Progressive Covenentalism

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).

 

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

 

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

 

Tell that to the confused disciples in the gospels:

 

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.)

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?

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Agreed

 

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

 

Actually 196 years on 25th December 1919.

 

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

 

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

 

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.