Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus tells us what to expect...or how to interpret Revelations when He said..."19 Therefore write down the things you have seen, the things that are, and the things that will happen after this."

Those words are instructions given to John, the one receiving the vision, telling him what to record. They describe the scope and content of what he is shown, not the interpretive principles for later readers.

The interpretive signal for the reader is given earlier, in Revelation 1:1, where we are told the revelation was given “to show” (or “to signify”) the things revealed. That term indicates the use of signs, symbols, and representative imagery — which is exactly how the book then proceeds.

So Revelation itself distinguishes between what John is to write and how the revelation is communicated. The former explains the subject matter; the latter explains the mode.

Appealing to Revelation 1:19 as a hermeneutical rule for reading the book reverses those roles.

"And that is the huge elephantin the room issue with CT. A return of Christ mentions a white horse. The white horse in any kind of scenarion is found void in Acts 1.


Even if you fully symbolize the return of Jesus on a white horse...the sword, robe dipped in blood etc., this portrail of the return of Christ isn't anything like the description of ascention of Christ in which Christ returns in the same way as per 1 Thes 4:16ish."

Acts 1 is historical narrative. The angels explain the manner of Christ’s return: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory.

“The same way” refers to continuity of person and visibility, not a requirement that every future description repeat identical imagery.

Revelation 19 is not historical narration. John explicitly tells us he is seeing a vision. The text itself requires symbolic interpretation: a sword proceeds from Christ’s mouth, His robe is already dipped in blood, and His name is written that no one knows but He Himself. These are not physical mechanics; they are theological disclosures. The vision reveals who Christ is and what His coming means, not how His feet move through the atmosphere.

So Revelation 19 is not redefining Acts 1. It is interpreting the same return through apocalyptic imagery. Visions reveal reality symbolically; they are not camera footage.

The imagery itself is consistent with Scripture. The white horse is covenantal war imagery drawn from the prophets (Zechariah 10:3) and signifies royal conquest. The robe dipped in blood points to Christ’s finished sacrifice and judicial authority. The sword from His mouth is explicitly identified elsewhere as the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17) and represents its power to judge and rule.

None of these are intended to function as transportation details.

Rev 19 defines how Christ The Word of God, the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS will return. What John saw in his vision...was reality.
The reality is scripture.
The ascention in Acts chapter 1 is also reality and the reality presented in Revelations chapter 19 is different. So different they must be representations of different events...pertaining to the return of Christ Jesus as told by the Angels (men in white)."

The choice is not between “symbolism” and “reality.” Both Acts 1 and Revelation 19 are Scripture, and both describe reality. The question is how different genres communicate that reality.

Your conclusion assumes that if two passages describe the same event with different imagery, they must be describing different events. Scripture itself does not operate that way.

Historical narrative tells us that an event happens. Apocalyptic vision tells us what that event means. Differences in imagery do not create different events; they reveal different dimensions of the same reality.

Acts 1 describes the return of Christ in plain, historical terms: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory. Revelation 19 does not contradict that. It expands it by unveiling Christ’s kingship, authority, and judgment through symbolic imagery appropriate to apocalyptic vision.

If different imagery required different events, then Scripture would constantly multiply resurrections, kingdoms, and comings. Instead, the Bible regularly presents one reality through multiple lenses.

So Revelation 19 does not redefine or replace Acts 1. It interprets the same return by revealing who Christ is and what His coming accomplishes. The difference is not in the event itself, but in the mode of revelation.

Prophetic revelation does not cancel or reverse earlier, clearer teaching; it unfolds and deepens it.

Scripture doesn't refer to Satan as being thrown into the abyss as a means of allowing the Gospel to be spread.


"in harmony with clearer teaching elsewhere."....OK, if you say so.

I've just demonstrated how the symbolic or misinterpretation of the CT meaning of the symbols isn't supported by the real world examples
In this particular reply....the proble wth no white horse at the ascention of Christ as well as Satan still being free and not locked away in the abyss which means we are not in the millennial reign...literally of symbolically."

The same hermeneutical principle applies to Revelation 20.

On Revelation 20 and the binding:Scripture defines the binding’s purpose precisely: “so that he might not deceive the nations anymore” (Rev 20:3). It does not say Satan is unable to persecute, tempt individuals, oppose the church, or influence governments—only that he is restrained from deceiving the nations as a whole.

Jesus Himself interprets this binding: He has bound the strong man to plunder his house (Matt 12:28–29), inaugurating the kingdom by casting out demons through the Spirit.

This is present reality, not future.

The apostles elaborate: Pre-Christ, the nations were left in darkness while God focused on Israel (Acts 14:16; Ps 147:19–20).

Post-resurrection, Christ claims all authority and commissions disciple-making among all nations (Matt 28:18–20). Paul declares the gospel bearing fruit “in the whole world” (Col 1:6), even amid persecution.This is the binding in action: Satan can no longer prevent the nations from hearing and responding to the gospel.

