Is It Finished?

[OldRegular]

Calvibaptist

I believe that progressive dispensationalism is the death knell for classic dispensationalism. Perhaps it developed because of the classic dispensational separation of God's people. I think in time that progressive dispensationalists will meld with covenant/historic premillennialists.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Calvibaptist

I believe that progressive dispensationalism is the death knell for classic dispensationalism. Perhaps it developed because of the classic dispensational separation of God's people. I think in time that progressive dispensationalists will meld with covenant/historic premillennialists.

It sure has moved me in that direction. If I have to take a dispy name, I would call myself progressive. But, currently I prefer to just call myself an historic premillenialist.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by genesis12:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The idea that Jesus was offering a literal physical kingdom to the Jews is also distasteful to me. If they had accepted the offer, there would have been no cross. We would all spend eternity in hell.

Unbelievable. How anyone could arrive at that conclusion (especially a student of dispensationalism) is -- well -- unbelievable. But I guess Ray has already addressed the issue.

In other news --- Ryrie certainly doesn't depart from classic dispensationalism in his textbook, Basic Theology. There he points out the flaws of progressive dispensationalism, along with a lot of other 'isms'. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is it unbelieveable? If Jesus' purpose for coming the first time was to offer the Jews a kingdom, what would have happened if they had accepted the offer? He would have been crowned king and ushered in the Davidic kingdom. No betrayal, no rejection, no cross, no redemption (except for Israel). This is the natural conclusion of the idea of two peoples of God.

I think you are right that, although I believe Ryrie senses some of the problems with Classical Dispy, he is not moving to progressive. It is kind of humorous to watch from within to see two factions at the same school disagreeing over their basic set of beliefs. I also went to a seminary (Capital Bible in MD) that totally rejects progressive dispy.

 

[rjprince]

OldR,

I can see NO indication that Ryrie acknowledges that PD is a natural outcome of classic D and I just reread his chapter on PD in his rev and expanded "Dispensationalsim". "Clever arguements" -- indeed! (I am not YELLING. I am emphasizing! Caps lock is much easier than [ B ]'s. If I want to yell, I will use BOLD CAPS)

On the Calvinist thing, only as far as most of his soteriology do I agree.


CBapt,

How can someone who fully indentifies with a strong position on the Sovereignty of God have a problem with "My of My! What would God have done if the Jews HAD accepted the kingdom". I just do not get that.

I can see no indication that Ryrie sees some of the problems with Classic D, but then I wasn't there (at DTS). Did he make comments to that effect? I sure have not seen it in print, and I read him heavily. Of course I also read John MacA heavily and he calls himself a "leaky D". I read RC more lightly, though his "Last Days" did get quite a bit of my time.

Israel and the Church? May start a thread on that one later. Did one quite some time ago, then dropped out because my son was real sick.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by rjprince:
OldR,

I can see NO indication that Ryrie acknowledges that PD is a natural outcome of classic D and I just reread his chapter on PD in his rev and expanded "Dispensationalsim". "Clever arguements" -- indeed! (I am not YELLING. I am emphasizing! Caps lock is much easier than [ B ]'s. If I want to yell, I will use BOLD CAPS)

rj

This is what I said:

I have read Ryrie. He does a clever job of distorting the truth of Scripture. He is honest enough to note that classic dispensationalism is evolving into progressive dispensationalism, which is just a pseudonym for covenant premillennialism.

 

[rjprince]

OR,

Pardon my imprecision, I did not go back and quote. I can see NO indication that Ryrie acknowledges that CD is evolving into PD. Of course I disagree regarding your assessment that he does a "clever job of distorting".

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by rjprince:
CBapt,

How can someone who fully indentifies with a strong position on the Sovereignty of God have a problem with "My of My! What would God have done if the Jews HAD accepted the kingdom". I just do not get that.

