Dispensational Things...pt2

It is often wise to consult those who came before us, but to quote them as if that settles the question is not wise...Baptist or not.

 

I would prefer to call it "ignoring," not "spiritualizing." Acts 3:19-21 is pretty clear.

 

Do you disagree with his statement?

 

I think his point is that you take passages like Jeremiah 31:35-37 and claim that they have been fulfilled. No one denies that we are participating in the new covenant, "their spiritual things" (Romans 15:27). However, to say that God has "cast away his people" when Paul says quite the opposite is very wrong (Romans 11:1).

 

Well yes the remnant was saved and is being saved in every generation including Paul. How did he reject them?
I don't see your point.

Romans 11:1
I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

 

You know him and scripture don't go well together.

 

The obvious response is - what does the symbolic language symbolize? And to what extent does understanding the symbolic language become "spiritualization?

Note that in the following post I did not put forth my own dispensational scheme - I showed from Scripture that there is NO basis for dispensation theology, so-called.

And I explained the Biblical basis for Covenant theology. A Covenant is not "an agreement" but a God originated promise of redemption by the LORD Jesus Christ.

 

I asked you clearly if you believed the Catholic doctrine in post #134, and you didn't answer. I can't read your mind.

What's wrong with arguing with linguistics? It's often a great help to Bible interpretation, and its usage is even now being debated in the world of hermeneutics scholars. How is it my fault that you guys don't get that? If someone doesn't have an education, they can educate themselves if they are humble and ask for help.

Why the 1700s for covenant theology if it's so natural? Come on, that is a bogus argument.

Again, I asked you clearly in post #134 if you believed it and you didn't answer. Post after post went by with you seeming to stand up for transubstantiation. How am I supposed to know your point if you don't make it?

You'll have to be more specific. What method of mine are you standing up to?

And I'd be pretty foolish to participate in a debate on the BB without thinking I'm right and everyone in the opposing camp is wrong. And do you really, actually believe that you guys can convince me? (Icon seems to think I'm backslidden, anti-Bible, poorly educated in theology, etc., so why wouldn't I immediately admit my ignorance and jump on his various bandwagons! )

As for my attitude, did you see Icon's last post? Looks to me like he thinks he's always right and I'm totally, completely wrong, and that I avoid all of his points. Actually, I freely admit it. I avoid some of his points because they are off topic, too wordy, illogical and impossible to follow. "In the multitude of words there wanted not sin" (Prov. 10:19).

 

Do you honestly think that your denigration and personal attacks will draw me towards your position? Frankly, you have driven me away from your position and from further interaction with you.

You accuse me of willful ignorance of your position.

For anyone who believes Icon's supercilious attack here, I have taken 13 hours of grad theology, some of which I didn't need but wanted. In the process I was required to read entire systematic theologies that taught covenant theology (one systematic theology per 2 credit course). I understand the system, am thoroughly educated in it, and reject it.

 

Heavy sarcasm alert.

Oh, no. I am now deeply conflicted. I just got a research paper from one of my students in the two week block I just taught on "Dispensational Theology." This lovely young lady wrote about "Covenant Theology and its Effects on the Church." But Icon thinks I don't even understand Covenant Theology since I haven't replied to all of his minutiae. What shall I do, what shall I do? Any suggestions?

 

Exactly...Paul was proof that God had not cast away his people, but that the promises would surely be fulfilled to them.

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." (Romans 11:25)

 

Well, there are those pesky pretierists and their spiritual views on the resurrection/Second Coming, and those whose views would be that God totally forever rejected Israel , correct? Only way to get there is throiugh spiritualizing totally prophetic scriptures!

 

Those who hold that AD 70 was when God forever severed any ties to israel....

 

JoJ,
First of all Covenant theology starts in the late 1500s with people like Robert Rollock of Edinburgh, and reached its golden age with Flavel, Brooks, Manton and John Owen in the 1600s. Get it right.
Your constant bragging about your supposed knowledge is getting a bit wearing. Have a read of Acts 4:13 and 2 Timothy 3:7.
Then give it a rest. Or prove that you have it by getting your facts right.

 

I don't recall bragging about my knowledge. I simply stated how many courses I've taken in grad theology. How is that bragging about my knowledge? I did not tell what grades I got, who the profs were (that matters in academia), what the schools were, what I learned from the courses--in other words, my knowledge. If saying what courses I took is bragging, then a resume is much more bragging. Ever written a resume?

In the same way a resume has a purpose, I simply meant to show to readers that Icon's attacks on me not understanding the theology were false. I do understand the theology because I was taught it. Was I then wrong to defend myself?

As for the history of covenant theology, thanks for the corrections. But my point to prophecy70 still stands: the age a theology has been around is not proof of its value or lack of value.

Acts 4:13--So shall we glorify ignorance because of this verse? I don't think that honors God.