He rages (Rev 12:17; 1 Pet 5:8), persecutes, and deceives individuals—but he fails to stop Christ building His global church (Matt 16:18).

 

[CrowCross]

Those words are instructions given to John, the one receiving the vision, telling him what to record. They describe the scope and content of what he is shown, not the interpretive principles for later readers.

I agree but disagree with your conclusion...the interpretive principles for later readers. Rather you should have said...the interpretive principles are also for later readers
As an easy example Isaiah 53 is presented to the current readers...and for future readers.
The same is true for the book of Revelations. As I have expressed and previous quoted Jesus says....in Rev 1:19...Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

The interpretive principles for later readers includes things that are to take place in the future. The return Of Christ Jesus on a white horse is future or something John was to write down to express an event that is to take place after this.

Therefor, I disagree with your premise.

The interpretive signal for the reader is given earlier, in Revelation 1:1, where we are told the revelation was given “to show” (or “to signify”) the things revealed. That term indicates the use of signs, symbols, and representative imagery — which is exactly how the book then proceeds.

Yes, the book of Revelations presents signs, symbols, and representative imagery. Typically the signs, symbols, and representative imagery are explained. The 7 lamp stands are an example.
20 This is the mystery of the seven stars you saw in My right hand and of the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
Here we are told that the stars represent angels and the 7 lampstands represent the seven churches. The representative imagery is explained.
What you have done is explain away the literal presented in Revelation as purely symbolic generating your own concept of what the imagery represents.

In my post I have looked at the current conditions...the future...and tried to express the meaning in terms consistent with today or possibilities that fulfill what John saw and wrote down for us to read to help us understand the things to come.

Much of what we read in Revelations is extremely difficult to understand...figure out.
For example Rev 6:13 we read... and the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs, being shaken by a great wind.
We know that the stars mentioned don't represent literal stars, that is stars such as our sun as it would seem unlikely that all of the stars that make up the constellations would be able to fall to earth. So, what do the stars represent? Do the stars represent angels falling as stars are called angels in the scripture presented above? Do the stars represent the things John saw and described them in terms he knew of? Could the stars be a whole bunch o meteorites falling to earth? Could the stars be satellites falling to earth?
Your interpretation would present stars as purely symbolic rather than a literal event....as you seem to be saying that there are no literal events in the book of revelation.

So Revelation itself distinguishes between what John is to write and how the revelation is communicated. The former explains the subject matter; the latter explains the mode.

The issue I have with you and other CT'ers concerning eschatology is you dismiss the possibility of the literal interpretation of future events described by John in a language and terms of his day.

Appealing to Revelation 1:19 as a hermeneutical rule for reading the book reverses those roles.

As I have expressed to you above Rev 1:19 Jesus tells John and through John us.
19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

Take place after this...refers to the future which tells us portions of the book of Revelations pertains to the literal future.
Rev 13 speaks of what is called the Beast System....a future event. An event that couldn't take place on the global scale that the book of Revelations speaks of until our current time.
Rev 13 speaks of the Mark of the Beast...many thought that the barcode that emerged in 1974 was the Mark, but they were mistaken.
This "mark"...barcode...has matured to what it is today. Very shortly with the advancement in technology it is possible that a Mark could be given to all and required if you want to buy or sell. In other word this Mark John saw could be LITERAL and not pure symbology.

Acts 1 is historical narrative. The angels explain the manner of Christ’s return: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory.

That is true....but the narrative doesn't come close to expressing the narrative presented in Rev 19. It's obvious they are different narratives concerning the return of Christ Jesus.
Paul in 1 Thes 4:16ish doesn't express the resurrection/rapture in the name narrative that John expresses it in Rev 19.

“The same way” refers to continuity of person and visibility, not a requirement that every future description repeat identical imagery.

I disagree. The same way means just what it says...the same way. For some reason the CT'ers concerning eschatology require the 2 events to represent some sort of symbolism and are the same event. Simple hermeneutics doesn't follow that CT'ers eschatological logic.

Revelation 19 is not historical narration. John explicitly tells us he is seeing a vision.

No, it's not historical as it hasn't happened yet. It's a vision of a future event.

The text itself requires symbolic interpretation: a sword proceeds from Christ’s mouth, His robe is already dipped in blood, and His name is written that no one knows but He Himself. These are not physical mechanics; they are theological disclosures. The vision reveals who Christ is and what His coming means, not how His feet move through the atmosphere.

The vision includes more than that...it presents a description of the second coming of Christ to physically set up His earthly kingdom.
I have already presented the prophetic vision...and the words nations is included in it...as well as Zech 14 which uses the same language.

So Revelation 19 is not redefining Acts 1. It is interpreting the same return through apocalyptic imagery. Visions reveal reality symbolically; they are not camera footage.