I am not making that statement from the my perspective. I am making the statement from the perspective of the people I heard at DTS, who have a weak view of God's sovereignty. In their view, God offered a genuine offer of the kingdom and the Jews, of their own free will, rejected it. They believe that it was possible for the Jews to accept it, although, in the foreknowledge of God, He knew they wouldn't. My "what if" is a logical extension of the possibility they allow.

I can see no indication that Ryrie sees some of the problems with Classic D, but then I wasn't there (at DTS). Did he make comments to that effect? I sure have not seen it in print, and I read him heavily.

I have not heard it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. It was more in the discussions in class with Craig Blaising, who is no longer there. I should have been more cautious with how I said that, sorry.

Of course I also read John MacA heavily and he calls himself a "leaky D". I read RC more lightly, though his "Last Days" did get quite a bit of my time.

I heard Jonny Mac a few years ago at a Ligonier Conference say that the only dispensationalism left in him was that he believed there was a difference between Israel and the Church. I'm not sure how much longer he can hold out with the circles he travels in. I have followed his ministry for over 20 years and have all his books and most of his tapes. I just in the last few years got into RC. He's a great preacher and a very personable man. I've been to his pastor's conference the last two years and have been thoroughly encouraged.

Israel and the Church? May start a thread on that one later. Did one quite some time ago, then dropped out because my son was real sick.

I look forward to that with great interest. I have many questions as to how CT's interpret some of the prophecies in the OT. That still holds me in the dispy camp sometimes.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by rjprince:
OR,

Pardon my imprecision, I did not go back and quote. I can see NO indication that Ryrie acknowledges that CD is evolving into PD. Of course I disagree regarding your assessment that he does a "clever job of distorting".

Ultra-dispensationalism and classic dispensationalism are distortions of Scripture, particularly as they define the Church. As I recall Ryrie, a classic dispensationalist, is much more critical of ultra-dispensationalism than he is of progressive dispensationalism.

 

[rjprince]

CB,

Heard RC at the Shepherd's Conference a few weeks ago. His health is in decline. The allegorizing of clear OT prophecies and lack of precision regarding many other passages has driven me firmly away from the CT camp. Had a guy in our church for a while who was very big into CT and a revived postmillenialism as advocated by what has been called the "Tyler Group". Read about everything I could get my hands on by DeMar, Gentry, Bahnsen, Chilton, Mauro, Sutton, et al.

The preterist position is foundational for CT's rejection of any future concerning Revelation and their rejection of a literal theocratic kingdom. The rejection of a consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic was much more of an issue with me than anything else. Look forward to further interaction on the subject.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by rjprince:
The preterist position is foundational for CT's rejection of any future concerning Revelation and their rejection of a literal theocratic kingdom. The rejection of a consistent literal grammatical historical hermeneutic was much more of an issue with me than anything else. Look forward to further interaction on the subject.

You mistakenly assume that Preterism is a natural corollary of Covenant Theology. Most Baptists who are follow Covenant Theology are either amillennial or postmillennial. if you don't believe me read the 1689 London Confession, The Southern Seminary Abstract of Principles, the writings of Conner, Carroll, Boyce, Dagg and many others.

Face it, dispensational doctrine is a Johnny-come-lately doctrine dreamed up by John Nelson Darby in the early 19th century and propogated sadly in this country by Scofield and his Reference Bible.

 

[OldRegular]

But back to the subject of this thread: Did Jesus Christ finish His work or does that work await some future 1000 year period as the dispensationalists claim, in effect denying the Words of Jesus Christ?

 

[rjprince]

OReg

All preterists I have ever read are either postmil or amil. Most are CT. I am fully aware that many past century baptist writers were postmil. As far as D being a Johnny-come-lately, Herman Witsius, did not formalize CT all that much earlier. AND, J.A. Bengel preceded Darby with an emphasis on Premillenialsim nearly 100 years before Darby. Clearly, some of the early church fathers embraced chiliasm, the belief in a literal 1000 year theocratic kingdom.

