Dispensational Things...pt2

[PrmtvBptst1832]

We are baptists, so the ONLY infallible and inspired source for doctrines is the Bible.period.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

We are baptists, so the ONLY infallible and inspired source for doctrines is the Bible.period.

Really! good....so you can use the bible now to show how anything was spiritualized

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

Really! good....so you can use the bible now to show how anything was spiritualized

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

 

[Iconoclast]

What did you think of my point #84?

You still have failed to explain it from scripture as you cannot back up your statement.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

You still have failed to explain it from scripture as you cannot back up your statement.

Do you disagree with his statement?

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you disagree with his statement?

I have asked him to show from scripture and to post where anyone has done as he made the accusations. No scripture has come forth yet. see post 84....

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

I have asked him to show from scripture and to post where anyone has done as he made the accusations. No scripture has come forth yet. see post 84....

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).

 

[prophecy70]

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.

 

[prophecy70]

You still have failed to explain it from scripture as you cannot back up your statement.

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

 

[Covenanter]

One can be holding to a literal viewpoint regardless understanding prophecy, and still see that God used symbolic language, and others such as metaphors and eschatological expressions without a need to resort to spiritualizing everything!

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

I feel your pain. However, in your posts all I saw was you putting forth your own particular dispensational scheme. I am not really sure what you wanted me to reply. I gave the Ryrie dispensations and you gave your own. End of story, to me.

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.

Let's keep it simple - I don't like lengthy quotes of other people's writing, nor short posts that fail to make a real point.

The word translated "Covenant" occurs more than 300 times throughout the Scriptures & gives the name to the two volumes, before & after the coming of the LORD Jesus Christ. Limiting it's definition to "agreement" is a serious misunderstanding. As John wrote, "Um, linguistics is not theology."

The word translated "Dispensation" occurs 7 times only in the NC Scriptures, and only once in the sense used in dispensationalism. Eph. 1:10 "Steward" occurs about 20 times in Scripture, always referring to an employment situation. That's NOT the basis for a theological system.

A Scriptural "Covenant" is vastly more than an agreement. The expression "I will establish my covenant" occurs 8 times in the OC. The wording implies a pre-existing covenant, & is generally unconditional. Even in human covenants, it is made by the greater to the lesser party as a Promise, of Protection & Peace. See the account of the Gibeonites. Joshua 9, where they ask Joshua to make a league/treaty/covenant with them.

Notice the way the New Covenant is introduced in Jeremiah 31:31, quoted in Hebrews 8 -

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ​

That covenant expression "their God...my people" occurs throughout Scripture in various forms, not just to the people of Israel, but to the church of Corinth & to all the redeemed in the NH&NE for all eternity.

The NT opens with what amounts to a declaration of God's covenant promises to Abraham & David. Mat. 1. The songs of Mary & Zachariah, the angels & Simeon, in Luke 1 & 2 are of God fulfilling his (covenant) promises by the incarnation.

NOT a two-way agreement but the fulfilment of the Covenant promises of God in the LORD Jesus Christ.

Note the conditional "old" Covenant promise of Exodus 19:

5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ ​

Is that a futile covenant, a promise that God made that the subjects could NEVER fulfill? Not at all. It is an expression of the eternal Covenant made by Father & Son to be fulfilled by the perfect obedience of the Son as the Son of man, for man - for the elect & redeemed people of God. That covenant needs no imperfect future millennium for its fulfilment.

Countless Israelite saints walked with God by faith, & were blessed by that Covenant relationship. Hebrews 11 is a partial list.

In the present New Covenant "dispensation" God is using the New Covenant Gospel of his Son, in the power of his Holy Spirit to call his redeemed people for their eternal dwelling in the NH&NE.

 

[John of Japan]

I am NOT standing up for it. You are CLEARLY missing my point.

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

The point is you argue with linguistics and act like everything you believe is so simple.

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.

I was saying if it so natural why do so many not see it? If the literalness of Dispensationalism is so plain, why the 1800s?

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

So please don't say Im acting weird and blatantly accuse me saying i'm standing up for transubstantiation.

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?

Im standing up to your method, of arguing why you are right and everyone in this camp is wrong.

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).

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,
.but I know you are not looking to understand what is being offered...you have looked a bit, and turned away.
that is your call.

Just as many of us thought...not a surprise.

Of course not...you are a free moral agent.I have not forgotten your reluctance to answer on the sun, moon, and stars, until pressed...then you offered the weak idea of shooting stars?

Perhaps...but it could be your evasion and excuses that ring hollow...
I am still working through things and like the interaction....you press the issue...but then when a response is given you run for the hills.

,When I give short answers you ignore them...it was you who said..Where is the beef??? I give some beef and you flee...

John...some of my points might be....or...wait for it...you might not get it
So it is easy to dismiss the offerings than answer

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 said you see no such Covenant....I posted from many who have before me and had no trouble seeing it.
You know John...when someone goes to medical school to be a DR. and it is time to learn about the complete working of the circulatory system...the heart, the lungs, the veins, arteries, capillaries...it takes time and they need to go into great detail.
If a person just picks out one part of it....in isolation...they will not get close to the whole system at all.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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?

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

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.

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)

 

[Iconoclast]

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).

Where did anyone say God cast anyone away?

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where did anyone say God cast anyone away?

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:30 PM Pacific.