covenantal or dispensational

[thomas15]

Actually any covenant between God and man would have to be one of Grace. That God would deal with sinful man at all is a marvelous demonstration of His Grace.

I could not agree with you more. Grace is Amazing!

But we look for an actual covenant of Grace and we come up with zip.

 

[kyredneck]

HoS, there are plenty of "moderate" dispensationalists like you who use the old Scofield Reference Bible who may not understand the entirety of what Scofield's classical dispensationalism actually taught. This is understandable. I used to be a "moderate" dispensationalist like you, and I was associated with Baptists who were KJVSRB-O, yet there were plenty of things they would be shocked about if they really sat down and studied Scofield's whole theology systematically.

If there are people here who are falsely accusing you of agreeing with Scofield on everything because you use his Reference Bible, they would be wrong.

According to Scofield's classic dispensationalism, there are seven dispensations ("set of rules" "by which man is tested"), with each one "ending in judgment." Therefore, Scofield basically had to prove that the end of each dispensation was a "failure" of man, resulting in the ushering of the next one. According to Scofield in his article "The Seven Dispensations" "Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment, marking his utter failure in every dispensation."

1. The Dispensation of Innocence
Failure: The Fall of Adam and Eve
Judgment: Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden of Eden

2. The Dispensation of Conscience
Failure: The corrupt world under Noah
Judgment: The Flood

3. The Dispensation of Human Government
Failure: The tower of Babel
Judgment: The confounding of languages and dispersion of man

4. The Dispensation of Promise
Failure: "Israel rashly accepted the law...at Sinai they exchanged grace for law"[1] From the link above "Instead of humbly pleading for a continued relation of grace, they presumptuously answered: 'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.'" This is one of the weirdest conclusions of Scofield. The covenant of the Law was a "test" of Israel's commitment to the grace of the Abrahamic covenant, yet their "failure" was that they basically "took the bait" out of pride. They "failed the test" by accepting the law.
Judgment: God held Israel to their word and bound them under the Law

5. The Dispensation of Law
Failure: Israel rejected their Messiah
Judgment: Israel is cast aside temporarily

6. The Dispensation of Grace
Failure: The church apostatizes. "The predicted result of this testing of man under grace is judgment upon an unbelieving world and an apostate church."
Judgment: The Church is raptured away and God judges the world

7. The Dispensation of the Kingdom (Millenium)
Failure: Satan deceives the nations for a season and they gather for battle against Christ.
Judgment: Christ crushes His foes and sets up the Great White Throne judgment.

Thanks for that link.

Wow, one failure after another after another after another........ it sells good though, for some reason it makes money:

THE GLOOM AND DOOM BOOM
by Kenneth L. Gentry (1995)

"What is remarkable about this dispensational future consciousness is that in an important sense the popular Christian expectation is not very different from the secularist. Both the Christian community and the larger secular world anticipate a future of chaos and despair."

 

[OldRegular]

Thanks for that link.

Wow, one failure after another after another after another........ it sells good though, for some reason it makes money:

THE GLOOM AND DOOM BOOM
by Kenneth L. Gentry (1995)

"What is remarkable about this dispensational future consciousness is that in an important sense the popular Christian expectation is not very different from the secularist. Both the Christian community and the larger secular world anticipate a future of chaos and despair."

The saddest of all is, that according to Scofield, the Church for which Jesus Christ died is also a failure. And given that the Jews have always been a "stiff-necked people" [Acts 7:51] what does that say about "The Dispensation of the Kingdom"? Yes! "Christ crushes His foes and sets up the Great White Throne judgment."

The entire dispensational doctrine of Scofield/whoever is a tragedy and a tragic failure to understand the Grace of God. I believe that God has always had a people who found Grace in His sight!

 

[OldRegular]

I could not agree with you more. Grace is Amazing!

But we look for an actual covenant of Grace and we come up with zip.

Actually the Bible is the story of the Covenant of Grace:

1. God the Father before the foundation of the world foreknew and chose a people to be His own.

2. God the Son humbles Himself, takes upon Himself the form of man, and dies on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those whom the Father has chosen to salvation.

3. God the Holy Spirit applies the work of the Son by the regeneration and effectual calling of those whom God the Father has chosen unto salvation so that none are lost.

 

[thomas15]

Not to change the subject or offend those with sensativities but is there a contest to see who can be the most obnoxious person on the planet?

 

[thomas15]

Actually the Bible is the story of the Covenant of Grace:

1. God the Father before the foundation of the world foreknew and chose a people to be His own.

2. God the Son humbles Himself, takes upon Himself the form of man, and dies on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those whom the Father has chosen to salvation.

