Election and the covenant

[Rippon]

There is "progressive dispensationalism" first promoted by Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock 15 or 20 years ago . Robert Saucy is also with that train of thought . It tries to come to conclusions which are a composite of elements of Covenant Theology and traditional dispensationalism .

New Covenant Theology is a kind of hybrid too . It has John Reisinger as the main pioneer . Others in the group are Tom Wells , Gary Long , Fred Zaspel & Co.

 

[psalms109:31]

promise

Not for the purposes of the Abrahamic covenant though. The mistake you guys are making is in omitting the parts of the AC that don't fit your theology. I think that to be inadequate. The point that Paul makes in Romans 4 and Gal 3 is not about the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, but rather about salvation and how Abraham was an example of how salvation works. To be the "son" of something in that respect is to bear the characteristics. It is not dealing with God's specific promise to give Abraham a genetic seed (as opposed to Eleazar) with whom the covenant in its entirety would be fulfilled.

Exactly it does show that we are saved by grace through faith. That we are predestined in Christ. It is the day you accepted Jesus Christ to be your Savior. Jesus is the promise that we are saved by. It is the work of God that we believe. and God said Himself who He will keep the meek and the humble who trust in the name of the Lord. Those are the people God choose to keep. Many people want to be in thbe promise but the promise is really clear that He loved the world that He sent His Son that gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Some think they were just chosen before the fouindation of t6he world but those who have been choosen before the foundation of the world was not you or me those who are in Christ was choosen before the foundation of the world. That is where He fore knew so He also predestined them. God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth not thier limited understand of that scripture.become a part of the new covenant when we trust God even over what we feel or want or believe. You might not want to believe me but we must believe in God that if we disown Jesus He will disown us. So many pick and choose what they want to believe, but we must live on every word that comes from the mouth of God even if it goes against thier theology.

If you note the context of this promise, it is the context of Abraham's genetic seed, not his spiritual seed. Again, you changing the promise to fit a theology. Gen 17:4 makes it clear that it would be genetic seed that would be the great number.

Man is not a jew if He is outwardly but inwardly. The seed of Abraham is by faith, that faith is what makes us a seed of abraham The seed inwardly changes us and makes us under the new covanant. What we must understand is God speaks us to us in earthy terms, to help us understand spiritual the promise is for the Land, but we must look further than that to the Spiritual relm

Now you're just making stuff up. ... The Bible reveals nothing of this sort to us. It is pure conjecture, made apparently to support your preconceived position. The story of David's numbering the people is just that, and nothing more. It is the story of pride and disobedience, not a story about the AC

I have to disagree and go with my original answer. His pride which is Satan speaking to him told him to count the people and God said go ahead and the count the people was not what He was looking for s he repented, that is a beeter answer than some i seen like men saying that God and satan is one. Because God and Satan both told Hhim to count the people

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The hermeneutics of Christ and the Apostles are dispensational hermeneutics. They expected an earthly kingdom. They believed in a future for Israel. The only way to avoid that is to assume it isn't true to begin with.

There are very few Scofieldian dispensationalists today, especially not Dallas. Dallas has a number of progressives. But Scofield has long since been developed and refined.

So you say concerning Christ and the Apostles. If it be true, then I will follow it. If it be false, I will not. May God be kind to open my eyes as I study His Word.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't know of "moderate" dispensationalism, but I know MacArthur refers to "pure" dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is not monolithic. Right now, if i wanted to take the time (and I don't) I could list a number of variations.

1. To say that the hermeneutics of Christ and the apostles were dispensational, I take it to mean your brand of dispensationalism, which is rather a bold statement to make. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

It is a rather bold statement to be sure, but when you think it about it, it is plainly clear. They use the same hermeneutic that you and I use. They believe that words mean things and only have one meaning in a given context. They believe that the author determined the meaning of his words. The "dispensational hermeneutic" is the one everyone uses, until they come to the Bible. I guarantee you you would not let your child treat your words the way covenantalists treat the Word of God in some places.

2. So if Christ expected an earthly kingdom, why wasn't it established in his time?

Christ didn't "expect" it; he promised it in the OT. The disciples clearly expected it (Acts 1) and preached it (Acts 3). It wasn't established because Israel rejected their king, just as the OT prophesied.

Remember, dispensational and premillennialism is based on the OT and on how the NT uses the OT.

Acts 1 is a clear example that Christ taught and earthly kingdom. When the disciples ask when the kingdom will be restored to Israel (the earthly kingdom prophesied all through the OT), Christ didn't correct them about their view of the kingdom. He did not say, "The kingdom's already here; it's in your heart." He did not say, "No, no, you misunderstand." He simply said, "It's not for you to know the times or epochs, but go and be my witnesses."

If the amill or post mill view is correct, it essentially makes Christ out to be dishonest by knowingly and intentionally allowing his disciples to believe something that wasn't true.

3. So not much of Scofield is left at DTS; I know that Ryrie has corrected some of the statements of Scofield.

Many peoplle have corrected and refined some of Scofield's statements. I don't know the make up of the faculty at Dallas. But there are likely some classical or traditional (not Scofieldian) and some progressives as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Exactly it does show that we are saved by grace through faith.

By making clear unequivocal statements. (Your question has to be one of the most confusing I have seen here. The passages clearly state what you asking me to show).

Some think they were just chosen before the fouindation of t6he world but those who have been choosen before the foundation of the world was not you or me those who are in Christ was choosen before the foundation of the world.

This is incorrect and you have been shown that from Scripture so we won't detract from the topic here.

[quote[You might not want to believe me but we must believe in God that if we disown Jesus He will disown us. So many pick and choose what they want to believe, but we must live on every word that comes from the mouth of God even if it goes against thier theology.[/quote]I completely agree. I see you picking and choosing what you want to believe, and this post, like most of yours are severely lacking in Scripture.

Man is not a jew if He is outwardly but inwardly. The seed of Abraham is by faith, that faith is what makes us a seed of abraham The seed inwardly changes us and makes us under the new covanant. What we must understand is God speaks us to us in earthy terms, to help us understand spiritual the promise is for the Land, but we must look further than that to the Spiritual relm

You need a basic class in hermeneutics. Again, read the text for what it says and believe it.

I have to disagree and go with my original answer. His pride which is Satan speaking to him told him to count the people and God said go ahead and the count the people was not what He was looking for s he repented, that is a beeter answer than some i seen like men saying that God and satan is one. Because God and Satan both told Hhim to count the people

That's true, but that wasn't your original point. You tied it to the seed promise to argue that national Israel wasn't the seed. That is what Scripture doesn't teach and what you were making up.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Remember, dispensational and premillennialism is based on the OT and on how the NT uses the OT.

This, I believe is the fundamental (perhaps not the main, but a strong one) error of both systems.

You need a basic class in hermeneutics. Again, read the text for what it says and believe it.

And whose, pray tell, hermeneitics class should we all take? I suppose you would have use take the one that leads to dispensational and premillenial conclusiond. lol

 

[Pastor Larry]

This, I believe is the fundamental (perhaps not the main, but a strong one) error of both systems.

That the OT is true and means what it says is a fundamental error? I am totally confused by that. I am sure that is not what you meant but I can't decipher anything else from it.

And whose, pray tell, hermeneitics class should we all take? I suppose you would have use take the one that leads to dispensational and premillenial conclusiond.

Actually, all you need to do is think about how you communicate everyday.

When you tell your son "Go to bed," and your son sits down to watch TV, you will probably confront him with disobedience. Why? Because your words meant something, meant only one thing, and that meaning was determined by you..

If your son says, Well I thought "bed" meant "watch TV" you would say that is a silly response (and it is). Yet that is exactly what covenantalism does with Scripture that dispensationalism does not do. We as dispensationalists take God at his word, believing that he said what he meant and that had he meant something else he would have said something else. Covenantalists take the plain language of Scripture and attach their own meaning to it, similar to your son who decides that "Go to bed" actually means "Go watch TV."

So in reality, you just need to recognize how we use language. This very conversation can take place only because you use the same hermeneutic with my words that dispensationalists use with God's words. Strangely, you then use a different hermeneutic with Scripture.

 

[TCGreek]

Dispensationalism is not monolithic. Right now, if i wanted to take the time (and I don't) I could list a number of variations.

