Progressive Covenentalism

Right

 

This post is my opinion, and I am unanimous in it.

I am NOT a “Darby-dispensational” person.

I use dispensation as reference to a certain period aligned with how people were ruled and major events.

It is away to quickly give an overview of the Scripture presentation and align how folks lived under authority.

That aside, I am pre-wrath hopeful, but expect a growing tribulation until the millennial reign. It matters little to me when theLord will come, because His truthfulness and His reliability is bound in the statements of promises made by Him that He will come and I am to be ready at all times.

I do find the Revelation 14 recording the gathering of the saints for the marriage supper (19), the return of Christ with the saints in Revelation 19, the millennial rule, and final judgements followed by eternity.

I would caution all to be careful to not assume time specifics, and to attempt dating the tribulation start.

“Then will come great tribulation” does not mean that it is starting immediately in time, but in the sequence of major events.

The “great tribulation” refers to the quality and quantity, not a time. What leads up to “great” mountains are ever increasing foothills and valleys.

The enemy of grace will spread all manner of deceitful persuasions to deceive even the elect. As we believers see events, we are to look up, not down, we are to long, not be dismayed.

Believers will even mock other believers about the promise of His return (as the Scriptures declare) and we see even on the BB at times, but that is just another indicator to gather further encouragement in the veracity of Scriptures.

Just as the OT saints looked forward to redemption though abiding as redeemed, I also look forward to that gathering as abiding in redeemed.

 

I concede your point. I do note that there is a point made where baptism is not regenerative, however.

p 148 V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

So, for Reformed, the baptism of an infant does not mean the infant is regenerated. But, you are correct in that they seem to teach it as a means of grace.

 

My solution to the problem is both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are man made and dishonest. They don't originate in scripture but borrow from scripture to support their claims. Problem solved. End of story............

 

Thought I wouldn't say reformed, there are Reformed Baptist.

 

It seems your solution is to silently have no opinion.
Scripture, however can give us insight. In scripture we see God graciously choosing whom he wills, starting with Adam and Eve. We see God's choice, by grace, from beginning to end. We see God establishing covenants with men.
What we don't see is God declaring and dispensing his means of salvation in different ways at different times. Thus, dispensationalism has no solid footing in scripture.

 

That is just foolish. The first dispensationalist, Edward Irving was a Presyterian, his disciple John Nelson Darby was a Irish Anglican, Scofield, whose false bible was a major tool in bring the new teaching to the USA was a Presbyterian. All these were paedo Baptists

 

1689 Particular Baptist Confession

1.Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of His fellowship with Him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

2.Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

3.The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

4.Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

 

Your understanding is wrong, there will be none made Christians after we meet the Lord in the air. As the first dispies said, " The earth will be left without a prophet or preacher." Robert baxyer, letter to Mr Armstrong 1833

 

I know what I believe to be in line with the historic Church Creeds. And anything that doesn't square with that is highly suspect. Ephesus 431 condemned premillennialism (Dispensationalism in principle) as heresy. And Nicea briefly stated Amillennialism in principle as the correct position in scripture.

 

Yes I am aware of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Not sure why you posted this as it is starkly different from the WCF.

 

Paedobaptists also stray into presumptive regeneration.

 

Perhaps, again it would be wise to not appoint a name "great" to the event, but the quality and quantity of the event.

The abomination of desolation is more literally abomination that desolates. It is as you pointed out, pointing to a specific personage, one that has been emulated frequently in tyrants. The significance of this one is that he is the last and the greatest with all the modern tools of destruction, Think of how people in the past could escape and hide, and how modern technology has disclosed those hidden. Run for the hills doesn't offer anymore safety than safe harbor from storms of sea.

That is the importance of the message. The promise of return no matter how bad things may become. Does not Paul state that the believers are like sheep ready for slaughter?

Here is my opinion. It matters not to me when the Lord returns, but that He promised that He would return and to be ready. Now, there are folks who have put great hope in some event, but what if they are mistaken?

Does the hope in any manner diminish because the expectation, supposedly triggered by an event, did not take place?

If the star ship didn't come when the comet arrived, does that destroy faith as it did those involved with "Heavens Gate" (https://www.space.com/19931-hale-bopp.html)?