3. God the Holy Spirit applies the work of the Son by the regeneration and effectual calling of those whom God the Father has chosen unto salvation so that none are lost.

And this is in what chapter/verse of the Bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

So pray tell when do you and Scofield believe the resurrection of the righteous to take place considering you do believe in a rapture, tribulation, and mil kingdom???

resurrection of the OT or the NT saints?

 

[OldRegular]

And this is in what chapter/verse of the Bible?

Genesis 1:1- Revelation 22:21!:thumbs::godisgood: Just as I said!:thumbs::godisgood:

 

[OldRegular]

Not to change the subject or offend those with sensativities but is there a contest to see who can be the most obnoxious person on the planet?

The contest is only between you and HOSS! As of now I would call it a tie! But persevere!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe that the method of allegorical interpretation fell out of favor about the time Margaret MacDonald had her vision and Darby fell for it!:thumbs:



Then instead of ranting and dumping on these "unwashed and unlearned folks" why don't you educate them!:thumbs:


I thought that salvation by works was the point of all dispensations up until the current "Church Age, or Grace, dispensation, and then in the Jewish millennium it is blood sacrifices and works all over again!


It is people like you and HOSS who spout meaningless acrimony that give the impression

I have stated that much of Revelation is written in "apocalyptic" language, which it is.:thumbs: Tom is more than capable of defending his own views!:thumbs:

God always has saved sinners the same way, by the basis of the atoning work on the Cross by jesus, and faith in him and his work was the way the lord gave salvation to any of us!

the ONLY ones who taught saved by works are Covenant theologians, in their so called Covenant of works between Adam and God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually the Bible is the story of the Covenant of Grace:

1. God the Father before the foundation of the world foreknew and chose a people to be His own.

2. God the Son humbles Himself, takes upon Himself the form of man, and dies on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of those whom the Father has chosen to salvation.

3. God the Holy Spirit applies the work of the Son by the regeneration and effectual calling of those whom God the Father has chosen unto salvation so that none are lost.

yes, but with an earthly peoples to inherit the Kingdom that will upon the earth in messianic reigning, the Lews, and the ones who inherit at that time spiritual Kingdom in new jerusalem, the Church!

Both shall become One when jesus turns over all back to the father, eternal state!

 

[AresMan]

God always has saved sinners the same way, by the basis of the atoning work on the Cross by jesus, and faith in him and his work was the way the lord gave salvation to any of us!

This position of modern moderate dispensationalists came from the "Revised" dispensationalists like Ryrie--thankfully--who felt the heat when the doctrine of works-salvation for Israel taught by Darby and Scofield was under scrutiny.

Classical dispensationalism holds that Israelites were indeed justified by the Law, but under the "dispensation of grace" Christians are justified "by grace through faith alone."

According to Scofield:

As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Romans 3:24-26 Romans 4:24 Romans 4:25 . The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, ; John 1:12 John 1:13 ; 3:36 ; Matthew 21:37 ; 22:24 ; John 15:22 John 15:25 ; Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 John 5:10-12 . The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27 . The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" (See Scofield "2 Timothy 3:1") 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.​

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/john/john-1.html?p=2

the ONLY ones who taught saved by works are Covenant theologians, in their so called Covenant of works between Adam and God!

According to covenant theology, the "covenant of works" was to demonstrate the total incapacity of man to obey, with the "covenant of grace" being the remedy. Covenant theology never taught true "works-salvation," but rather "works-damnation" and "grace-salvation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

 

[Bob Alkire]

This position of modern moderate dispensationalists came from the "Revised" dispensationalists like Ryrie--thankfully--who felt the heat when the doctrine of works-salvation for Israel taught by Darby and Scofield was under scrutiny.

Classical dispensationalism holds that Israelites were indeed justified by the Law, but under the "dispensation of grace" Christians are justified "by grace through faith alone."

I was taught and believe from my study that different dispensations are different ways of God's administering His rule, not different ways of salvation. God has used different dispensations but only one way of salvation, and that is by His grace.
Charles Ryrie, in his book Dispensationalism, has a chapter which answers this false charge of different ways of salvation Ryrie also clarifies the position of Scofield and Chafer. They did not believe that anyone could be saved by keeping the law.

 

[OldRegular]

I was taught and believe from my study that different dispensations are different ways of God's administering His rule, not different ways of salvation. God has used different dispensations but only one way of salvation, and that is by His grace.
Charles Ryrie, in his book Dispensationalism, has a chapter which answers this false charge of different ways of salvation Ryrie also clarifies the position of Scofield and Chafer. They did not believe that anyone could be saved by keeping the law.

