Progressive Covenentalism

[agedman]

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.

What I am stating is that Darby took foundational teaching and repackaged it into a bill of goods.

The purest form of reading the Scriptures is to present that God redeems all by His choice, through His Son, lead to that salvation by Grace and Mercy as a Father.

The most foundational construct from the Scriptures is presented by the original dispensation (Chilian) in which both the early church taught and was also taught in the Jewish schooling of Christ's day.

Even to this day, do not the Jews teach of a messianic time of rule? Certainly, they reject it being the messiah we know, but the teaching continues. It is fundamental to them, just as it should be to believers.

I have no particular problem with God working by making promises to the people. His promises are without change according to the Scriptures.

The problem with both Darby and modern covenant thinking is that presentation that God brought some change or modification was made and discard of the old is obliged. One group places that change in how salvation was delivered, the other in what body of people are called His and is forth.

You are correct to hold onto the truth of Scriptures as the standard.

Both Darby dispensation and modern Covenant drift from the presentation of Scriptures in the most conservative and grammar specific presentation.

 

[1689Dave]

The problem is that neither Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology originate in scripture. They shop and engineer scripture for support, but they do not originate from the bible.

 

[agedman]

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

There are certain creeds and certain parts of creeds that one may use with Biblical support.

But NO creed stands above the presentation of the Scriptures, ESPECIALLY that which would contradict the very teaching of the early church.

One of the big misunderstandings foisted upon the people is that which comes from assuming a gentile position in relation to prophecy. Augustine did this when he (because of disappointment) left the dispensational teaching, calling it childish (my term). Augustine (despite the puff up people give him) was mistaken about more than one area. Last days was just one. His presentation of Adam and Eve was another (presenting pride as the problem). There are others, the Greek Orthodox folks look upon Augustine as a Heretic. Calvin and Luther overly highly esteemed him (imo). All of them are long dead and I will be soon. God's Word lives, and life is found in it.

The book of Revelation was written specifically to the gentile churches. However, the great prophecies of the ancients were predominately to the Jews. John was given that which would give Gentiles understanding concerning the prophets.

The Apostles (as Jews) obviously reflected the Jewish schooling because of the questions they ask.

To me it is interesting how Christ would only correct the teaching when necessary, but that there was no correction concerning the kingdom coming and being established on earth. Rather, that the timing of such was kept in the authority of the Father.

Such schemes that do not present a literal kingdom millennial rule on this earth are not following the Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

The problem is that neither Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology originate in scripture. They shop and engineer scripture for support, but they do not originate from the bible.

However, the WORD dispensation is used in Scripture.

And, the companion words such as age, time(s), in days of, ...

 

[1689Dave]

There are certain creeds and certain parts of creeds that one may use with Biblical support.

But NO creed stands above the presentation of the Scriptures, ESPECIALLY that which would contradict the very teaching of the early church.

One of the big misunderstandings foisted upon the people is that which comes from assuming a gentile position in relation to prophecy. Augustine did this when he (because of disappointment) left the dispensational teaching, calling it childish (my term). Augustine (despite the puff up people give him) was mistaken about more than one area. Last days was just one. His presentation of Adam and Eve was another (presenting pride as the problem). There are others, the Greek Orthodox folks look upon Augustine as a Heretic. Calvin and Luther overly highly esteemed him (imo). All of them are long dead and I will be soon. God's Word lives, and life is found in it.

The book of Revelation was written specifically to the gentile churches. However, the great prophecies of the ancients were predominately to the Jews. John was given that which would give Gentiles understanding concerning the prophets.

The Apostles (as Jews) obviously reflected the Jewish schooling because of the questions they ask.

To me it is interesting how Christ would only correct the teaching when necessary, but that there was no correction concerning the kingdom coming and being established on earth. Rather, that the timing of such was kept in the authority of the Father.

Such schemes that do not present a literal kingdom millennial rule on this earth are not following the Scriptures.

Just sayin' Cults normally reject these creeds.

 

[1689Dave]

However, the WORD dispensation is used in Scripture.

And, the companion words such as age, time(s), in days of, ...

So? The word Jesus is too but does that justify cussing?

 

[Rob_BW]

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.

I spent a fair amount of time digging around Ephesus 431, and I may need help finding the direct condemnation of millenniumism. Lots of secondary comments, but really no good primary sources. Could you lend a hand?

 

[agedman]

Just sayin' Cults normally reject these creeds.

Cults normally reject anything that is not according to their truth.