 

[rjprince]

Jesus finished the work of redemption. His earthly ministry as the suffering servant. In your OP you clearly acknowledge that at time of the passage you cited that Jesus had not yet gone to the Cross... You have repeated this at least once on this thread since then...

Let me rephrase your question from two posts up...

Had Jesus finished all the work the Father gave Him to do by the time of the statement in John 17:4? Or do you hold that He still had some work to do, as you have repeatedly acknowledged in effect denying the Words of Jesus Christ?

As to denying the Word, consider this...

Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Ge 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.


Do you as an amilleniallist believe that the Jews will literally inherit the land of Israel as an everlasting possession as promised in Gen 48:4, or not, in effect denying the Words of God?

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EdSutton:
Correct me if I am wrong, here, but I believe the Abstract of Principles is a 'binding document' on only two Southern Baptist Seminaries that have adopted it for their 'Statement of faith', so to speak. I am not aware that it is 'binding' on any other SBC entity. While I may or may not agree with what is in it, unless I as [or not as] an SBC church member were teaching or maybe even otherwise employed there, it has no specific reference to me. Is that correct?
Ed

As far as I am aware the Abstract of Principles which were adopted by the Southern Seminary when it was founded by Boyce, Broadus, and Manly are still in force there. I am not aware of their adoption by any other Seminaries.

I am of the opinion that the Southern Baptist Convention should adopt the 1689 London Confession [with updated English]. That might, of course, eliminate dispensationalism and Arminianism but we would be returning to our historic, and I believe, Biblical Faith </font>[/QUOTE]In fact, the Abstract of Principles was part of the fabric of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary from its inception with, as you said, Boyce, Broaddus and Manly, and also William Williams. You are correct that it still is in force at SBTS, and is I believe, part of the charter of said seminary. The 'Abstract' is also a part of Southeastern Seminary's charter, and it remains in force there, as well. The Southern Baptist Convention has adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as a 'Confession of Faith'. This is a distinctly Southern Baptist document. It is perhaps a little closer to the New Hampshire Confession, on which it was originally, for the most part, based, but is not identical to this Other Confessions, such as Philadelphia, and the London Confessions are somewhat more distant, yet not entirely against one or another, of the BFM in its originality and in the subsequent updates of 1963, and 2000. Two bits of trivia; I believe the New Hampshire Confession is part of the charter of Southwestern Seminary. And my own 'home church' has the 1963 BFM in our constitution and by-laws, but have not 'adopted' the 2000 version. Unlike some churches where the 2000 revisions became a point of controversy, in our case, the issue has merely never come up. And this farmer is one to merely let sleeping dogs lie. Finds I gets bit less!

In His grace,
Ed

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by rjprince:
Jesus finished the work of redemption. His earthly ministry as the suffering servant. In your OP you clearly acknowledge that at time of the passage you cited that Jesus had not yet gone to the Cross... You have repeated this at least once on this thread since then...

Let me rephrase your question from two posts up...

Had Jesus finished all the work the Father gave Him to do by the time of the statement in John 17:4? Or do you hold that He still had some work to do, as you have repeatedly acknowledged in effect denying the Words of Jesus Christ?

As to denying the Word, consider this...

Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Ge 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.


Do you as an amilleniallist believe that the Jews will literally inherit the land of Israel as an everlasting possession as promised in Gen 48:4, or not, in effect denying the Words of God?

First tell me how many years is in everlasting?

 

[OldRegular]

Ed

Thanks for the information. It has been some time since I read about the founding of the Southern seminary and I had forgotten William's part in it. The only reason I remembered Broadus and Manly was "Broadman". You may not know but the Seminary was originally located in South Carolina for a short time. Don't know why the move to Louisville.

I did not realize that the Abstract was part of Southeastern's charter. Wasn't Paige Patterson their president for awhile and wasn't he both Arminian and dispensational? I could be wrong.

 

[rjprince]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
First tell me how many years is in everlasting?

