Dispensationalism/Covenant Theology

[Plain Old Bill]

Few people are full Calvinists or dull Armenian in theology, which is good. I think we can safely say that the writings from either school of thought are not "inspired".

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Sorry about the spelling there. It did turn out kind of funny though.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Brother James:
from fpc.org:


Dispensationalism - A Reformed Evaluation

If you have your Bibles, I would invite you to turn with me to Romans chapter 2. I want to point your attention to two verses. We are going to begin today by making some observations about dispensationalism and then we are going to give a rapid overview to the Davidic Covenant and especially the establishment of the house of David in II Samuel 7. But first I want you to concentrate on two verses here at the end of Romans 2, 2:28-29. Hear God’s Word.

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

Thus ends this reading of God’s Holy Word. May He add His blessing to it. Let’s look to Him in prayer

“Father, we thank you again for the opportunity to meet together as we study the history of theology, as we study your Word. We pray that both of those exercises would refresh us ...
...
...
...
30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints rule under Him.

Thanks, brother for the message. AND free prayer time, to boot!

It wuz a good long 'un, chock full 'er stuff.

I din't agree with some of it, from either side but enjoyed it nonetheless. Fact is, I got so much from it, I figger' I can sleep-in all day tomorrow, and miss both AM & PM services, 'cause I done got more 'rat chere' (That's "hillbilly Kentuckian" fer right here, at this location), than I'll get in both church services put together.

Why, I'll almost say I have got enough 'exter' (done added-on ) so's I don't even need no devotions 'til at least next Tuesday-week! And we've been getting great messages, wonderful fellowship, AND outstanding results at that!

In His grace,
Ed

[ March 04, 2006, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: EdSutton ]

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Amen on that point.
Ryrie is a progressive dispie,have you read any of his works.
Don't get to worked up about covenant of dispensational teaching. The dispensations and covenants are good to keep in mind when interpreting scripture( keeping things in proper settings).Bible types and numbers are also important along with double reference,VChristo-centric,direct statement,full mention,and repetition principles to mention a few.Knowing good sound Bible doctrine also helps. And of course always ask the who,what,where,why,and when questions, as well as keeping in mind the customs of the people and the day.

Then of course there are language studies if you wish to get serious.

Don't get to hung up on one part of hermeneutics or one theological principle or view. In the end if it agrees with Gods' Word it is good . Let God be true and all men liars.

I would challenge the notion that Dr. "Ryrie is a progressive dispie,". And yes, I have read some of Ryrie, and have some things by him.

It is certainly fair to suggest Dr. Ryrie is not a clone of Drs. Scofield or Larkin, to be sure, but neither is he to be classified with Dr. Darrell Bock or some of the other 'PD' types, IMO. He is still considered to be aligned with 'classical dispensationalism. I agree with that, unless he has changed his position drastically over the last one to two years.
The rest of your post is well said. Search the Scriptures. Amen and Amen!
In His grace,
Ed

 

[genesis12]

Good grief, Bro James! When did it become necessary to post a dissertation to make a point? Wouldn't a link suffice?

To say that dispensationalism is 19th century is pure baloney. The fire bombs thrown at dispensationalism are manufactured from wobbly interpretation and misunderstanding at best. Need I remind everyone that scripture is spiritually discerned?

Mechanical explanations for the flow of scripture simply conk out. One doesn't need gears and sprockets and clanging stuff to facilitate the flow! One of the tragedies of the truth of classic dispensationalism is that its flow is being "adjusted" by concepts such as "progressive" dispensationalism and other contrary schools of thought. Notice that they are "schools of thought," not scriptural discernment accurately applied.

 

[genesis12]

Good grief, Bro James! When did it become necessary to post a dissertation to make a point? Wouldn't a link suffice?

To say that dispensationalism is 19th century is pure baloney. The fire bombs thrown at dispensationalism are manufactured from wobbly interpretation and misunderstanding at best. Need I remind everyone that scripture is spiritually discerned?

