I want to move on....

[thomas15]

In a previous thread titled "Reformed critics of Dispensationalism", I asked the question "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?"

Moving on in Thomas McComiskey's book The Covenants of Promise on page 180 we read "Although covenant theology in its traditional expression stresses the covenant of grace, the subsequent discussion will show that no universal agreement as to the structure and nature of this concept exists. A brief examination of the conclusions of a few theologians will illustrate the lack of uniformity in the designation covenant of grace in covenant theology." The author then proceeds to discuss the conflicting views of three covenant theologians; Hermannus Witsius, Charles Hodge and John Murray.

In light of this i ask again, why is it standard procedure for reformed critics of dispensationalism to attempt to win the arguement by trying to make the case that dispensationalism has no real consensus? Seems like a simple question to answer. Has not covenant theology had had almost 500 years to figure this out? Why the disagreements on details, especally when a favorite hobby of reformed critic is to bash dispies for their differences of opinion within their (dispensational) camp?

As an aside, I just finished re-reading The Late Great Planet Earth. It may come as a surprise to those who have never actually read the book but anyway repeat over and over again that Lindsey sets dates that he actually really doesn't.

 

[Grasshopper]

http://americanvision.org/4545/before-harold-camping-there-was-chuck-smith/

Camping has not given up on his prophetic date setting. He’s offering justifiable reasons why the “rapture” did not take place on May 21st as he predicted. Lindsey and Smith have done the same thing. They were both wrong about the 1988 end-point date, but this hasn’t stopped either of them from making a career out of prophetic speculation.* As the 40-year time table was about to run out, like Camping, Lindsey tweaked his earlier prognostication. In an interview published in Christianity Today (April 15, 1977), Lindsey told W. Ward Gasque: “I don’t know how long a biblical generation is. [In 1970, according to Lindsey, it was 40 years.] Perhaps somewhere between sixty and eighty years. The state of Israel was established in 1948. There are a lot of world leaders who are pointing to the 1980s as being the time of some very momentous events. Perhaps it will be then. But I feel certain that it will take place before the year 2000.” He changed from a 1988 date to before 2000, and yet he’s still considered a “prophecy expert.”

In that same 1977 interview, Gasque asked Lindsey: “But what if you’re wrong?” Lindsey replied: “Well, there’s just a split second’s difference between a hero and a bum. I didn’t ask to be a hero, but I guess I have become one in the Christian community. So I accept it. But if I’m wrong about this, I guess I’ll become a bum.” He hasn’t become a bum. He hosts The Hal Lindsey Report, described as “A news site dedicated to news analysis of current events from the perspective of Bible prophecy with Hal Lindsey.”

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/3958/hal1.htm

6. “When the signs just given begin to multiply and increase in scope it’s similar to the certainty of leaves coming off the fig tree. But the most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves.
Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then he said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.’ (Matthew 24:34 NASB).
What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs -- chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied the Bible all their lives believe that this is so.” pp.53-54.

 

[thomas15]

It would seem Grasshopper to any fair minded person that answering the primary question would require far less research than the aside. You choose the aside. The primary question could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" (leaving an explanation for later), you however chose the more difficult "cut-n-paste" route.

Neither in the book by Lindsey or the article you mention (Christianity Today, I'm sure you subscribe and have a collection of back issues all the way to the 70s) neither place is there a date.

Harold Camping on the other hand is of the reformed tradition. I'll bet you didn't know that? How many dispies are on the camping team? Camping it seems has as much contempt for dispensationalist as any preterist on this board, maybe more if that is even possible, so why would you even mention him? Another example, at first blush, one would think that perhaps the Jehovah's witnesses have a common link to pre-mill thinking. A through analysis of the theology of the watchtower by yours truly, would indicate that actually the JWs are more of a cross between covenant Amil and post mil, depending on what class of JW you belong to.

I ask again, "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?"

