Dispensational Things...pt2

IMO, theologians with the normative dispensational view agree far more than do covenant theologians.

John was the first book of the Bible I read through as a little boy, and of course I've translated it into English and Japanese. I taught through Isaiah in Japan in two courses worth 4 credits. I took a college course in Hebrews. You know what? Until you just mentioned it, I have never in my entire life thought, "Oh, John 6 and Hebrews and Isaiah prove that there is a covenant of redemption." It's just not a natural interpretation of those passages.

Just to be sure, I just skimmed John 6, and nope, there's not a single covenant of any kind in there.

 

In America, when we call someone a loser it is a grave insult, indicating that they have failed at life. Are you comfortable with your Christian testimony, insulting me in this way? Or does it mean something else in England?

I saw nothing there to comment on. And even if I had seen something, I am under no ethical or moral onus to answer your every post. And the BB rules do not require it either.

 

No offence meant - I was referring to your post - NOT you personnally.

The available post ratings are:
like; agree; winner; informative; funny; friendly; useful; prayers.

There isn't a standard rating that shows a negative opinion of the post. What do you suggest would be appropriate for the opposite of "winner" ?

 

I kind of thought so.

"Wrong," or "Disagree" maybe. No exactly opposite to "winner." How about "Defeated"?

 

As indicated by Disp 4, post #60 -
This dispensation - the covenant of grace to Abram & his seed - continues through the various law-covenant revelations through Moses, the judges, the kings & prophets until the Seed completes his saving work by his death, resurrection & ascension.

The Mosaic Law in no way annuls nor supersedes the Abrahamic covenant/dispensation. It was given to clarify the laws for human government & the role of a priesthood in teaching & administrating sacrificial worship.

The Law is given in the old covenant statement:

Exo. 19:3 Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.’​

The Israelites readily accept the covenant & God proceeds to give the Decalogue & ratifies the covenant with sacrificial blood sprinkled on the assembly. Ex. 24 & Hebrews 9.

Clearly God did not set out the Law as a covenant condition for his acceptance of the people he had redeemed from Egypt, & who were to inherit the covenant promises to Abraham. He provided sacrifices, a tabernacle, a priesthood, & general rules of conduct so that the people of Israel could live lives acceptable to God.

Willing, but imperfect, obedience to the covenant provisions was acceptable.

The terms of the old covenant Law were set out in such a way that they prefigured the perfect obedience of the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ, who would identify himself as the Israel of God & for the people of Israel keep every aspect of that Law as their representative. Yet suffer as a lawbreaker for the sins of those he was redeeming.

There would be a New Covenant in the blood of the Redeemer, a Covenant - Eternal Covenant - that would refer back to cover all the redeemed people of God, past present & future, from all families, all nations on earth.

Paul - Romans; Peter - 1 Peter 2;- & John - Revelation 1, apply the terms of the Old Covenant to all believers, now living under the New, Eternal Covenant.
======================

I need to comment on Scofield's Law dispensation introduced in Genesis 12, & commenting on Exodus 19.

He does not separate
3. Human Government (Gen. 9:6), beginning with Noah
4. Patriarchal Rule (Abraham, etc.)
but combines them as one -
Human government,
beginning with Noah & continuing through Abraham to Moses & the Law dispensation.

Scofield was seriously wrong when he wrote highlighted:

Scofield seems unaware of the fact that the LORD used the wickedness of Joseph's brothers to establish him as the ruler of Egypt, & to enable them to settle in Goshen during the famine. Remaining in the promised land - which at that time was not "their own land" was not a valid option.

And as for "rashly accepting the Law" has he not read the gracious way the Law was introduced in Exodus 19?

 

How is that relevant to the covenant of redemption being (or not being) in John 6?

 

Of course - but
thread was opened to continue the discussion of the teaching you started in a previous thread.
I have tried to stay on topic & discuss points that you indicated were the dispensations.
You did agree that "conscience" did not end with the end of the dispensation.

I understood that you were on the forum partly in a teaching capacity, & your concern in the previous thread was to teach a correct view of dispensationalism, rather than the commonly received view.

You rarely interact positively - it seems you like to treat us as your students & criticize matters of detail rather than the theology under discussion.

 

You have danced all around my point and not answered it at all. Let me rephrase.

Where in John 6 is any mention of a covenant? I'm not asking for the term covenant or the term redemption. I'm simply asking for something in John 6 about a covenant, which of course, is an agreement. Where is there an agreement of any kind in John 6?