1. I've come to that realization.

It is a rather bold statement to be sure, but when you think it about it, it is plainly clear. They use the same hermeneutic that you and I use. They believe that words mean things and only have one meaning in a given context. They believe that the author determined the meaning of his words. The "dispensational hermeneutic" is the one everyone uses, until they come to the Bible. I guarantee you you would not let your child treat your words the way covenantalists treat the Word of God in some places.

Christ didn't "expect" it; he promised it in the OT. The disciples clearly expected it (Acts 1) and preached it (Acts 3). It wasn't established because Israel rejected their king, just as the OT prophesied.

Remember, dispensational and premillennialism is based on the OT and on how the NT uses the OT.

Acts 1 is a clear example that Christ taught and earthly kingdom. When the disciples ask when the kingdom will be restored to Israel (the earthly kingdom prophesied all through the OT), Christ didn't correct them about their view of the kingdom. He did not say, "The kingdom's already here; it's in your heart." He did not say, "No, no, you misunderstand." He simply said, "It's not for you to know the times or epochs, but go and be my witnesses."

2. John Piper, my theological hero, does not subscribe to either CT, NCT or Dispensationalism; he's hybrid. Now, I'm seeing why.

3. As stated above, my struggle is with the spiritualizing of promises to Israel to the church.

If the amill or post mill view is correct, it essentially makes Christ out to be dishonest by knowingly and intentionally allowing his disciples to believe something that wasn't true.

4. If Jesus was speaking of a physical future kingdom...

Many peoplle have corrected and refined some of Scofield's statements. I don't know the make up of the faculty at Dallas. But there are likely some classical or traditional (not Scofieldian) and some progressives as well.

5. Dr. Bock, I believe, is considered progressive.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That the OT is true and means what it says is a fundamental error? I am totally confused by that. I am sure that is not what you meant but I can't decipher anything else from it.

I misunderstood your statement. Instead of reading "on" I read not. I thought you were saying that dispy and premill do not depend on how the NT uses the OT. Concerning how the NT interprets the old is the hermenutic I am going to use. This is why I have rejected dispensationalism so far, particularly with the dispensational interpretation of Jer 31. It just does not square with Hebrews.

Actually, all you need to do is think about how you communicate everyday.

When you tell your son "Go to bed," and your son sits down to watch TV, you will probably confront him with disobedience. Why? Because your words meant something, meant only one thing, and that meaning was determined by you..

If your son says, Well I thought "bed" meant "watch TV" you would say that is a silly response (and it is). Yet that is exactly what covenantalism does with Scripture that dispensationalism does not do. We as dispensationalists take God at his word, believing that he said what he meant and that had he meant something else he would have said something else. Covenantalists take the plain language of Scripture and attach their own meaning to it, similar to your son who decides that "Go to bed" actually means "Go watch TV."

So in reality, you just need to recognize how we use language. This very conversation can take place only because you use the same hermeneutic with my words that dispensationalists use with God's words. Strangely, you then use a different hermeneutic with Scripture.

Probably the last thing I am going to try to do is look to myself to try and figure out how to interpret the Bible. I am going to look to Scripture. And as I said, follow the NT in their interpretation of the old. This should end the debate for you, for surely you believe I will end up a premillenial dispensationalist. lol

 

[Pastor Larry]

3. As stated above, my struggle is with the spiritualizing of promises to Israel to the church.

Yes, this is a huge problem.

4. If Jesus was speaking of a physical future kingdom...

The disciples were most definitely speaking of a physical future kingdom on earth and Jesus did nothing to correct them. The disciples got their view from the OT and likely from Jesus teaching.

5. Dr. Bock, I believe, is considered progressive.

Yes, he is.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is why I have rejected dispensationalism so far, particularly with the dispensational interpretation of Jer 31. It just does not square with Hebrews.

But it does square just fine when you realize what Hebrews is talking about. The NC does not end at v. 34. It ends at v. 40. Hebrews ends at v. 34 because that is where his point is. There is no problem when you understand that.

Probably the last thing I am going to try to do is look to myself to try and figure out how to interpret the Bible. I am going to look to Scripture.