Goes to show how much dispensationalism has "evolved" with time. Progressive dispensationalism is abandoning the "parenthesis" Church doctrine and the two peoples doctrine and approaching the view of covenant or historical premillennialism.

 

[thomas15]

Goes to show how much dispensationalism has "evolved" with time. Progressive dispensationalism is abandoning the "parenthesis" Church doctrine and the two peoples doctrine and approaching the view of covenant or historical premillennialism.

Just for the fun of it try running your theory past Darrell Bock then let us know how you make out.

 

[Greektim]

Just for the fun of it try running your theory past Darrell Bock then let us know how you make out.

Have you read much of Bock on the issue??? I'd say the assessment you quoted was spot on.

 

[thomas15]

Have you read much of Bock on the issue??? I'd say the assessment you quoted was spot on.

In terms of the debate covenant/dispensational Bock is in the dispensational camp. Show me where Bock (Progressive Dispensationalism) is espousing or even hinting at a move towards reformed/a-mil/replacement theology.

 

[OldRegular]

In terms of the debate covenant/dispensational Bock is in the dispensational camp. Show me where Bock (Progressive Dispensationalism) is espousing or even hinting at a move towards reformed/a-mil/replacement theology.

Replacement theology is a creation of classic dispensationalism just like the "parenthesis" Church. I don't believe anyone has said that progressive dispensationalists are becoming amillennial in their eschatology. As for them becoming "reformed" it depends on your interpretation of reformed. It is certain they are reforming classic dispensationalism. Since you were obviously questioning something you had not read; be my guest!

Goes to show how much dispensationalism has "evolved" with time. Progressive dispensationalism is abandoning the "parenthesis" Church doctrine and the two peoples doctrine and approaching the view of covenant or historical premillennialism.

That is correct whether you like it or not!
!

 

[OldRegular]

Progressive Dispensationalism; Some Observations

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/progresi.htm

1. Its Leaders

1) Craig Blaising, a former Dallas Seminary Professor who is now teaching at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas; 2) Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary; 3) Robert Saucy, who taught at Talbot School of Theology (Talbot Seminary). Due to the pioneering work of these and other men, many have entered the progressive fold.

2. Its Books

1) Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church by Blaising and Bock (1992); 2) The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism by Saucy (1993); 3) Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock (1993). A wealth of literature, books and articles, for and against Progressive Dispensationalism has been published in the years following.

3. Its Beginnings

[In this paper we shall sometimes refer to Progressive Dispensationalism as PD.]

In 1985 a group met together and launched the Dispensational Study Group. "What has emerged is unprecedented discussion between covenant theologians, historical premillennialists, charismatics, and the dispensationalists who invited them to the table" (Darrell Bock, Christianity Today, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 26). Notice that it was the "dispensationalists" who initiated this dialogue. "We met because some (but not all of us) believed that there are biblical problems with aspects of the older dispensational position. We engaged in the discussion with all these groups as well as ourselves to sift through the evidence. Traditionalists were on the program with us in virtually every year early on" (Bock).1 "PD wants to find common ground with nondispensationalism" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "The newer dispensationalism wants to bring itself in line with mainstream evangelicalism" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "PD is made up of evangelicals who are dissatisfied with the dispensationalism of their forefathers and who have met together to change it" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of "Progressive Dispensationalism," Part 1, p. 5).

"The purpose of the study group (which first met in 1986) appears to be to clarify dispensational issues in order to bridge the gap between dispensationalism and covenant theology....it is a sad commentary on the present situation that whereas premillennialism (out of which dispensationalism gradually emerged) arose in America primarily through early Bible conferences held in opposition to the postmillennialism and liberalism of the day, progressive dispensationalism, in following the ecumenical spirit of the times, is seeking common ground with amillennialism" (Manfred Kober, "The Problematic Development of Progressive Dispensationalism", Faith Pulpit, March 1997). In the days of the early Bible conferences, Bible believing men of different persuasions met together in opposition to religious modernism (liberalism) and in defense of the great fundamentals of the faith and with a renewed interest in prophecy in general and the imminent return of Christ in particular. Today Progressive Dispensationalists are meeting with and dialoguing with men of different theological persuasions because of a common opposition to certain traditional teachings of Bible believing dispensationalists and because of some commonly shared, non-dispensational views on the nature of the church and the nature of the kingdom.