I really don't think I "isolate books and do not see the bible [sic] as a whole."

 

Yes, that was my purpose in the previous thread. I think it went well, and I hope people on the BB are now better educated about the theology.

It's a debate forum. I wasn't aware that interacting positively was part of the debate process.

Look, I oppose as a basic principle the type of hermeneutics that you and other preterists engage in. I believe with all of my heart in grammatical-historical interpretation, and the positions of amil, postmil, preterism, covenant theology, and similar positions do not do that kind of interpretation. You simply cannot do literal interpretation and come out with any of these positions. I am passionate about taking the Bible for exactly what it says, but you guys don't do that. So if my passion offends you, I'm sorry, but I will never change.

I'm still flabbergasted that Icon was offended that I told you guys you do allegorical interpretation. Anyone who has studied hermeneutics would say exactly the same thing.

P. S. I did praise your obviously diligent habits of study recently. Perhaps you did not notice it.

 

One of the remarkable aspects of the discussion on the thread is that points of view are taken seriously enough that folks are engaging in almost emotionless discussion.

This is important because there is little thought in emotionalism, and the thinking level this thread has engaged is similar to what I experienced in the undergrad classrooms as teacher(s) and students would challenge each other on the strengths and weaknesses of some matter.

Please continue this enlightening discussion!

I am getting a good work done to both memory and recall.

 

No one did a literal interpretation until the 1800s to come up with the conclusion of dispensationalism?

 

Baptist pastor Morgan Edwards (1722-1795), from his work Res Sacrae:

"Miserable work do the Antimillenarians make of these texts....Literal millennarianism alone will do justice to these texts and many others"

"Another event prior to the Millennium is the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss for a thousand years (Rev. xx. 1, 2, 3.). ...Poor work do the Antimillenarians or spiritualizing Millenarians (who are much the same) make of this matter: They say that the devil was bound when Christ came in the flesh....but if the Devil has not been loose these thousand years past, and for seven hundred and forty–two years besides, he never was loose in his life."

 

Isaac Watts did. Justin Martyr did. Many other theologians acknowledged the existence of dispensations in the Bible. But on the other hand, if you really want to go down this road, no one came up with covenant theology until Kaspar Olevianus (1536-1587). So any argument against dispensationalism or premillennialism or covenant theology, for that matter, that begins with "...didn't until..." is invalid.

 

To add a little more hermeneutics history to this, everyone interpreted literally but Clement of Alexandria until Origen, but Origen's view did not become popular. Augustine then in the late 4th-early 5th century. After that, the Catholic religion happened in the 6th century, and they all followed Augustine. When the Reformation came along, the reformers interpreted literally--but pretty much ignored prophecy. Gradually after the Reformation various individuals began to interpret literally, as has been noted on this thread, until in the early 19th century literal interpretation broke free and prospered.

 

The manna/bread is a type. A type is a figure of speech. Yet you continually try to make figures of speech into allegorical/spiritual interpretation. I do wish you'd figure out what figures of speech are. I see that I need to do an entire thread on the subject, since you preterists just don't understand them.

Again, with the woman at the well, Jesus was using a metaphor, which is a figure of speech. Simply because the lady did not understand the metaphor, Jesus had to explain it. That is not "spiritual interpretaion.

Again, Jesus was using metaphors. This is not an excuse for "spiritual" interpretation in any way, shape or form.

Well all of this is quite obvious. I have been redeemed and believe in it. But there is not proof of a covenant here.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, and I hate that. I believe there was no agreement, but there was a purpose.

Like that old commercial used to say, "Where's the beef?" So, where's the covenant? You have given no Scripture yet indicating some kind of agreement between anyone for a "covenant" of redemption.

God is a unity. He doesn't have to agree with Himself. He doesn't have to agree with mankind, either.

I'm still flabbergasted. Over and over you refer to simple figures of speech as "spiritual." You don't even appear to understand plain English figures of speech.

 

Recognizing the genres and speech types used in the scripture is not spiritually understanding them, but in a literal fashion!

 

Yes, literal interpretation of figures of speech.

In fact, it is basic linguistics. All linguists know about figures of speech. Many of them are defined in the various dictionaries of linguistics. No one can claim to know anything about language (and hermeneutics is all about language) without understanding figures of speech.