclaimed after the fall. These are theological constructs as is dispensationalism (which utterly fails to deal with Israel and the church) that seek to provide some sort of understandable gridwork overlaying the Scriptures with which to understand God's salvific actions.
New theologies are now emerging that do a better job of actually detailing what God has revealed in the Scriptures. One is modified covenantal, another is a new theology of election that is perhaps the most sound theology I've seen to date. It at least deals with all of Scripture instead of cherry-picking out this or that part to make a foundational grid.
Both camps, covenant & dispensation, are efforts to fit Scripture & history into neat little definable boxes. In that respect, they both tend to errancy. Most of the persons within my circles of influence are dispensationalists, and I can attest that dispensationalism tends toward Sanctification by the law, of God or of man, as well as covenant theology because of the previously stated reason; they are man's attempts to encapsulate God. We go awry when we start looking for & adding covenants & "dispensations" that are not clearly outlined within the text.
My personal views may be defined, though I reject hard definition, as a hybrid with aspects of both theologies & perhaps a few additions & deletions. God has dealt with man at various times through various means under the auspices of covenants.
My personal views may be defined, though I reject hard definition, as a hybrid with aspects of both theologies & perhaps a few additions & deletions. God has dealt with man at various times through various means under the auspices of covenants.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Robert,
I my statement was not to attack dispensationalists. I wonder if you have read it only, or did you read it and look and see if what the guy said was the truth. He says many things claiming them FACT and I guess you believe him.
What is so funny is how you just take some people for their word (my guess is if they believe as you do)..while others ( like Reformers) you would never believe, no matter what they said.
I think you will find Reformed believers read, and then check to see if what they read is true. If so, they will support the writer. If not, they reject the writer.
Your link I can reject because I have studied this and know the errors. Again...the errors are not so much one view over another....but the facts which they base there writing on.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
How do you make up your mind what is unclear? Is not the whole of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) the infallable Word of God? How would you defend this critic: The Bible is the infallable Word of God but sometimes God is more infallable than at other times; I know when he means "business" and when He doesn't so trust my list of clear verses to use as a guide for true faith and my other list of unclear verses you can ignore.
Question: Is the dispensational teaching of the rapture of the Church found in the Gospel of Matthew?
Robert Snow
New Member
No matter what I say, you will not agree. If I said I have studies Calvinism, you will say I didn't study the right authors or didn't read the right books. It is extremely difficult for any Calvinist to admit that someone has studied their doctrine and rejected it.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Hello Robert,
That is not true. I have no idea of you studied Calvinism. What I have asked, is if you have looked up what your link addresses. If you do, you will find many things work. I'm talking history facts
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Can you give resources on the New Theology of Election? I'm interested to read it.
For what it's worth, I'm much closer to New Covenant Theology than to Covenant Theology.
Blessings,
The Archangel
There ae some good questions. First, I started with Mathew because I thought Mathew had some of the longest didactic teaching on the end times. Notice that I said I started with Mathew... not ending with Mathew.
Yes the Bible is all God's word. Yet my presupposition was supported by both sides of the argument in their respected courses.
How did I know what was clear and not? I had to handle that one verse at a time as most theologians and Christians must do. In the case of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8... I felt this clearly applied to the church because the Bible said it applied to the Church. I couldnt see how the Dipys got around that verse
I am curious... what books by Covenant Theologians have you read?
I am all for people being convinced in their own mind... but I also think that reading good books on both sides is a great discipline. What I personally find difficult is that the article cited obviously misunderstands CT that I find it difficult they have read too many primary sources on the topic or they takethings out of context. Granted people on both sides do this... but I would like to see more grace on this topic and more in context citations
glfredrick
New Member
The theology as I've seen it presented so far, is Dr. Garret's work and is as yet unpublished. I've heard some rumblings coming out of the ETS, but so far have not seen a full-blown example in print. I know that Garrett has gone back and forth with Paul House on the OT theology issue, and after hearing both sides presented, I think that Garrett is onto something revolutionary -- yet anciently biblical -- a view that we have, in essence, forgotten, not failed to figure out. God is in and through everything, and elects those persons to the life and tasks, including covenants and dispensations, that God needs fulfilled in order to accomplish His divine purpose(s).
Dr. Schreiner's NT Theology has just hit the press though, and it could be in the same direction. I'll have to pick it up and start reading. I expect it to be a great and informative read. Dr. Schreiner never speaks, but that he says something biblically meaningful.
I stopped off for a bit between writing the above and writing this... I went to Amazon.com and "read inside" Schreiner's NT Theology. His appendix is a great overview of the issues in biblical (versus systematic) theology, and he does a good job of laying out the various positions.
Read it here: http://www.amazon.com/reader/0801026806?_encoding=UTF8&query=election#reader_0801026806
He never quite gets to Garrett's position on election as the "center" of biblical theology, but he is leaning in that direction. I'm sure they have talked, as they work side-by-side and academic papers are shared back and forth in the faculty.