 

[JesusFan]

It would seem Grasshopper to any fair minded person that answering the primary question would require far less research than the aside. You choose the aside. The primary question could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" (leaving an explanation for later), you however chose the more difficult "cut-n-paste" route.

Neither in the book by Lindsey or the article you mention (Christianity Today, I'm sure you subscribe and have a collection of back issues all the way to the 70s) neither place is there a date.

Harold Camping on the other hand is of the reformed tradition. I'll bet you didn't know that? How many dispies are on the camping team? Camping it seems has as much contempt for dispensationalist as any preterist on this board, maybe more if that is even possible, so why would you even mention him? Another example, at first blush, one would think that perhaps the Jehovah's witnesses have a common link to pre-mill thinking. A through analysis of the theology of the watchtower by yours truly, would indicate that actually the JWs are more of a cross between covenant Amil and post mil, depending on what class of JW you belong to.

I ask again, "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?"

Think that majority of us Dispys "date" the end times mainly from idea that

the generation of the Jews that reformed nation of isreal in 1948 would still be alive when he returned, or at least until the Great Tribulation...

I think that is faulty though, in a sense God DID bring back isreal as a nation , but that the fulfillment of them from say Ezeckiel was not at that time, as they need Jesus to return and "restore" nation in a day...

So I don't do ANY dating, as isreal today is NOT final ultimate fulfillment of the OT prophecies for end times!

 

[Grasshopper]

It would seem Grasshopper to any fair minded person that answering the primary question would require far less research than the aside. You choose the aside. The primary question could be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" (leaving an explanation for later), you however chose the more difficult "cut-n-paste" route.

OK, I'll answer.........yes?

Neither in the book by Lindsey or the article you mention (Christianity Today, I'm sure you subscribe and have a collection of back issues all the way to the 70s) neither place is there a date.

40 years is a generation, Lindsey starts the generation at 1948. Hmmmm, do I really need to explain further?

Harold Camping on the other hand is of the reformed tradition. I'll bet you didn't know that?

I bet I did, you not the only won who be educaited.

How many dispies are on the camping team? Camping it seems has as much contempt for dispensationalist as any preterist on this board, maybe more if that is even possible, so why would you even mention him?

I didn't, the article did.

Another example, at first blush, one would think that perhaps the Jehovah's witnesses have a common link to pre-mill thinking. A through analysis of the theology of the watchtower by yours truly, would indicate that actually the JWs are more of a cross between covenant Amil and post mil, depending on what class of JW you belong to.

Ok??

I ask again, "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?"

I give up, why?

 

[kyredneck]

Think that majority of us Dispys "date" the end times mainly from idea that

the generation of the Jews that reformed nation of isreal in 1948 would still be alive when he returned, or at least until the Great Tribulation...

I think that is faulty though......

Finally, we've got you this far, because it most certainly is faulty. 'That generation' was 'that generation' of Christ days on earth. Once you grasp that as the truth then you will be well on your way to correct eschatology. [edit] ....and then you will be healed from the affliction of sensationalism....

 

[J.D.]

In a previous thread titled "Reformed critics of Dispensationalism", I asked the question "...why is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?"

Moving on in Thomas McComiskey's book The Covenants of Promise on page 180 we read "Although covenant theology in its traditional expression stresses the covenant of grace, the subsequent discussion will show that no universal agreement as to the structure and nature of this concept exists. A brief examination of the conclusions of a few theologians will illustrate the lack of uniformity in the designation covenant of grace in covenant theology." The author then proceeds to discuss the conflicting views of three covenant theologians; Hermannus Witsius, Charles Hodge and John Murray.

In light of this i ask again, why is it standard procedure for reformed critics of dispensationalism to attempt to win the arguement by trying to make the case that dispensationalism has no real consensus? Seems like a simple question to answer. Has not covenant theology had had almost 500 years to figure this out? Why the disagreements on details, especally when a favorite hobby of reformed critic is to bash dispies for their differences of opinion within their (dispensational) camp?