Mechanical explanations for the flow of scripture simply conk out. One doesn't need gears and sprockets and clanging stuff to facilitate the flow! One of the tragedies of the truth of classic dispensationalism is that its flow is being "adjusted" by concepts such as "progressive" dispensationalism and other contrary schools of thought. Notice that they are "schools of thought," not scriptural discernment accurately applied.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I think I read a book by Dr. Ryrie this year where he described himself leaning in the progressive direction.That said it might not be leaning far enough to auit some.

 

[Humblesmith]

Calvibaptist:
Questions for you:
Have you found the DTS theology to be as off center as some make it out to be?
Do they still teach Chafer's theology, as written in the systematic theology?
Setting aside the eschatology for a moment, how would you compare the training at DTS to other schools?

It seems to me, having been a member of bible churches for many years, and now in baptist church, that the comparison of preachers from the schools is fairly obvious. I know my experience is limited, and I know I can't make too many blanket claims.....but in my experience I don't see exegetical preaching except from DTS grads. The baptists put out good evangelists, good topical teachers, but I would be hard pressed to name a true exegetical sermon I've heard that wasn't from a DTS grad.

People get all hung up about what happens in the distant past or distant future, and I know those are important. But if you want the ability to take a passage of scripture and explain it, I'll take the dispie grads of DTS any day of the week.

What is your take?

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
The "L/P" system stopped with Jesus and Israel won't believe without the "signs and wonders" produced under the "L/P" and Jesus won't give any, this is why Israel has "blinded" themselves until Jesus is finished with the church, or "Fulness of the Gentiles". (rapture)

This is another thing, I guess. Jesus did not say he came to destroy the Law and Prophets. He came to fulfill the Law and Prophets.

Matthew 5:18 - For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Dispensationalists seem to say the Law has been put aside and will only be brought back in the Kingdom for Israel (or in the Trib - depending on who you talk to). Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and that the Law would not pass away.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm not sure I buy Covenant's separation of the Law into Moral and Ceremonial and Civil, either. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the problem is with the "TRINITY" or failure to understand it.

God the Father is a "Spirit", Jesus the Son is "Flesh", or "Physical".

The Father was married to Israel, then made a wedding for his "SON", (Church)so there's two "BRIDES", Two marriages.

?? not when you consider the "TRINITY (Father/Son) ARE ONE", and so is the "Bride".

The "Trinity" divides Father/Son, both Brides, and the type of leadership used for each, OT/NT is a good example.

The problem arises when "MAN" fails to make the distinction between the two as scripture does, Israel rejection of "GOD" (Jesus) is a good example.

Israel rejected the "Voice of Jesus", (Holy Ghost) so Jesus doesn't deal with Israel during the trib, (pre trib rapture) God does, and with his "Two witnesses", Elijah/Moses, many "signs and wonders" will be performed by these two which Jews require to believe.

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign,


The "law" was "Physical", during the trib, Israel will go back under the "law and Prophet" (Moses/Elijah) and instead of a "Spiritual death" as we suffer when our "old man" (Flesh) is Crucified, Israel will suffer a "Literal death" for salvation, their "chastisement" with "THE ROD", (AC) for rejecting Jesus.

Folks say they understand the trinity, but fail to see how it's used to interpret/explain the scriptures.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
Calvibaptist:
Questions for you:
Have you found the DTS theology to be as off center as some make it out to be?
Do they still teach Chafer's theology, as written in the systematic theology?
Setting aside the eschatology for a moment, how would you compare the training at DTS to other schools?

It seems to me, having been a member of bible churches for many years, and now in baptist church, that the comparison of preachers from the schools is fairly obvious. I know my experience is limited, and I know I can't make too many blanket claims.....but in my experience I don't see exegetical preaching except from DTS grads. The baptists put out good evangelists, good topical teachers, but I would be hard pressed to name a true exegetical sermon I've heard that wasn't from a DTS grad.

People get all hung up about what happens in the distant past or distant future, and I know those are important. But if you want the ability to take a passage of scripture and explain it, I'll take the dispie grads of DTS any day of the week.

What is your take?

Honestly, DTS was, and is (as far as I can tell), a great school. I was there as things were starting to cool down over the Lordship Salvation stuff. I was taking primarily theology and Bible exposition classes. What I remember most was that there were a lot of godly professors and students that love the Word and love the Lord.

