Progressive Covenentalism

[StefanM]

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 am definitely not a pure dispensationalist, but your objection to the "covenants" in covenant theology is spot on. IMO, there is no basis for assuming any sort of extra-biblical theological covenant. The covenants in Scripture make sense without needing to postulate a "covenant of grace," for instance.

I do think much of the heat thrown toward dispensationalism is backlash against a very strong (at times obsessive) focus on eschatology by some very vocal dispensationalists, but we shouldn't necessarily judge a theological framework by its loudest voices.

 

[John of Japan]

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

I've never found it in Scofield. Regardless, you won't find it in revised dispensationalsim, i.e. Ryrie et al.

 

[John of Japan]

I am definitely not a pure dispensationalist, but your objection to the "covenants" in covenant theology is spot on. IMO, there is no basis for assuming any sort of extra-biblical theological covenant. The covenants in Scripture make sense without needing to postulate a "covenant of grace," for instance.

I do think much of the heat thrown toward dispensationalism is backlash against a very strong (at times obsessive) focus on eschatology by some very vocal dispensationalists, but we shouldn't necessarily judge a theological framework by its loudest voices.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[Particular]

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?

Dispensationalism as I knew it meant that God worked in different ways in different ages. The age of grace is from the cross to the rapture. The age of law was from Moses to John the Baptist. Etc. God's method of redemption changed.
I have Chafer's Theology on my shelf. It formed my earlier views.
When I started reading scripture from front to back, I started realizing that God always worked by choosing whom he would redeem purely by his grace. The covenants, starting with the Adamic covenant all flowed in the narrative of God providing a promised Redeemer for his elect.
Every dispensationalist I ever met was leaning toward Arminian thought and syncretism. Salvation was by their choosing God. When I left Arminian thought and embraced the Supremacy of God as Sovereign over my salvation, I then began to see how most dispensationalists were syncretists.
MacArthur is an interesting person. He has evolved over time to embrace Calvinism.
Ryrie, Chafer, etc., are products of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dallas is more syncretist and legalistic in its theology, in my opinion. It has produced some wonderful people, but it misses on understanding covenant theology.

 

[John of Japan]

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

That's very harsh. So am I an apostate? "Departed from the faith?"

From this standpoint alone, I'm glad I'm a dispensationalist; it is much less harsh than the position of most of those who oppose us.

 

[John of Japan]

Dispensationalism as I knew it meant that God worked in different ways in different ages. The age of grace is from the cross to the rapture. The age of law was from Moses to John the Baptist. Etc. God's method of redemption changed.
I have Chafer's Theology on my shelf. It formed my earlier views.

I consider that God worked the same way through different dispensations, not ages. Scofield defined "dispensation" with the word "age," but Ryrie and other revised theologians do not. Biblically, a dispensation is a stewardship, not an age.

When I started reading scripture from front to back, I started realizing that God always worked by choosing whom he would redeem purely by his grace. The covenants, starting with the Adamic covenant all flowed in the narrative of God providing a promised Redeemer for his elect.
Every dispensationalist I ever met was leaning toward Arminian thought and syncretism. Salvation was by their choosing God. When I left Arminian thought and embraced the Supremacy of God as Sovereign over my salvation, I then began to see how most dispensationalists were syncretists.
MacArthur is an interesting person. He has evolved over time to embrace Calvinism.
Ryrie, Chafer, etc., are products of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dallas is more syncretist and legalistic in its theology, in my opinion. It has produced some wonderful people, but it misses on understanding covenant theology.

Arminian? Really? Yet you say you have Chafer on your shelves and you mention MacArthur.

P. S. Chafer was not a "product" of DTS, but its founder.

 

[Particular]

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.

Have you read Robert H. Mounce commentary on Revelation? He's a covenant theologian. His work is the best I have read on Revelation. His writing on the churches is astounding and historical, not allegorical.

 

[Particular]

Actually 196 years on 25th December 1919.

You attack with facts. How dare you! [emoji16][emoji23]

 

[Particular]

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.

It was important to the Particular Baptists to maintain a close connection between the old covenant(s) and the covenant of grace. Though they were distinct, they were not to be divided. The old covenant(s) were subservient to the covenant of grace and made its benefits available through typology. But, in and of themselves, they did not grant heavenly blessings. “Notwithstanding the respect this Covenant hath to the Covenant of Grace, it yet remains distinct from it; and can give no more then external and typical Blessings unto a Typical Seed.”[4] The covenant of grace was materially made known in the old covenant(s), but not formally made until Christ shed his blood. The heavenborn people of God began in the garden and extend to all ages. The earthborn people of God began with Abraham and ended with the cross.