As an aside, I just finished re-reading The Late Great Planet Earth. It may come as a surprise to those who have never actually read the book but anyway repeat over and over again that Lindsey sets dates that he actually really doesn't.

I don't expect any two persons to be in perfect agreement, so I don't expect two dispensationalists to be in perfect agreement either. However, I think there's a lack of consensus among dispensationalists over essential issues, not just details - for example the lack of consensus over just exactly what is the NEW COVENANT. Not a small matter indeed.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't expect any two persons to be in perfect agreement, so I don't expect two dispensationalists to be in perfect agreement either. However, I think there's a lack of consensus among dispensationalists over essential issues, not just details - for example the lack of consensus over just exactly what is the NEW COVENANT. Not a small matter indeed.

Curious, just how do you see we dispy viewing concept of the new Covenant

 

[JesusFan]

Finally, we've got you this far, because it most certainly is faulty. 'That generation' was 'that generation' of Christ days on earth. Once you grasp that as the truth then you will be well on your way to correct eschatology. [edit] ....and then you will be healed from the affliction of sensationalism....

Nope...

was just stating that even though I hold to a Dispy view, do NOT see current isreal as the fulfillment of isreal that God described in OT prophets...

God did indeed bring them back into land, but since I am looking for the real fulfillment of Ezeckiel and Romans and revelation in end times as them bring restored back a s apeoples/nation by God when jesus returns at His second coming, there is NO need to date the 40 yeras of a generation from 1948 or any other date for that matter!

 

[J.D.]

Curious, just how do you see we dispy viewing concept of the new Covenant

Traditional Dispy says it doesn't apply to the church; newer dispy sees the problems with that and is indicisive; progressive dispy accepts it as applicable to the church. This summary is inexact but I think pretty close.

Here is a related link:

http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=5104

CLARKS SUMMIT, Pa.—Forty professors and Bible scholars are meeting on the campus of Baptist Bible Seminary for the second annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, discussing the topic of “The Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant.”
“This is the area of theology where dispensationalists disagree the most,” said Michael Stallard, dean of the seminary and organizer of the council meetings...

 

[thomas15]

OK, I'll answer.........yes?

Grasshopper, is it ok if I put you down as answering the primary question leaning towards yes? (review the primary question is "is it (and why is it) acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?")

I don't want to put words in you mouth, really but it seems like that is the direction you are headed.

 

[thomas15]

Traditional Dispy says it doesn't apply to the church; newer dispy sees the problems with that and is indicisive; progressive dispy accepts it as applicable to the church. This summary is inexact but I think pretty close.

Here is a related link:

http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=5104

CLARKS SUMMIT, Pa.—Forty professors and Bible scholars are meeting on the campus of Baptist Bible Seminary for the second annual Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, discussing the topic of “The Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant.”
“This is the area of theology where dispensationalists disagree the most,” said Michael Stallard, dean of the seminary and organizer of the council meetings...

JD do you see this as a good thing or bad? Theologians getting to together to discuss theology, crazy or good?

 

[J.D.]

JD do you see this as a good thing or bad? Theologians getting to together to discuss theology, crazy or good?

It concerns me that "theologians" have to get together to discuss such basic and essentials doctrines that were settled teachings for centuries prior to 1830.

 

[thomas15]

It concerns me that "theologians" have to get together to discuss such basic and essentials doctrines that were settled teachings for centuries prior to 1830.

Am I correct in stating that you have concerns with the scholarship of Thomas McComiskey, John Murray, Hermannus Witsius and Charles Hodge? After all, it is their writings and ideas that I have brought into this discussion. I further intend to incorporate into this discussion Geerhardus Vos, Gerhard Hasel and Thomas Schreiner to continue making my case. Do you have concerns with their abilities as theologians as well?

But to get to the main question "...is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?" I'm asking you JD if it is ok to put you in the yes it is ok camp since, after several posts in response to my question, you are not saying no?

I'm not going to allow this thread and its associated threads to stray too far off topic but if, as you seem to imply, the year 1830 is the cut off point for discussion of doctrine, how do you allow the modern preterist movement to exist? Given your statement above, you should be its loudest critic.

