Christian Theological Systems

[Reformed]

The two dominant systematic theologies in Christianity are Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. In another thread, TCassidy said he holds to neither. I have engaged in this discussion before but never on a message board. I would like TCassidy to weigh-in on his view to add clarity to the discussion. In my discussions with those who disavow either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, they typically say they hold to an eclectic theological system. They use terms like Christocentric Theology or Biblical Theology (not to be confused with the biblical theology that studies the bible during the times when it was written). In my opinion, eclectic systems try to take the best of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology while trying to avoid the parts the individual does not like. However, there is usually a tipping point between which of the two major theological systems takes dominance. For example, any belief in a pre-wrath rapture of the church places the individual in the Dispensational camp whether or not they embrace all of Dispensationalism or not. A denial of a pre-wrath rapture tips the individual in the Covenant Theology direction.

I appreciate the attempt to maintain one's status as a free agent, but that is hard to do when it comes to systemizing theology.

 

[Jerome]

"Teeth are needlessly broken over the grit of systematic theology, while souls are famishing. To turn stones into bread was a temptation of our Master; but how many of His servants yield readily to the far worse temptation to turn bread into stone! Go thy way, metaphysical divine, to the stone-yard, and break granite for McAdam, but stand not in the way of loving spirits who would feed the family of God with living bread. The inspired Word is to us spirit and life, and we cannot afford to have it hardened into a huge monolith or a spiritual Stonehenge—sublime but cold, majestic but lifeless; far rather would we have it as our own household book, our bosom companion, the poor man's counselor and friend."
—Charles Spurgeon, Feathers for Arrows

 

[TCassidy]

Tough question. I am a non-dispensational Chilliast in that I do not see the 7 dispensations of Darbyism. I see the OT as a "dispensation" in the governmental sense (under Law), the NT as a "dispensation" in the governmental sense (under Grace) and the Millennium in the government sense (under the Physical Presence of Christ). (With the understanding that every era has been a Gospel era - but in a minimalist way -Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.) The difference being what God used to draw the elect unto Himself. In the OT it was the Law that God used to drew the sinner to the Messiah. In the NT it is the Gospel Preaching which God uses to draw the sinner to Christ. In the Millennium it will be the visible Glory of God the Son that draws the sinner to Him.

I suppose you could call me a "dispensationalist" in the most minimalist use of the term.

But I also see the NT body of believers to be Spiritual Israel, engrafted into the Olive Tree, with many (perhaps even most) of the OT promises made to Israel being fulfilled in the NT body of believers. However, there are some prophecies made to natural Israel which have not and will not be fulfilled in the NT body of believers but will be fulfilled in restored Israel.

I am not eclectic. Just precise.

 

[Reformed]

Tough question. I am a non-dispensational Chilliast in that I do not see the 7 dispensations of Darbyism. I see the OT as a "dispensation" in the governmental sense (under Law), the NT as a "dispensation" in the governmental sense (under Grace) and the Millennium in the government sense (under the Physical Presence of Christ). (With the understanding that every era has been a Gospel era - but in a minimalist way -Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.) The difference being what God used to draw the elect unto Himself. In the OT it was the Law that God used to drew the sinner to the Messiah. In the NT it is the Gospel Preaching which God uses to draw the sinner to Christ. In the Millennium it will be the visible Glory of God the Son that draws the sinner to Him.

I suppose you could call me a "dispensationalist" in the most minimalist use of the term.

But I also see the NT body of believers to be Spiritual Israel, engrafted into the Olive Tree, with many (perhaps even most) of the OT promises made to Israel being fulfilled in the NT body of believers. However, there are some prophecies made to natural Israel which have not and will not be fulfilled in the NT body of believers but will be fulfilled in restored Israel.

I am not eclectic. Just precise.

Brother, it seems you have a textbook case of Progressive Dispensationalism; especially the part about "the NT body of believers to be Spiritual Israel". I come to that conclusion based on whether you believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church (which I do not).

BTW, I appreciate your desire to be precise. I gravitate to that as well. That is one of the reasons why I am always debating terms. I want to know what "is" means.

 

[TCassidy]

I come to that conclusion based on whether you believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church (which I do not).

I lean toward post trib (as most Historic Chilliasts do), but hope for pre trib for my own selfish reasons.

However, I don't believe in a "rapture of the Church." My ecclesiology forbids it. I believe in the rapture of all the saints, not just church members.

And I have done some study on Progressive Dispensationalism and disagree as most still see the several different dispensations in the OT, which I do not. But I am in fairly substantial agreement regarding the NT economy.

 

[Reformed]

I lean toward post trib (as most Historic Chilliasts do), but hope for pre trib for my own selfish reasons.

However, I don't believe in a "rapture of the Church." My ecclesiology forbids it. I believe in the rapture of all the saints, not just church members.

And I have done some study on Progressive Dispensationalism and disagree as most still see the several different dispensations in the OT, which I do not. But I am in fairly substantial agreement regarding the NT economy.

Eclectic! Eclectic! LOL

Seriously, thank you for adding clarity to your views.

 

[Covenanter]

To be life giving bread, systematic theology must be Christ centred. Centred on Christ, his Gospel, and the present living relationship of his people with their God.

As I see it, Dispensational theology tends to centre on Israel as a nation and Jews as Abraham's seed. Still the chosen people of God though in unbelief. Still waiting for the fulfilment of OC prophecy in a future millennium.

 

[HankD]

I accept the label of "dispensationalist" but only for convenience sake to avoid the label plastered on me of "Covenant Theology" (CT) and confusing it with historic CT.

Like Dr. TC I prefer pre-wrath rapture, but I am not 100% convinced of that doctrine either and/or the "place" we will be AFTER said "rapture" (Latin - rapturo - taken away, removed; Grk - harpazo).

Isaiah 26
20 Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast.
21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.

Zephaniah 2:3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger.

Psalm 31:20 Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence from the pride of man: thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

The two dominant systematic theologies in Christianity are Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. In another thread, TCassidy said he holds to neither. I have engaged in this discussion before but never on a message board. I would like TCassidy to weigh-in on his view to add clarity to the discussion. In my discussions with those who disavow either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, they typically say they hold to an eclectic theological system. They use terms like Christocentric Theology or Biblical Theology (not to be confused with the biblical theology that studies the bible during the times when it was written). In my opinion, eclectic systems try to take the best of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology while trying to avoid the parts the individual does not like. However, there is usually a tipping point between which of the two major theological systems takes dominance. For example, any belief in a pre-wrath rapture of the church places the individual in the Dispensational camp whether or not they embrace all of Dispensationalism or not. A denial of a pre-wrath rapture tips the individual in the Covenant Theology direction.

I appreciate the attempt to maintain one's status as a free agent, but that is hard to do when it comes to systemizing theology.

I think that the group in the New Covenant theology NCT is trying in their mind to bridge and keep the best of both the Dispy and Covenant viewpoints.

Seems that also progressive dispy is trying to do that also

 

[Yeshua1]

I lean toward post trib (as most Historic Chilliasts do), but hope for pre trib for my own selfish reasons.

However, I don't believe in a "rapture of the Church." My ecclesiology forbids it. I believe in the rapture of all the saints, not just church members.

And I have done some study on Progressive Dispensationalism and disagree as most still see the several different dispensations in the OT, which I do not. But I am in fairly substantial agreement regarding the NT economy.

the Rapture/Second Coming for the church are just for saved members on local assemblies though....

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, it seems you have a textbook case of Progressive Dispensationalism; especially the part about "the NT body of believers to be Spiritual Israel". I come to that conclusion based on whether you believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church (which I do not).

BTW, I appreciate your desire to be precise. I gravitate to that as well. That is one of the reasons why I am always debating terms. I want to know what "is" means.

NCT and Progressive Dispy wings seems to be getting more and more together...

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I lean toward post trib (as most Historic Chilliasts do), but hope for pre trib for my own selfish reasons.

However, I don't believe in a "rapture of the Church." My ecclesiology forbids it. I believe in the rapture of all the saints, not just church members.

And I have done some study on Progressive Dispensationalism and disagree as most still see the several different dispensations in the OT, which I do not. But I am in fairly substantial agreement regarding the NT economy.

I hold to a pre-wrath rapture, believing that the living saints are "not appointed to wrath." Salvation has always been by faith, whether before the finished work of Christ (such that details had not yet been revealed), during His incarnation, or after His crucifixion and resurrection. The various dispensations, however many, were merely God's "schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24-25), demonstrating mankind's inability to obey Him, and thus their need of a Savior. When Paul wrote "the dead in Christ" in the 1st Thess 4 "rapture passage", I believe he was referring to all saints who would not be alive when that event took place, not just NT saints.

 

[Van]

We have plenty of Theological Systems to kick around. We need a smorgasbord where we can be Christ centered progressive dispensationalists, accept the pre-wrath rapture, and so forth. Like the "build your car" selection trees on carmaker websites, we need to sift through all the various doctrines, with the software precluding us from selecting mutually exclusive doctrines, such as believing in the 1000 year reign on earth and rejecting it.

 

[Yeshua1]

We have plenty of Theological Systems to kick around. We need a smorgasbord where we can be Christ centered progressive dispensationalists, accept the pre-wrath rapture, and so forth. Like the "build your car" selection trees on carmaker websites, we need to sift through all the various doctrines, with the software precluding us from selecting mutually exclusive doctrines, such as believing in the 1000 year reign on earth and rejecting it.

More reject that 1000 reign than accept it though!

 

[Van]

How does Yeshua1 know that most Baptists are not dispensationalist?
Or, did he just make his claim up?

 

[Yeshua1]

How does Yeshua1 know that most Baptists are not dispensationalist?
Or, did he just make his claim up?

I should have qualified that remark., to more Christians would not see it as being a literal 1000 yeras, but most baptist would, unless there were Reformed!

 

[Van]

I should have qualified that remark., to more Christians would not see it as being a literal 1000 years, but most baptist would, unless there were Reformed!

I expect most Christians would not have an informed position on the topic. Here is a link for anyone actually interested in end times speculation. Introduction to the Four Views

And the link does not even present Progressive Dispensationalism, so the topic is even more complex and probably not a primary view of Christians in general. Our first love must be Christ centered, not end times diverted.

 

[kyredneck]

I suppose you could call me a "dispensationalist" in the most minimalist use of the term.

Brother, it seems you have a textbook case of Progressive Dispensationalism

Agree.

 

[TCassidy]

Agree.

You may agree but you would be wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

Tough question. I am a non-dispensational Chilliast in that I do not see the 7 dispensations of Darbyism. I see the OT as a "dispensation" in the governmental sense (under Law), the NT as a "dispensation" in the governmental sense (under Grace) and the Millennium in the government sense (under the Physical Presence of Christ). (With the understanding that every era has been a Gospel era - but in a minimalist way -Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.) The difference being what God used to draw the elect unto Himself. In the OT it was the Law that God used to drew the sinner to the Messiah. In the NT it is the Gospel Preaching which God uses to draw the sinner to Christ. In the Millennium it will be the visible Glory of God the Son that draws the sinner to Him.

I suppose you could call me a "dispensationalist" in the most minimalist use of the term.

But I also see the NT body of believers to be Spiritual Israel, engrafted into the Olive Tree, with many (perhaps even most) of the OT promises made to Israel being fulfilled in the NT body of believers. However, there are some prophecies made to natural Israel which have not and will not be fulfilled in the NT body of believers but will be fulfilled in restored Israel.

I am not eclectic. Just precise.

I think many do a similar thing here in that they take what Reformed said
[In my opinion, eclectic systems try to take the best of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology while trying to avoid the parts the individual does not like. However, there is usually a tipping point between which of the two major theological systems takes dominance]

as far as they can, but holdout on a few issues...Do not worry TC,,,we will grill you in short order on these gray areas,,,