I desire folks to be rapture hopeful, but return prepared.

There will be continued tribulation and as God's bowls and trumpets sound such tribulation as has never occurred will take place. There will be great apostasy. There will be those who will mock.

But Christ will return. He promised, and said to be ready.

That is the exactly right perspective.

Do not loose that perspective, no matter what happens.

AND you are also correct to view the events not as perpetrated by the enemy of God (although some events will be) but that pouring of wrath upon the ungodly.

Also, do not neglect to remember that the Israelis in Egypt also suffered prior too and during the first of the plagues.

Nothing occurs that God does not have final authority.

Do you really think that the modern believers are totally pleasing to God?

Again, I point to the folks in ancient Egypt. They had to be taught, and learn to rely upon the authority of Moses, even when horrible conditions were not only on them, but later all around them.

Is Christ not greater than Moses? If they endured such, how much more are we not to look for escape but to look for qualifying to serve. We are to be like a Joshua and Caleb. Ready to conquer when all around others retreat.

Certainly, God can do that which protects, but He doesn't, and neither should we expect such.

Rather, God causes us to persevere, while He preserves. He places light in the darkness, and we are not to be concerned about where we are placed but about how brightly we can shine.

 

David, it is not foolish. Westminster Covenant Theology's view stands and falls on infant baptism. When the Reformed Baptist movement in the United States started in Carlisle, Pennsylvania* it adopted Westminster Covenant Theology as its default position. This was due mostly to the fact that there was not much contemporary work on Covenant Theology from a Baptist perspective. To be sure, Westminster Covenant Theology is helpful but it does contain some glaring inconsistencies that Baptists have to reject. Thankfully, there has been prolific work done on Baptist Federalism (i.e. Covenant Theology) within the last decade. It is imperative for Reformed/Particular Baptists to state where they differ with their Westminster brethren.


*Not to be confused with English Particular Baptists

 

Perhaps it would be wise to not lump historic dispensational teaching into the modern "Darby" dispensation.

The Scriptures do use the term "dispensation" and therefore does have "solid footing."

What "Darby" did was take and modify the teaching to repackage it into something catchy and mass appealing.

Doing so, he also interjected bias that was typical of his time toward the Jews.

However, historic dispensation teaching does NOT declare God dispensing different ways of salvation at different times.

Schofield used this definition of dispensation: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God."

There is significant difference between the modern dispensation taught by Darby thinking and that taught by the early church.

It is SO VERY sad that the Chiliastic view of the early church has been disregarded and dismissed because of the Darby persuasion, and by those who use it to dismiss all things dispensational.

The centuries of dispensation teaching (Chilan) in which the early church was grounded upon is the use of Scriptures.

That dispensational view was not only accepted by Christians, but also held by the Jews as consistent with the prophetical teachings.

It is just bad theological arguments to assume all dispensation teaching emerged from Darby.

It is just bad theologically to place some other scheme as superior to what the early church taught.

 

Right.
While the confession may not overtly state it, they certainly lean that way. I have friends who are LCMS and ultimately, when pushed, they will throw up their hands and claim, "mystery."

 

agedman, I confess that I am naive to your splitting of hairs in the dispensationalist camp. It may very well be that I land outside of pure covenant theology and dispensational theology. I merely read the Bible and see God choosing and working through covenant with his chosen people.

 

This is really ridiculous.

You are taking the Papal Decree from what was a developing ungodly bunch and making it that which Scripture conforms?

That you even would use such is just astounding!

Every scholar of note does admit that two teachings were dominate in the early church AND the Jewish teaching.
1) the use of dispensation (NOT Darby type)
2) the hope of the messiah (Chilian) establishing an earthly rule.

Even the apostles present this when asking:

6So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
​

And even in the remembering table the Lord stated:

17And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”​

And do not believers pray

“Father, hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come."​

And why do they pray such?

"your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."​

God's will in heaven is unchallenged, undisputed, uncontested, un-perverted, and un-delayed.

Such WILL happen on this earth.

Such is that promise given by the prophets and displayed in time by John.

That you would present some authority from the anti-christ in this matter is just beyond ludicrous!

 

All are considered cults of Christendom that reject the Ecumenical Creeds.