The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Lance,
On the internet and message boards such as this one, it is generally considered yelling to post in all bold and font larger than the norm. So, while I generally disagree that you did not intend the post to be full of animosity, you make an excellent point that this is not face-to-face, so I will take you at your word, friend.
Again, this is just silliness. But, just for laughs and giggles...let me address a few points.
You wrote:
You continued:
I readily agree that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The difference, however, is that the Law (Mosaic) covenant is not abrogated but it is fulfilled in Christ because He kept the Law perfectly, something we (Jew or Gentile) could not do.
I am different (I think) than most CT's--I see one covenant with a narrowing scope: Adam/Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ. I do not think that Israel and the Church are the same, but I do believe Israel and the Church are the heirs of the same promises. Also, it is important to say that those saved in the Old Testament (the true Israel) were saved by the death of Christ, just as the true Church is saved.
You said:
Here is an example of this method: If you look at the "Great Commission," you see Jesus saying "Go....make disciples....baptizing...teaching..." The main point of Jesus command here is "Make Disciples," that is the verb. Go (which is better translated "after having gone"), baptizing, and teaching are all participles. Now, to be obedient to the main verb, one has to do the participles.
The goal of preaching and of all Bible study should be to make the author's main point the main point of the message. Jesus' main point in the "Great Commission" is "Make Disciples." To use that text to enlist people who will "Go" (especially if you don't mention Jesus' main point) does violence to the text and, therefore, Jesus' command.
And, yes, I am quite well-educated. But, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
You continued:
You say this as if you don't look at the world through "Darby" or "Scofield" glasses, which you do. Darby's ideas, as I'm sure you well know, generally dates to the 1830's. The CT position is based on the Reformers who were generally Augustinian who was essentially Pauline. So, while I freely admit I look through Augustinian glasses, you too must admit you look through Darby-Scofield glasses.
I asked: Why was Abraham chosen?
Your reply was quite good (though I didn't agree with all of it).
But, you missed the intent of my question. I want to know why was it Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans that God chose and not Fred from Rome of the Italians? Put more simply: Why did God choose Abram and not someone else (regardless of the purpose)?
Unfortunately, you seem to be unwilling to discuss the text without bringing your DT into it. I am much more interested in what the text actually says that what a system (CT or DT) says it says. If you would like to continue textual discussions, I'd love to do so. However, this is not a forum to debate CT and DT, which is why I am reluctant to do so.
Blessings,
The Archangel
On the internet and message boards such as this one, it is generally considered yelling to post in all bold and font larger than the norm. So, while I generally disagree that you did not intend the post to be full of animosity, you make an excellent point that this is not face-to-face, so I will take you at your word, friend.
Again, this is just silliness. But, just for laughs and giggles...let me address a few points.
You wrote:
Neither I nor other covenant theologians consider Israel to be cast away. This is an unfortunate (and likely an innocent) misstatement. The difference between Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT) is that people who subscribe to CT necessarily see a distinction between believing Israel and national Israel. Because of Paul's New Testament discussions about Israel, it is clear that context determines if he is speaking of National Israel or of Spiritual Israel. DT tends to see Israel only in terms of its national identity. CT rejects this based on the "Analogy of Faith" where scripture is allowed to interpret scripture.Covenant Theology believes that God has cast away Israel. Scripture clearly say God has NOT cast away Israel.
You continued:
Sure I did...there were bigger fish to fry. You have yet to explain what Paul meant in Romans 11. There are textual issues that I have raised that are not solved either by DT or CT. The text simply is the text and you have yet to convince me that Paul meant something other than what I (with many other commentators, I might add) said.Then, you totally sidestepped the reference to Gal. 3:6-18
I readily agree that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The difference, however, is that the Law (Mosaic) covenant is not abrogated but it is fulfilled in Christ because He kept the Law perfectly, something we (Jew or Gentile) could not do.
I am different (I think) than most CT's--I see one covenant with a narrowing scope: Adam/Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ. I do not think that Israel and the Church are the same, but I do believe Israel and the Church are the heirs of the same promises. Also, it is important to say that those saved in the Old Testament (the true Israel) were saved by the death of Christ, just as the true Church is saved.
You said:
I would argue the inductive method has its limitations IF it does not seek the plain meaning of the original text in its original context (and the whole-Bible context as a whole). When I was taught to preach, my professor (who had a Ph.D in Greek and we couldn't get anything past him) insisted we diagram the passages in the original languages. In the epistles, we were instructed to look for the Main Finite Verb. In the the Prophets or Psalms, we did the same thing. I have not-a-few 4-page, sprawling diagrams that really help to interpret the passage.To say that dispensationalism is based upon eisegesis is nonsense. You seem like an educated man. Do you understand what an inductive methodology of exegesis is?
Here is an example of this method: If you look at the "Great Commission," you see Jesus saying "Go....make disciples....baptizing...teaching..." The main point of Jesus command here is "Make Disciples," that is the verb. Go (which is better translated "after having gone"), baptizing, and teaching are all participles. Now, to be obedient to the main verb, one has to do the participles.
The goal of preaching and of all Bible study should be to make the author's main point the main point of the message. Jesus' main point in the "Great Commission" is "Make Disciples." To use that text to enlist people who will "Go" (especially if you don't mention Jesus' main point) does violence to the text and, therefore, Jesus' command.
And, yes, I am quite well-educated. But, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
You continued:
I do read what you post, I just don't agree with most of it. I'm afraid you may take my non-agreement as some type of non-understanding or non-reading. That is not the case.I agree, there is no purpose in you and I continuing this discussion. You do not read what I post and what you do read, you look at through Augustine's glasses.
You say this as if you don't look at the world through "Darby" or "Scofield" glasses, which you do. Darby's ideas, as I'm sure you well know, generally dates to the 1830's. The CT position is based on the Reformers who were generally Augustinian who was essentially Pauline. So, while I freely admit I look through Augustinian glasses, you too must admit you look through Darby-Scofield glasses.
I asked: Why was Abraham chosen?
Your reply was quite good (though I didn't agree with all of it).
But, you missed the intent of my question. I want to know why was it Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans that God chose and not Fred from Rome of the Italians? Put more simply: Why did God choose Abram and not someone else (regardless of the purpose)?
Unfortunately, you seem to be unwilling to discuss the text without bringing your DT into it. I am much more interested in what the text actually says that what a system (CT or DT) says it says. If you would like to continue textual discussions, I'd love to do so. However, this is not a forum to debate CT and DT, which is why I am reluctant to do so.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Last edited by a moderator: