Progressive Covenentalism

[John of Japan]

I think you confuse covenant theology with allegorical interpretation. They are not one in the same. I embrace covenant theology because it looks at the literal work of God without allegory.
That being said, you can find many who hold to covenant theology who interpret future prophecy using allegory. I don't do this. I work to let the text say what the text says.

Sorry, there is no way to get to covenant theology without allegorical interpretation. While I understand that many here on the BB do not want to call their method of interpretation "allegorical," the fact remains that historically that is what the method is called.

"Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter (rhete) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (hyponoia) of the passage" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm, p. 24). If your method is grammatical-historical (essentially literal), you cannot arrive at two or three covenants not in the Bible. (See Berkhov's Systematic Theology (265 ff).

 

[John of Japan]

You should read my other thread that I started on Historical Redemptive preaching style. I don't know if that style is related to being a progressive covenantelist or not, but our pastor is definitely in the Historical Redemptive mode. See my other thread if you are interested, because I am trying to get some answers as to why my pastor preaches in such an unusual style....

Sorry, can't find it. Plus, homiletics is outside my areas of expertise.

 

[Craig Betts]

I think you confuse covenant theology with allegorical interpretation. They are not one in the same. I embrace covenant theology because it looks at the literal work of God without allegory.
That being said, you can find many who hold to covenant theology who interpret future prophecy using allegory. I don't do this. I work to let the text say what the text says.

No, you are right. I didn't mean to try and put the two together. I understand that they are two totally different things. I just thought it was interesting that Historical Redemptive was brought up.

 

[Craig Betts]

Sorry, there is no way to get to covenant theology without allegorical interpretation. While I understand that many here on the BB do not want to call their method of interpretation "allegorical," the fact remains that historically that is what the method is called.

"Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter (rhete) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (hyponoia) of the passage" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm, p. 24). If your method is grammatical-historical (essentially literal), you cannot arrive at two or three covenants not in the Bible. (See Berkhov's Systematic Theology (265 ff).

Now this is interesting in comparison to what I just read and replied to. I would land in the Historical Grammatical camp as that is what I have always been exposed to. I do understand the difference. Interestingly, in my own studies, I found that the allegorical was creating many problems and that was actually why the reformers stood up to make changes. Again, my knowledge on this is limited and this is what I have learned in my limited time studying the subject.

 

[Particular]

Sorry, there is no way to get to covenant theology without allegorical interpretation. While I understand that many here on the BB do not want to call their method of interpretation "allegorical," the fact remains that historically that is what the method is called.

"Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter (rhete) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (hyponoia) of the passage" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm, p. 24). If your method is grammatical-historical (essentially literal), you cannot arrive at two or three covenants not in the Bible. (See Berkhov's Systematic Theology (265 ff).

One does not need to interpret the covenants allegorically to accept covenant theology.
Instead, I see the factual progression of the covenants under the umbrella of God always saving by grace alone.
Dispensationalism (I was a dispensationalist for much of my life) tries to chop up God's redemptive work into parts and then claim that God changes his methods over time. This claim is not well founded in the Bible. It also forces a break and misunderstanding about the day of the Lord.
Dispensationalism is only about 150 years old and is particular to North American Arminian-based theologians. As I study the Bible, with the full picture in mind, I step farther and farther away from dispensationalism. What I find is that for many it is a means of establishing a legalism and a control over life where they remain entrenched on the throne of their life. When I see the progression of God in bringing the Promised Redeemer to man, I see the beautiful flow of his covenants with man. None of it is allegorized. All of it points us very clearly to Jesus.

 

[Reformed]

One does not need to interpret the covenants allegorically to accept covenant theology.
Instead, I see the factual progression of the covenants under the umbrella of God always saving by grace alone.
Dispensationalism (I was a dispensationalist for much of my life) tries to chop up God's redemptive work into parts and then claim that God changes his methods over time. This claim is not well founded in the Bible. It also forces a break and misunderstanding about the day of the Lord.
Dispensationalism is only about 150 years old and is particular to North American Arminian-based theologians. As I study the Bible, with the full picture in mind, I step farther and farther away from dispensationalism. What I find is that for many it is a means of establishing a legalism and a control over life where they remain entrenched on the throne of their life. When I see the progression of God in bringing the Promised Redeemer to man, I see the beautiful flow of his covenants with man. None of it is allegorized. All of it points us very clearly to Jesus.