SNIP

9. Its Relationship to Covenant Premillennialism

"The newer dispensationalism looks so much like nondispensational premillennialism that one struggles to see any real difference" (Walter Elwell, Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). "Will progressive dispensationalism simply turn into historic premillennialism?" (Ibid.) When Bock was asked if George Ladd (a covenant or historic premillennialist) would disagree with his views, he replied, "I think the fundamental thrust of the structure he would not disagree with" (Ryrie, page 166). "I don’t think that they [the progressives] will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and covenental premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenental premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd" (Vein Poythress as cited by Ryrie, p. 178).

The already/not yet understanding of the kingdom was George Ladd’s position (he was a historic premillennialist and was posttribulational). The progressive teaching that Christ is now ruling on the throne of David was also George Ladd’s position. "Bock admits the closeness of his views regarding a present kingdom to those of George Ladd’s historic premillennialism—a system adverse to dispensationalism" (Robert Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 415).

In defense of his own statement, Bock clarifies the fact that his position is very similar to Ladd’s but not identical: "The basic structure I affirmed with Ladd was the recognition of a kingdom that is ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ (just like our salvation is). By the way, this view emerged long before Ladd. It is not his. It has been a position many have defended in this century in NT studies before there was the covenental premillennialism of Ladd. However, my ‘already’ is not Ladd’s for the church does not stand permanently in Israel’s stead for me as it does for him. This is a significant difference. Thomas’ quote conveniently ignores the differences between Ladd and myself and simply equates us—or all but does" (Bock).

Ryrie has offered this summary: "The major similarities, if not sameness, between Ladd and progressives are these: (1) the focus on the kingdom of God as an overall, all encompassing theme; (2) the already/not yet, progressively realized nature of the kingdom; (3) the present position of Christ reigning in heaven as the Messianic/Davidic king" (p. 166).

10. Its Ecclesiology (doctrine of the church)

"Israel and the church are one people of God" (Disp., Israel & the Church, p.93, 96 ,97 and see page 119). David Turner goes further than some progressives in calling the church the "new Israel" (David Turner, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 288). "The old sharp distinction between Israel and the church begins to become somewhat blurred" (Kenneth Barker, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 302). Progressive dispensationalists "no longer accept the notion of two distinct peoples of God" (Blaising and Bock, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 392). "In the new dispensationalism the church is reduced to the present phase of the Davidic kingdom. New dispensationalists do not like the concept of the church as a parenthesis....the church is 'a functional outpost of God’s kingdom’ [Barth quoted favorably by Saucy] and a ‘sneak preview’ [Bock] of the kingdom" (Ryrie, Issues in Dz.spensationalism, p. 22.).

Blaising says that Progressive Dispensationalists see tribulation saints "as part of the body of Christ, thus a part of the church as it is defined in the New Testament" (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell Bock [Zondervan, 1999], page 210. See more on this in the discussion under Eschatology.

Denial of the parenthetical nature of the church:

"The older idea that the church was a parenthetical break between God’s Jewish work in the Old Testament and God’s Jewish work in the future is being replaced" (Christianity Today, 9/12/94, p. 28). Waltke: "[PD] denies that the church is a parenthesis within God’s program for Israel." Saucy: "The present age is not a historical parenthesis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it." "The church is seen less and less as a parenthesis in the divine program. Instead it is seen as vitally linked to and comprehended in the plan of God revealed in the Old Testament" (Blaising, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 225 footnote). Many scholars now recognize "a present form of messianic kingdom that removes the parenthetical idea" (Burns, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 225). "[PD] denies that the church is a parenthesis within God’s program for Israel" (Waltke, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 347). "The present age is not a historical parenthesis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it; rather, it is an integrated phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom" (Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 28). "You are correct to argue that we do not teach a parenthesis" (Bock).

Denial of the church as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament:

"Their mystery concept of the church is not that it was unrevealed in the Old Testament but that it was unrealized. As a corollary, God has no separate program for the church. The church is simply a sub-category of the Kingdom. It is called a ‘sneak preview’ of the Kingdom. The church is the Kingdom today. In fact, David Turner calls the church ‘the new Israel’" (Manfred Kober, The Problematic Development of Progressive Dispensationalism, Faith Pulpit, April 1997). Progressives believe that "the concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising" (Ryrie, p. 164). "We hold to a different understanding of the term mystery—not always ‘new’ revelation" (Bock).

 

[Greektim]

In terms of the debate covenant/dispensational Bock is in the dispensational camp. Show me where Bock (Progressive Dispensationalism) is espousing or even hinting at a move towards reformed/a-mil/replacement theology.

I didn't say he was moving toward Amillism... but I did agree that he is moving toward Covenant Premillism. OR proved that in the post above. Game set match.