As I said, the point is language and how we use it.

And as I said, follow the NT in their interpretation of the old.

I agree.

This should end the debate for you, for surely you believe I will end up a premillenial dispensationalist. lol

I believe if you do as you have said you will. If you look to the normal use of language, and if you look at how the NT uses the OT, you will end up a at the very least a premillenniliast, and most likely a dispensationalist.

 

[TCGreek]

Pastor Larry,

If Satan will be bound for a 1000yrs, How does destruction of the Millennial reign of Christ, where there will be fighting and the like, which are certainly the work of Satan, be at all possible, according to Zechariah 14:9ff?

 

[npetreley]

Pastor Larry,

If Satan will be bound for a 1000yrs, How does destruction of the Millennial reign of Christ, where there will be fighting and the like, which are certainly the work of Satan, be at all possible, according to Zechariah 14:9ff?

It seems as if Zechariah doesn't mention the end of the 1,000 years, when satan is loosed to gather up nations against Israel. IMO, you'll find that in Revelation and Ezekiel starting with chap 38.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But it does square just fine when you realize what Hebrews is talking about. The NC does not end at v. 34. It ends at v. 40. Hebrews ends at v. 34 because that is where his point is. There is no problem when you understand that.

As I said, the point is language and how we use it.

I agree.

I believe if you do as you have said you will. If you look to the normal use of language, and if you look at how the NT uses the OT, you will end up a at the very least a premillenniliast, and most likely a dispensationalist.

So I have to understand something before I can understand the text? I just don't see it Pastor Larry. I appreciate your hard work trying to help me see Hebrews 8 and 9 is talking about somethig other than Old Covenant and New Covenant, the New Covenant being the redemption in Christ for His Church. The Scripture seems so plain to me I cannot imagine any other understanding. May the Lord be merciful to me if I am wrong.

 

[psalms109:31]

By making clear unequivocal statements. (Your question has to be one of the most confusing I have seen here. The passages clearly state what you asking me to show).

This is incorrect and you have been shown that from Scripture so we won't detract from the topic here.

I completely agree. I see you picking and choosing what you want to believe, and this post, like most of yours are severely lacking in Scripture.

You need a basic class in hermeneutics. Again, read the text for what it says and believe it.

That's true, but that wasn't your original point. You tied it to the seed promise to argue that national Israel wasn't the seed. That is what Scripture doesn't teach and what you were making up.

All this is just your opinion. I cannot live by pieces of bread, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. I must see every scripture through the light of all scripture. God has placed the scripture in an order for a reason.

To help you understand me, I would have to take you back to the beginning of scripture. The scripture should no longer be on tablets of stone, but written on hearts of men. You should see the scripture that is in what I write down.

I wanted to to try to obey the Law. I failed all the time. I continue to repent and repent of my sins, and the number was so many. I loved God since I was young. I had a desire I wanted to please Him. I couldn't understand the Jesus part, but I was taught obedience and punishment from my parents. I knew about obeying God. Then I found out one sin, just one will keep me from being saved and that one sin equaled death. Even if I obeyed all the laws I couldn't save my self. Then God introduced me to Jesus. That God loved the world that He sent His Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. We are not to distort that scripture to our own understand. I couldn't save myself, I had to have faith in Jesus. Thus I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus. This faith didn't come from myself it come from God and His word and I didn't do the work for my salvation. It is Jesus did the work for my salvation, He paid my price for my salvation. I'm in debt to Jesus, a debt I can never repay Him. I can never boast in myself, i can only boast in Jesus. The scripture clearly teaches us the wages of our sin is death, it isn't belief, it is death. Just because I believe doesn't mean I saved my self that is mens missunderstanding of His word. God has chosen me before the foundation of the world. He foreknew me so He also predestined me. He chose me before the foundation of the world.

I do not disagree with those scripture or will I try to change them, but I will also believe the scripture that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. I searched the scripture studied them trying to make those scripture to work together. I found the answer in this scripture. Who are the one's who He foreknew and predestined to salvation. It is really simple, if you trust in the Lord not your own understanding and let Him direct your path.

Zephaniah 3:12
But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD.