I was a Dispensationalist for the first 20 years of my Christian Life. The rethinking of my eschatology came after I could no longer affirm a secret, pre-wrath rapture of the church. For a while I held to no other eschatological view other the certainty of the second coming and the eternal state. Covenant Theology was something that took time for me to accept. To me the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption/New Covenant both were biblical and made logical sense. God's first covenant with humanity was works based. Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and you will live. With that covenant broken every hope for humanity centered on the Covenant of Redemption (Genesis 3:15), which really is the promise of the New Covenant. All other "sub" covenants (Abrahamic, Sinaitic, Davidic) operate under the Covenant of Redemption; the point to the New Covenant.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[George Antonios]

Salvation was not different in the OT than the NT. It was always by grace through faith. The difference was looking forward in the OT vs backward in NT.

Tell that to the confused disciples in the gospels:

 

[John of Japan]

One does not need to interpret the covenants allegorically to accept covenant theology.
Instead, I see the factual progression of the covenants under the umbrella of God always saving by grace alone.
Dispensationalism (I was a dispensationalist for much of my life) tries to chop up God's redemptive work into parts and then claim that God changes his methods over time. This claim is not well founded in the Bible. It also forces a break and misunderstanding about the day of the Lord.

Are we talking about the same thing? The "covenants" of covenant theology are not the covenants outlined in the OT: Abrahamic, Noaic, Mosaic, etc., whereas CT is based on presumed covenants of works and grace, and sometimes a third one, the covenant of redemption. The Biblical covenants are not the backbone of CT.

Concerning your description of dispensationalism, that's not what I teach. In dispensationalism, God does not "chop up God's redemption into parts." Rather, I teach that dispensationalism describes salvation history. Again, I have never thought that "God changes his methods over time." Is it possible that you abandoned dispensationalism because you didn't understand it? (Just suggesting.)

Dispensationalism is only about 150 years old and is particular to North American Arminian-based theologians. As I study the Bible, with the full picture in mind, I step farther and farther away from dispensationalism. What I find is that for many it is a means of establishing a legalism and a control over life where they remain entrenched on the throne of their life. When I see the progression of God in bringing the Promised Redeemer to man, I see the beautiful flow of his covenants with man. None of it is allegorized. All of it points us very clearly to Jesus.

I see no connection between dispensationalism and the Cal/Arm debate. In fact, on the dispensational side you have no less than men like Lewis Sperry Chafer (4 point), John MacArthur (5 point), and the entire faculty of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. I also fail to see the connection between "150 years old" and anything else. Theology should not be delineated by its age, or we'd all be locked into the faulty theology of the "Didache."

As for the rest of your post, I'm mystified. Dispensationalism as legalism? "Entrenched on the throne of their life"? This further convinces me that you don't understand genuine dispensationalism. Have you ever read Ryrie's Dispensationalism?

 

[Craig Betts]

I think what still trips me up is why folks don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. It is my understanding that the tribulation is intended for those who have not accepted Christ. All the wrath and judgement of God is poured out on the earth in response to those who have rejected the gospel message. I was also taught that the tribulation is also intended to bring the remnant of Israel back As I look at scripture, I clearly see a pattern where God has always removed his faithful people from His judgement, such as during the flood, when Lot was spared, when the Israelites did not suffer the plagues in Egypt. I understand that He also brought judgement on Israel and His people when they were not obeying, but I still see this pattern of mercy that God demonstrates to His own. If we are no longer under condemnation, then why is God pouring out his wrath on us during the tribulation if there is not going to be a rapture of the church?

For the record, I am thoroughly enjoying the dialogue here, folks. It is very insightful and helpful to me. I can't promise you that I will be convinced one way or the other, but it is certainly food for my thoughts and it is helpful to me as I continue to study. Thank you all for the input. Keep it coming!