Where Reformed covenant theology was united, the Particular Baptists were united with them. Where Reformed covenant theology was diverse, the Particular Baptists lived within that diversity.
Particular Baptist Covenant Theology

 

[Reformed1689]

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

Really.... That's a bit bold and shows you acutally DON'T understand it. What do you think Dispensationalism is?

 

[Reformed1689]

For the record, Covenental Theology is why many on that side of the Aisle practice Infant Baptism. You know, because somehow the New Covenant isn't really New it's the Old Covenant but with different seals.

 

[Craig Betts]

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

Yes, but are those disciples the Christians who became such AFTER the rapture? That would be my understanding.

 

[Shoostie]

For the record, Covenental Theology is why many on that side of the Aisle practice Infant Baptism. You know, because somehow the New Covenant isn't really New it's the Old Covenant but with different seals.

Even if you're right, the correctness of doctrine doesn't depend on how someone else uses that doctrine. If you want to play that game, consider that infant baptism hasn't started any wars in the middle-east under false pretexts.

 

[Shoostie]

Yes, but are those disciples the Christians who became such AFTER the rapture? That would be my understanding.

If you're going to use invent any ad hoc factor, you can believe anything you want.

Your rationalization to invent the pretrib rapture (God removes his people from places of judgement) is refuted by the fact that the Bible teaches that the disciples were to flee to the mountains (God removes his people from tribulation without a rapture, as he did in every historical example you provided).

 

[Reformed1689]

Even if you're right, the correctness of doctrine doesn't depend on how someone else uses that doctrine. If you want to play that game, consider that infant baptism hasn't started any wars in the middle-east under false pretexts.

There is no biblical basis for CT. It is extra-biblical content.

 

[Particular]

For the record, Covenental Theology is why many on that side of the Aisle practice Infant Baptism. You know, because somehow the New Covenant isn't really New it's the Old Covenant but with different seals.

If infant baptism is not taught as a means of attaining salvic grace, but instead as a dedication and covenant to train up a child in the fellowship of believers, I have no problem with it.
Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox, however, teach means of salvation as a sacrament. That is a false teaching. Reformed teach it as a covenantal commitment to raise the child in the fellowship and point them toward their need of God's gracious reconciliation.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. [emoji16]

 

[Particular]

There is no biblical basis for CT. It is extra-biblical content.

Well that's just false.

 

[Craig Betts]

If you're going to use invent any ad hoc factor, you can believe anything you want.

Your rationalization to invent the pretrib rapture (God removes his people from places of judgement) is refuted by the fact that the Bible teaches that the disciples were to flee to the mountains (God removes his people from tribulation without a rapture, as he did in every historical example you provided).

Good point, but I don't know if I'd consider "fleeing to the mountains" to be the same as being completely removed from the effects of the tribulation. The whole world is going to be completely wasted when it's over. The mountains may protect them from death, but I would think that they will still suffer all the other effects. The earth is basically going to be a miserable place to live at that point. Nevertheless, God provided in the biblical times as well. I guess if we have to go back to primitive living with no bathrooms, hunting for our food, and cooking over fires, then so be it. From what Revelation describes, we are going to be reduced pretty much to the bare bones of survival. The final earthquake which is mentioned is so devastating that it will be a miracle if anything is still standing by that point. I pray that I do not have to experience any of that, but I guess if the Lord wanted to put me through all of that, then I'd be given the grace to handle it.

 

[Reformed1689]

If infant baptism is not taught as a means of attaining salvic grace, but instead as a dedication and covenant to train up a child in the fellowship of believers, I have no problem with it.
Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox, however, teach means of salvation as a sacrament. That is a false teaching. Reformed teach it as a covenantal commitment to raise the child in the fellowship and point them toward their need of God's gracious reconciliation.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. [emoji16]

Actually they go a little deeper than that. They teach it is a replacement for circumcision as a seal of that person into the covenant promises.

 

[Reformed1689]

Well that's just false.

Oh really? I'd like to see that proven in another thread. Show me where there is the Covenant of Grace, show me where there is the Covenant of Works. I'm not saying the constructs that they put forth are not scriptural, that is not what I am saying. After all, I hold to the LBCF1689. BUT you have to recognize that these are not found in the Bible, rather, they are deduced from the Bible. In that sense, I have a real problem calling them covenants because there is no such covenant found in Scripture.