They emphasize good hermeneutics and good expositional preaching. They are a fairly large school, so there is a variety in some areas of theology, although they are all dispensational. Very little of Chafer's systematic theology is dealt with, although the school is obviously heavily influenced by his views.

I don't think they were "off center" in their theology. There are some soteriological issues I would have with them, but they are very mainstream. Overall, I would still happily recommend DTS to anyone considering seminary.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
I think I read a book by Dr. Ryrie this year where he described himself leaning in the progressive direction.That said it might not be leaning far enough to auit some.

He might be now. I don't know. When I was there, Progressive Dispy was kind of new and was still making a splash. He was definitely classical dispy then.

 

[Humblesmith]

What theology text is used in the systematic theology class(es)?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
What theology text is used in the systematic theology class(es)?

They have a variety of systematic theology classes that they offered when I was there. They are broken down into each individual area of theology - ecclesiology, hamartiology, soteriology, etc. The intro to theology course used primarily course notes with Ryrie's Basic Theology as a general reference. The advanced theology class I took was Progressive Dispensationalism, so that pretty much tells you what textbook they used!

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Hey did you read "Understanding christian Theology" editred by Swindoll & Zuck?I read it about a year ago and found it to be pretty straight forward.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Someday I'm going to learn to edit my entries.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
Hey did you read "Understanding christian Theology" editred by Swindoll & Zuck?I read it about a year ago and found it to be pretty straight forward.

No, I haven't read that. I had Zuck as a prof and heard Swindoll many times in chapel. I greatly respect both of them. Although, Swindoll is no theologian. Not that I think I know more than him or am better than him, it is just that he is a popular preacher who does not do the majority of his work in systematic theology.

Zuck, although not the most interesting speaker, gained my admiration in many ways, not the least of which was his personal attention to his students. He genuinely cares. He also is a very knowledgeable biblical theologian. He taught most of the biblical survey classes.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Both good observations.They were the general editors of the book.The actual contributors were:
Robert Gromacki
Robert Lightner
Earl Radmacher
J. Carl Laney
John Whitmer
Robert Payne
Robert Saucy
Ed Hayes
John Walvoord
Henry Holloman

I think it is a book worth reading.The best thing about it is that it uses the KISS method.Anybody could profit from reading this book.

 

[Mel Miller]

Brother James,

Will you please elaborate further on this quote:

"Post-trib Dispensationalism does not work; because you are mixing up God’s dealings with the church and through earthly Israel".

How do you explain this statement in the light
of Rom.11:25-26?

Thank you,
Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

[IveyLeaguer]

This is an honest topic that I am truly looking for guidance on. I have been a dispensationalist for 26 years (although I didn't always know what it was called). I have studied dispensationalism intensely. But I am currently moving away from and have found that, historically, Baptists were begun as Covenant Theologians (a significant amount of them post-millenialists). The rejected paedo-baptism, as I do, but embraced the other views of Covenant Theology. Any discussion on the differences?

If you're still looking into Dispensationalism, as I have been for several years, don't miss the following papers, especially the Timelines in the last one:

Progressive Dispensationalism Basics

Kenneth Gentry - Dispensationalism In Transition

Gary Breshears - New Directions In Dispensationalism (Word Document)

Progressive Dispensational Overview

Godspeed.

:saint:

 

[OldRegular]

This is an honest topic that I am truly looking for guidance on. I have been a dispensationalist for 26 years (although I didn't always know what it was called). I have studied dispensationalism intensely. But I am currently moving away from dispensationalism and have found that, historically, Baptists were begun as Covenant Theologians (a significant amount of them post-millenialists). The rejected paedo-baptism, as I do, but embraced the other views of Covenant Theology. Any discussion on the differences?

If you are interested in a book discussing Covenant Theology that is very readable I suggest the series by Martyn LLoyd Jones: God the Father, God the Son; God the Holy Spirit; The Church and Last Things. I believe the series is available only as a single volume now.

Since you are looking at Baptist History and Historic Baptist Theology I suggest By His Grace and For His Glory by Thomas J. Nettles. This book, though excellent and recently revised, is not an easy read but certainly worthwhile. Nettles traces the decline of the Doctrines of Grace in the Baptist Church and the move to Arminianism.