 

[George Antonios]

I think what still trips me up is why folks don't believe in a pre-trib rapture. It is my understanding that the tribulation is intended for those who have not accepted Christ. All the wrath and judgement of God is poured out on the earth in response to those who have rejected the gospel message. I was also taught that the tribulation is also intended to bring the remnant of Israel back As I look at scripture, I clearly see a pattern where God has always removed his faithful people from His judgement, such as during the flood, when Lot was spared, when the Israelites did not suffer the plagues in Egypt. I understand that He also brought judgement on Israel and His people when they were not obeying, but I still see this pattern of mercy that God demonstrates to His own. If we are no longer under condemnation, then why is God pouring out his wrath on us during the tribulation if there is not going to be a rapture of the church?

For the record, I am thoroughly enjoying the dialogue here, folks. It is very insightful and helpful to me. I can't promise you that I will be convinced one way or the other, but it is certainly food for my thoughts and it is helpful to me as I continue to study. Thank you all for the input. Keep it coming!

I was confused by it also, but it's as with the issue of eternal security VS loss of salvation. The reason why there's a divide is because, admittedly, there are verses on both sides of these issues.
The church is indeed raptured before the tribulation, but there is another rapture of tribulation saints. There is more than one rapture (not of the church, there's only one rapture of the church). That's the cause for confusion.

 

[David Kent]

Unfortunately, more often folks look at the Revelation as if reading a child’s story connected with “and then” thinking.

It is not.

John is writing as if from a single lens camera giving multiple viewpoints from the same promontory. His guide moves him about with “come” look at this type statements.

The rapture occurs, the marriage supper is eaten and the Lord and saints return.

do not look for the “and then” when reading. Be still and capture all that
John writes from each promontory he is taken, too.

Yes I was taught that when I was in the Brethren But I eventually learnt that it is incorrect. Jusus will decend from heaven visibly and very audibly, and thedead in Christ will rise first and those still alive will rise and together the will meet him in the air, then he will descend the same way he ascended Acts 1:11. This will be the last day, when the saints are raised . John 6:39,40, 44,54 & 11:24. This will also be judgement day, John 12:48.

 

[David Kent]

I think you confuse covenant theology with allegorical interpretation. They are not one in the same. I embrace covenant theology because it looks at the literal work of God without allegory.
That being said, you can find many who hold to covenant theology who interpret future prophecy using allegory. I don't do this. I work to let the text say what the text says.

You are incorrect. Allegorical teaching is that the book of Revelation has no fulfillment, just allpries of spiritual truths.

The book of Revelation is said to be signiified. That is told by signs, Revelation 1:1, We may say it is figurative or symbolic but that is not allegorical.

 

[Craig Betts]

I was confused by it also, but it's as with the issue of eternal security VS loss of salvation. The reason why there's a divide is because, admittedly, there are verses on both sides of these issues.
The church is indeed raptured before the tribulation, but there is another rapture of tribulation saints. There is more than one rapture (not of the church, there's only one rapture of the church). That's the cause for confusion.

Yes, there will be people saved during that time, as the scripture clearly talks of those who will be dressed in robes of white - those who have survived the tribulation and are martyred for their faith....

 

[Reformed1689]

Is it possible that you abandoned dispensationalism because you didn't understand it? (Just suggesting.)

I find this is true with most people who are against dispensationalism.

 

[Reformed1689]

I see no connection between dispensationalism and the Cal/Arm debate.

Agreed

 

[Shoostie]

As I look at scripture, I clearly see a pattern where God has always removed his faithful people from His judgement,

Jesus told his disciples to flee to the mountains to escape the tribulation.

 

[David Kent]

Dispensationalism is only about 150 years old

Actually 196 years on 25th December 1919.

 

[David Kent]

Again, I have never thought that "God changes his methods over time." Is it possible that you abandoned dispensationalism because you didn't understand it? (Just suggesting.)

That's what the Brethren taught as well as Scofield.

 

[David Kent]

I find this is true with most people who are against dispensationalism.

Oh I understand it full well. It is a modern teaching and described in scripture. 1 Timothy 4:1

 

[David Kent]

I will say that I don't understand Covenant Theology. I have had people trying to explain it to me but it made no sense.