All of them. They start with 1000 and move to eternity. The land is their eternal possession. Does any dispensationalist say that they get the land for 1000 years and then God takes it away? I have never read it, but I do admit the possibility that someone may have said it. It is certainly not one of the sine qua non's of D.

Are you sure you have read Ryrie's Dispensationalism? You did quote from his "Basis of the Premillennial Faith" here or on an other thread, but that one was written in 1953. Give him some room to grow up a little and refine the statement of his theology!

 

[genesis12]

Quoting Calvibaptist, who was responding to my post.

Why is it unbelieveable? If Jesus' purpose for coming the first time was to offer the Jews a kingdom, what would have happened if they had accepted the offer?

Your position is hypothetical and really not worthy of further discussion. They did not accept the offer, an offer that was framed before the foundation of the world. However, the idea that the Cross would have been unnecessary is repugnant to a classic dispensationalist. They have consistently stated that the crucifixion is foundational to both. Christ died once for all of us. Hebrews 9:25-28 and 10:10-14 are informative.

Darby comments:

"Now the blood of bulls and goats, and the washing repeated under the law, could never make the conscience perfect...... a real purification from sin and sins...... the offerings under the law could never produce...... but, thanks be to God, Christ has accomplished the work...... He is the witness there that our sins are put away...... we know that He who bore our sins is in the presence of God, after having accomplished the work of expiation."

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by rjprince:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
First tell me how many years is in everlasting?

All of them. They start with 1000 and move to eternity. The land is their eternal possession. Does any dispensationalist say that they get the land for 1000 years and then God takes it away? I have never read it, but I do admit the possibility that someone may have said it. It is certainly not one of the sine qua non's of D.

Are you sure you have read Ryrie's Dispensationalism? You did quote from his "Basis of the Premillennial Faith" here or on an other thread, but that one was written in 1953. Give him some room to grow up a little and refine the statement of his theology! </font>[/QUOTE]Ryrie in Dispensationalism, page 39f, states that the sine qua non of dispensationalism is threefold:

1. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.

2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation.

3. The third aspect .... concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world .... namely the Glory of God.

First: The Church is different than national Israel but the Church and Spiritual Israel are one as demonstrated in the Apostle Paul's use of the good olive tree and the wild olive tree in Romans 11. Please note that branches of the wild olive tree were grafted into the good olive tree which represented the people of God in the Old Testament. Therefore, the Church and Spiritual Israel of the Old Testament are one. The difficult question is: In the Old Testament what promises relate to national Israel and what promises relate to spiritual Israel.

Second: A comparison the literal hermeneutic varies greatly among various dispensationalists.

Third: What brings more Glory to God than the Salvation of His elect and the restoration of the universe to its original state as Scripture teaches.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Ed

Thanks for the information. It has been some time since I read about the founding of the Southern seminary and I had forgotten William's part in it. The only reason I remembered Broadus and Manly was "Broadman". You may not know but the Seminary was originally located in South Carolina for a short time. Don't know why the move to Louisville.

I did not realize that the Abstract was part of Southeastern's charter. Wasn't Paige Patterson their president for awhile and wasn't he both Arminian and dispensational? I could be wrong.

The Seminary moved to Louisville after a few kids had a little squabble among themselves that resulted in a number of toys getting broken. Toys like the state of South Carolia, and much of the rest of the South. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, the Seminary was meeting in rented or borrowed quarters primarily at First Baptist Church, Greenville. And many students who needed to work were having difficulty finding employment, as well. When the opportunity came for teh move to Louisville, [I think some property became available, either as a gift or at a very nominal rate, if the Seminary would relocate there, or something like that, so with this being a far more prosperous area for the students or something like that, SBTS took advantage of the move to Louisville.

As to Paige Paterson, I am not sure his exact theological leanings, but am of the impression he is somewhat different with Dr. Mohler on the subject of 'Calvinism' and 'Arminianism'.

Ed