As such, the creeds may be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Only the Scriptures present the truth, and the Word is that sword the Spirit uses to separate and make discernment by exposing that which is hidden.

 

[agedman]

So? The word Jesus is too but does that justify cussing?

Attitude is the determination of the use of Jesus.

That doesn't apply to the use of dispensations.

 

[1689Dave]

I spent a fair amount of time digging around Ephesus 431, and I may need help finding the direct condemnation of millenniumism. Lots of secondary comments, but really no good primary sources. Could you lend a hand?

Chiliasm has been condemned as a heresy in the East and West since A.D. 381. It is defended as a true doctrine of Christianity by several Christian denominations and literalist schools of biblical interpretation since the beginning of the Reformation. See 12 schools of interpretation and Millennium

Chiliasm - Conservapedia

Lots of differing articles if you search the net. Nicea ruled out a temporal kingdom bolstering the Amillennial view of the everlasting kingdom.

 

[1689Dave]

Cults normally reject anything that is not according to their truth.

As such, the creeds may be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Only the Scriptures present the truth, and the Word is that sword the Spirit uses to separate and make discernment by exposing that which is hidden.

But the creeds summarise the Bible topics.

 

[1689Dave]

Attitude is the determination of the use of Jesus.

That doesn't apply to the use of dispensations.

 

[David Kent]

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.

Do you teach circumcision, as the Jezreelites did in the 19th century?

 

[David Kent]

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]

Not sure you are correct there. Baptism in the bible is for believers.
Even if you are correct, it opens the way for someone to believe he is saved ecause he is baptised. Same as if an unbweliever takes communion or the Lors's supper.

 

[David Kent]

Did God have to show mercy to Adam and Eve? Did he have to clothe them? Did he have to make a covenantal promise that a Redeemer would come through their lineage to remove their sins?
No on all accounts.
Instead, God showed his first gracious choice in saving Adam and Eve. The covenant of Grace began. It continues to this day. It progresses forward to the Day of the Lord.

A covenant is between two parties. I believe the promise of the redeemer was made only by God, or can you provr, from scripture, otherwise?

 

[Reformed1689]

Do you teach circumcision, as the Jezreelites did in the 19th century?

No

 

[John of Japan]

Chiliasm has been condemned as a heresy in the East and West since A.D. 381. It is defended as a true doctrine of Christianity by several Christian denominations and literalist schools of biblical interpretation since the beginning of the Reformation. See 12 schools of interpretation and Millennium

Chiliasm - Conservapedia

Your source is faulty, and I believe mistaken. We do not allow our college students to use anonymous Internet sources like this. A "Wiki" or "askquestions" type of posting is too easily written, corrected, or changed by ignorant people. I once saw a Wikipedia entry on a NT ms that had two different explanations of the supposed content of the mss.

So I challenge you: in what 381 document was chiliasm rejected, and how broad was the rejection? And I recommend that you not use more anonymous Internet sources--they can be so wrong.

Lots of differing articles if you search the net. Nicea ruled out a temporal kingdom bolstering the Amillennial view of the everlasting kingdom.

Again, I challenge your other source. What Nicea are you talking about? The creed? The first council? The second council? What?

There is nothing in the creed to oppose chiliasm.

Oddly enough, an excellent, well sourced, not anonymous article in the notes of your anonymous "conservepedia" article disproves the very point of the article: The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm? | Bible.org. So basically, the idea that the early church rejected chiliasm comes from the (gasp) Catholics!

 

[agedman]

But the creeds summarise the Bible topics.

They can or as you point to in an above post depart by emphasis upon human scholarship such as that Augustine, who changed because what he thought would occur didn’t.

For example, you mention the Nicene Creed.

It does not dispute dispensation at all, and neither does the Apostles Creed.

But, when looking at the those that form such creeds, then certainly one may find error in their belief, as I have shown with Augustine.

 

[agedman]

View attachment 3344

That doesn’t make sense.

 

[David Kent]

Agreed. We don't find infant baptism anywhere in the Bible. We also don't find baby dedications anywhere in the Bible. Nor do we find Christmas Eve meetings or celebrations of Christ's birth. We don't find Thanksgiving services or youth groups. Shall I go on?

My prevoius church would not hold dedication services for a baby, as some can take it as "christening" indeed a pastor's wife I knew described it a christening. They did hold a thanksgiving service for a baby. I am not sure what my current pastor's view on it is. He believes that the antichrist is futre, but he warned about an American preacher that some were considering as pastor for when he retires in a year or so time. He is an American, he would probably be an arminian and dispensationalist,