It is God who predestined them to salvation and He foreknew them, so yes they were chosen before the foundation of the world

Matthew 11:25At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Then I continue reading and then learn that faith without deeds is a dead.

James 2:14
[ Faith and Deeds ] What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

No, because Jesus has said

Matthew 10:33
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

 

[skypair]

So I have to understand something before I can understand the text? I just don't see it Pastor Larry. I appreciate your hard work trying to help me see Hebrews 8 and 9 is talking about somethig other than Old Covenant and New Covenant, the New Covenant being the redemption in Christ for His Church. The Scripture seems so plain to me I cannot imagine any other understanding. May the Lord be merciful to me if I am wrong.

RB -- read Heb 2:3 -- "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." Our great salvation was first spoken of by Jesus and confirmed by His apostles. It is a NEW dispensation -- a new administration of salvation.

That there is a new dispensation is one of the "hidden wisdoms of God in mystery" mentioned in 1Cor 2:6 as unseen by natural men --- that had they known, they would not have slain the Lord of glory!

Basically, you are admitting to not seeing the hidden wisdom of God, RB.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

If Satan will be bound for a 1000yrs, How does destruction of the Millennial reign of Christ, where there will be fighting and the like, which are certainly the work of Satan, be at all possible, according to Zechariah 14:9ff?

That most likely describes the time after Satan is released. Satan will be released to deceive the nations again to assemble themselves against Christ.

The problem for you is, if Satan is not bound for a 1000 years, then why does it say so? If you say he is bound now, why does Peter say that he is walking about as a roaring lion, and Paul say that he disguises himself?

 

[TCGreek]

That most likely describes the time after Satan is released. Satan will be released to deceive the nations again to assemble themselves against Christ.

1. I'm still trying to flesh these things out.

The problem for you is, if Satan is not bound for a 1000 years, then why does it say so? If you say he is bound now, why does Peter say that he is walking about as a roaring lion, and Paul say that he disguises himself?

2. I'm not arguing for this position either, for I see the obvious weakness in it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So I have to understand something before I can understand the text?

Well obviously. You have to understand the meaning of words right? (Just pick up a Greek or Spanish or French bible and try to read (assuming you don't know those languages)). You also have to understand grammar and syntax. You also have to understand how language is used. If I say, 'It's raining cats and dogs,' there is something you understand by that, and it nothing to do with canines or felines falling from the sky. So the truth is obvious that you do have to understand some things before you understand the text.

The problem is that these things are so obvious we don't eve think of them sometimes. And when we come to the Bible, we think it is a "spiritual book" and therefore should be handled in some special "spiritual" way. The truth is that the Bible is a book of communication to humans and it works exactly that way, just as we would talk to each other.

I appreciate your hard work trying to help me see Hebrews 8 and 9 is talking about somethig other than Old Covenant and New Covenant, the New Covenant being the redemption in Christ for His Church. The Scripture seems so plain to me I cannot imagine any other understanding.

Let's begin with the obvious. I have never said that Hebrews 8 and 9 is about anything other than the OC and NC. The point is, if you read the text, that it is about part of the NC, the forgiveness in Christ. If you will actually read hte NC (Jer 31:31-40), you will see that the NC is about much more than simply forgiveness. The rest of it simply wasn't the topic of Hebrews and so the author of Hebrews did not address its.

Second, the NC is not the redemtion of Christ for the church. Again, I simply suggest reading the New Covenant in jer 31:31-40 and see what it says. You will see that the church is not mentioned. Forgiveness, regeneration, and restoration of Israel to the land is. It plainly identifies who it is talking about ... the house of Isreal and the house of Judah, those who fathers were lead by the hand from Egypt, those who broke the Old Covenant (Mosaic). That, very clearly, is not the church. The NC is with Isreal. The church participates in the blessings of the NC through forgiveness, but the NC is not with the church.

Again, the simplest solution is simply to read the passage and see what it says and what it doesn't say. Read the context around it, and read the language just as you would any other language.

 

[Pastor Larry]

TCGreek,

I am still fleshing out a lot of stuff too. That's the process of spiritual growth and learning. Some take that Zech 14 to be Armageddon before the thousand years. I tend towards after, but am not dogmatic on it.