 

[J.D.]

Am I correct in stating that you have concerns with the scholarship of Thomas McComiskey, John Murray, Hermannus Witsius and Charles Hodge? After all, it is their writings and ideas that I have brought into this discussion. I further intend to incorporate into this discussion Geerhardus Vos, Gerhard Hasel and Thomas Schreiner to continue making my case. Do you have concerns with their abilities as theologians as well?

But to get to the main question "...is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not extended to dispensationalists?" I'm asking you JD if it is ok to put you in the yes it is ok camp since, after several posts in response to my question, you are not saying no?

I'm not going to allow this thread and its associated threads to stray too far off topic but if, as you seem to imply, the year 1830 is the cut off point for discussion of doctrine, how do you allow the modern preterist movement to exist? Given your statement above, you should be its loudest critic.

I'm sure you've got a point to make but I'm not getting it. Good night.

 

[thomas15]

I'm sure you've got a point to make but I'm not getting it. Good night.

I think it is simple enough JD, I'm trying to establish if it is really approprate for those in the covenant belief system to be overly critical of dispensationalists and dismiss their arguements outright for not having complete agreement when there is within covenant theology disagreement on such basic doctrinal areas such a basic doctrine as the covenant of grace.

JD, it is becoming clear that you and a few others here don't want to answer the basic question "...is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not (to be) extended to dispensationalists?"

On the side issue that you brought up, why you would have concerns with any one particular group having discussions on any basic doctrine since since the year AD 1830 onward is somewhat of a mystery to me. I would appreciate it if you would explain your position in more detail.

ON EDIT:

In a thread from late last week titled "Covenant theologian John Murray .."
I wrote in the OP of that thread "To continue in Thomas McComiskey The Covenants of Promise pg. 180 states "It would not be, however, in the interest of theological conservation or theological progress for us to think that the covenant theology is in all respects definitive and that there is no further need for correction, modification, and expansion. Theology must always be undergoing reformation...."

I would like to point out that in the above quote covenant theologian Thomas McComiskey is quoting covenant theologian John Murray, taken from Murray's work The Covenant of Grace... (London: Tyndale 1953)"

end of edit

 

[J.D.]

I think it is simple enough JD, I'm trying to establish if it is really approprate for those in the covenant belief system to be overly critical of dispensationalists and dismiss their arguements outright for not having complete agreement when there is within covenant theology disagreement on such basic doctrinal areas such a basic doctrine as the covenant of grace.

JD, it is becoming clear that you and a few others here don't want to answer the basic question "...is it acceptable for covenant theologians to have different views on some details but that courtesy is not (to be) extended to dispensationalists?"

On the side issue that you brought up, why you would have concerns with any one particular group having discussions on any basic doctrine since since the year AD 1830 onward is somewhat of a mystery to me. I would appreciate it if you would explain your position in more detail.

I answered it, and I made a distinction between "details" and essential doctrine. If I didn't do that to the extent necessary for yourself or others to understand, I apologize. But I don't have time to rework it.

 

[thomas15]

I answered it, and I made a distinction between "details" and essential doctrine. If I didn't do that to the extent necessary for yourself or others to understand, I apologize. But I don't have time to rework it.

JD, I added an edit to my post above to make it a little easier for you to understand what I'm taking about. I'm trying to avoid merging threads. You will see that quote from McComisky's book that covenant theology also has questions on essential doctrine. Unless of course you don't think the covenant of grace is essential to covenant theology.

Note that I'm not the one saying that covenant theology is unsettled with respect to the covenant of grace, covenant theologians are the ones saying it.

But you still are not answering the question at hand.

 

[JesusFan]

It concerns me that "theologians" have to get together to discuss such basic and essentials doctrines that were settled teachings for centuries prior to 1830.

The same way that the Church had "established" Gospel by works by the theologians for several centuries before Luthor/calvin others 'rediscovered" Gospel of Grace?