• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant... 3 views

thomas15

Well-Known Member
Book: Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant Three Views 2012, Regular Baptist Press Edited by Mike Stallard

Has anyone read this book and if yes, what is your impression?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Book: Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant Three Views 2012, Regular Baptist Press Edited by Mike Stallard

Has anyone read this book and if yes, what is your impression?
Sounds interesting, are progressive Dispy and NCT included?
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
I have not, but I reject dispensationalism as a butchering of the fluidity of Grace, which flows from first page to last. Dispensationalism, in its attempt to partmentilize and reduce God into segments often results in abusive prooftexting and strained attempts to make scripture fit back together. My advice is to let go of dispensationalism as I did. Embrace the God who makes covenants with his chosen people and see how all the covenants flow beautifully from God as one amazing stream of his goodness.
 

thomas15

Well-Known Member
I actually have read the book, I in-fact have two copies, one, a semi-beat-up, dog eared highlighted copy that I keep handy and refer to often. I'm one of those individuals that likes to keep my books pristine.

I'm not trying to sell the book to anyone just asking if anyone has read it and has informed opinions on it. In my opinion, the scope of the material is quite narrow and the book itself is geared towards those who have at least a general understanding of both the New Covenant and Dispensationalism. In other words it's not an easy read. As mentioned in the book several times, there is far more agreement than disagreement. One might say the point of disagreement is about a half of a percent of the overall.

Sounds interesting, are progressive Dispy and NCT included?

Only in passing are these two positions mentioned. Interesting to me because I own and read the progressive works that are mentioned (again, in passing).

I have not, but found a couple of reviews that might offer some help, assuming you have not seen them already.

Grace Evangelical Society

Aletheia Baptist Ministries

The review by Aletheia is how I would review the book, except I haven't personally met or known any of the authors but I have read works from all of them except Roy Beacham. And of course I'm not a trained theologian. To my way of thinking, Beacham puts forth an argument that is consistent, academic, well reasoned and for me at least has me wanting to learn more about the nature of ANE covenants.

My motivation here is not to start a debate on the fine points of dispensationalism, of which I'm one of, rather as I ponder (evangelical) systematic theology in general, I sometimes get this admiration for those like Martin Luther who searched and studied the Scriptures and formulated opinions that were contrary to the enormous weight of the established thinking. I have found this book helpful in answering some of those items in my personal belief system that I have questioned but held to anyway just because it is the majority view espoused by those who have a lot of credentials.
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[QUOTE="thomas15, post: 2684357, member: 7949] SNIP

My motivation here is not to start a debate on the fine points of dispensationalism, of which I'm one of, rather as I ponder (evangelical) systematic theology in general, I sometimes get this admiration for those like Martin Luther who searched and studied the Scriptures and formulated opinions that were contrary to the enormous weight of the established thinking. I have found this book helpful in answering some of those items in my personal belief system that I have questioned but held to anyway just because it is the majority view espoused by those who have a lot of credentials.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you are on the "sound" track. Just because people have "credentials" or a view is widely held does not validate a view. The key is to discern if the view seems the intended view of scripture.

I am a fan of Soteriology and not of End Times. The view I think best reflects scripture is "progressive dispensationalism."

I think the criticism of Traditional Dispensationalism that it is a blood line view, rather than a "no difference" view is valid.

Perhaps if you would share one of the "questioned but held to anyway" views the "credentialed" folks embrace?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have not, but I reject dispensationalism as a butchering of the fluidity of Grace, which flows from first page to last. Dispensationalism, in its attempt to partmentilize and reduce God into segments often results in abusive prooftexting and strained attempts to make scripture fit back together. My advice is to let go of dispensationalism as I did. Embrace the God who makes covenants with his chosen people and see how all the covenants flow beautifully from God as one amazing stream of his goodness.
I was a Scofield Dispy, to a MacArthur one, now stuck in guess progressive CT, as still hold to premil, but no pre trib!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I actually have read the book, I in-fact have two copies, one, a semi-beat-up, dog eared highlighted copy that I keep handy and refer to often. I'm one of those individuals that likes to keep my books pristine.

I'm not trying to sell the book to anyone just asking if anyone has read it and has informed opinions on it. In my opinion, the scope of the material is quite narrow and the book itself is geared towards those who have at least a general understanding of both the New Covenant and Dispensationalism. In other words it's not an easy read. As mentioned in the book several times, there is far more agreement than disagreement. One might say the point of disagreement is about a half of a percent of the overall.



Only in passing are these two positions mentioned. Interesting to me because I own and read the progressive works that are mentioned (again, in passing).



The review by Aletheia is how I would review the book, except I haven't personally met or known any of the authors but I have read works from all of them except Roy Beacham. And of course I'm not a trained theologian. To my way of thinking, Beacham puts forth an argument that is consistent, academic, well reasoned and for me at least has me wanting to learn more about the nature of ANE covenants.

