Progressive Covenentalism

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

However, the WORD dispensation is used in Scripture.

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

 

Just sayin' Cults normally reject these creeds.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

Attitude is the determination of the use of Jesus.

That doesn't apply to the use of dispensations.

 

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.

 

But the creeds summarise the Bible topics.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

No

 

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.

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!

 

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.

 

That doesn’t make sense.

 

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,