My motivation here is not to start a debate on the fine points of dispensationalism, of which I'm one of, rather as I ponder (evangelical) systematic theology in general, I sometimes get this admiration for those like Martin Luther who searched and studied the Scriptures and formulated opinions that were contrary to the enormous weight of the established thinking. I have found this book helpful in answering some of those items in my personal belief system that I have questioned but held to anyway just because it is the majority view espoused by those who have a lot of credentials.
I respect solid teachers like a Dr Macarthur or a Dr Ryrie, do not agree with their every point, but respect their works!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[QUOTE="thomas15, post: 2684357, member: 7949] SNIP

My motivation here is not to start a debate on the fine points of dispensationalism, of which I'm one of, rather as I ponder (evangelical) systematic theology in general, I sometimes get this admiration for those like Martin Luther who searched and studied the Scriptures and formulated opinions that were contrary to the enormous weight of the established thinking. I have found this book helpful in answering some of those items in my personal belief system that I have questioned but held to anyway just because it is the majority view espoused by those who have a lot of credentials.

Sounds like you are on the "sound" track. Just because people have "credentials" or a view is widely held does not validate a view. The key is to discern if the view seems the intended view of scripture.

I am a fan of Soteriology and not of End Times. The view I think best reflects scripture is "progressive dispensationalism."

I think the criticism of Traditional Dispensationalism that it is a blood line view, rather than a "no difference" view is valid.

Perhaps if you would share one of the "questioned but held to anyway" views the "credentialed" folks embrace?[/QUOTE]
Progressive Dispy and progressive CT seem to be trying to find a common middle ground!
 

thomas15

Well-Known Member
..............

Perhaps if you would share one of the "questioned but held to anyway" views the "credentialed" folks embrace?

No i don't want to do that, I could, but that would then send this discussion off in a wild frenzy. I'm interested in knowing if others have had the same experience though.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No i don't want to do that, I could, but that would then send this discussion off in a wild frenzy. I'm interested in knowing if others have had the same experience though.
What Dispy theology do you feel most comfortable being in now?
 

thomas15

Well-Known Member
One thing that the above mentioned book did was it brought clarity to my thinking in that many that are not fond of dispensational thinking and feel the need to correct those that are dispensational, they tend to misrepresent, even mock the views of Darby, Chafer, Walvoord and others unfairly and/or inaccurately. That is not the intention of the book but I found it to be useful for that. I have read most of the DTS produced books on progressive dispensationalism and haven't been convinced by their arguments either. It appears to me that the progressive stance is intended to blunt criticisms my moving in a direction to appease the majority not get to the bottom of the issue.

I doubt that anyone would care what I think on the matter at least I hope no one cares as we are talking about a fine point not a life or death issue. But I do think that if one takes the Bible seriously as in the infallible inerrant word of God then they would probably find a nit to pick with just about everyone regardless of how impressive their academic credentials are.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The appeal of traditional dispensation escapes me, it is a straight-up denial of Galatians 3.
 

thomas15

Well-Known Member
I'm hopeful that someone who has actually read the book and holds the Scriptures in high regard will be able to interact.
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
I'm hopeful that someone who has actually read the book and holds the Scriptures in high regard will be able to interact.
People who hold the Scriptures in high regard have interacted and expressed that dispensationalism is a newer butchering of the Bible in an attempt to turn it into a science experiment rather than understand God through His covenants. From Jesus until the 1800s the entire church recognized God working within His covenants. Dispensationalism, in its attempt to dissect everything like an anatomy lab, misses the forest in order to inspect the trees.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One thing that the above mentioned book did was it brought clarity to my thinking in that many that are not fond of dispensational thinking and feel the need to correct those that are dispensational, they tend to misrepresent, even mock the views of Darby, Chafer, Walvoord and others unfairly and/or inaccurately. That is not the intention of the book but I found it to be useful for that. I have read most of the DTS produced books on progressive dispensationalism and haven't been convinced by their arguments either. It appears to me that the progressive stance is intended to blunt criticisms my moving in a direction to appease the majority not get to the bottom of the issue.

I doubt that anyone would care what I think on the matter at least I hope no one cares as we are talking about a fine point not a life or death issue. But I do think that if one takes the Bible seriously as in the infallible inerrant word of God then they would probably find a nit to pick with just about everyone regardless of how impressive their academic credentials are.
I feel much closer to the theology of Dr mac then some in Covenant theology who value baby baptisms!
 

AustinC

Well-Known Member
I feel much closer to the theology of Dr mac then some in Covenant theology who value baby baptisms!
Baby baptism in the church is never found under any covenant made by God. It is a twist on the Abrahamic Covenant that can result in the heretical teaching of baptismal regeneration.
 
Top