True, Rev 19 is not redefining Acts 1...or 1 Thes 4:16ish. Why? They are separate events.
It's like how the Jews of Jesus' time thought the Messiah would come and set up His kingdom and defeat their enemies, the Romans.
As you know Jesus came to die on the cross...the defeat of their enemies and the actual setting up His kingdom where He rules on earth physically would be a later and separate event.

The imagery itself is consistent with Scripture. The white horse is covenantal war imagery drawn from the prophets (Zechariah 10:3) and signifies royal conquest. The robe dipped in blood points to Christ’s finished sacrifice and judicial authority. The sword from His mouth is explicitly identified elsewhere as the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17) and represents its power to judge and rule.

As I have said ad-nauseum....The description presented in Rev 19 is nothing like the description of Christ ascension where Jesus is said to return the same way.

None of these are intended to function as transportation details.

As I said...and refuted above...I disagree.
Many disagree as seen here. What It looks like exactly, I don't know...

The choice is not between “symbolism” and “reality.” Both Acts 1 and Revelation 19 are Scripture, and both describe reality. The question is how different genres communicate that reality.

Your constant error is presenting reality as symbolic....always seeming to disregard the literal reality.
There are some so-called christians who teach Jesus didn't "literally" rise from the dead....but rather it is only symbolic. Keep in mind I don't think you believe that.

Your conclusion assumes that if two passages describe the same event with different imagery, they must be describing different events. Scripture itself does not operate that way.

I have provided you with the logic of scripture that shows you are not always correct. Especially concerning Revelations.

Historical narrative tells us that an event happens. Apocalyptic vision tells us what that event means. Differences in imagery do not create different events; they reveal different dimensions of the same reality.

Have already shown you that Revelations shows future events.

Acts 1 describes the return of Christ in plain, historical terms: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory. Revelation 19 does not contradict that. It expands it by unveiling Christ’s kingship, authority, and judgment through symbolic imagery appropriate to apocalyptic vision.

Acts 1 presents nothing like Rev 19. Even in symbolic imagery.

If different imagery required different events, then Scripture would constantly multiply resurrections, kingdoms, and comings. Instead, the Bible regularly presents one reality through multiple lenses.

It can....but in this instance you haven't demonstrated it.

So Revelation 19 does not redefine or replace Acts 1. It interprets the same return by revealing who Christ is and what His coming accomplishes. The difference is not in the event itself, but in the mode of revelation.

You're repeating yourself.
I've made my point pretty clear. If you disagree, then so be it. I'll continue to teach Revelation is futuristic and the two events are separate.

Prophetic revelation does not cancel or reverse earlier, clearer teaching; it unfolds and deepens it.

What the CT'ers presents concerning eschatology clouds the issue. In this case they try to mix oil with vinegar.

The same hermeneutical principle applies to Revelation 20.

On Revelation 20 and the binding:Scripture defines the binding’s purpose precisely: “so that he might not deceive the nations anymore” (Rev 20:3). It does not say Satan is unable to persecute, tempt individuals, oppose the church, or influence governments—only that he is restrained from deceiving the nations as a whole.

How can Satan do what you mentioned above if he is in the sealed pit? Do you remember what I said about Al Capone? Why would it be any different?
Did the angels only throw the "deceiving the nations" portion of Satan into the pit then seal it up? Of course not. What you present makes no sense.

Jesus Himself interprets this binding: He has bound the strong man to plunder his house (Matt 12:28–29), inaugurating the kingdom by casting out demons through the Spirit.

Satan is "bound" in the reality of sin has no recurse in our salvation.
Jesus goes on to say.... 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

This is present reality, not future.

When you can demonstrate how Satin sealed in the abyss...can affect us, get back to me.

The apostles elaborate: Pre-Christ, the nations were left in darkness while God focused on Israel (Acts 14:16; Ps 147:19–20).

Post-resurrection, Christ claims all authority and commissions disciple-making among all nations (Matt 28:18–20). Paul declares the gospel bearing fruit “in the whole world” (Col 1:6), even amid persecution.This is the binding in action: Satan can no longer prevent the nations from hearing and responding to the gospel.

2 Cor. 11:14...And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light....how can that be if Satan is currently in the sealed abyss?

He rages (Rev 12:17; 1 Pet 5:8), persecutes, and deceives individuals—but he fails to stop Christ building His global church (Matt 16:18).

Once again I ask you....how can Satan persecute and deceive individuals if he is in a sealed abyss? Do the chains that keep him there mean nothing?

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you disagree, then so be it. I'll continue to teach Revelation is futuristic and the two events are separate.

Then there was never anything to talk about with me in the first place was there?

how can Satan persecute and deceive individuals if he is in a sealed abyss? Do the chains that keep him there mean nothing?

Satan is not the center of my theology, Christ is, and He defeated sin and death on the Cross nearly 2,000 years ago.

Peace

 

[Arial]

After the rapture and the tribulation begins the means of salvation will still be "John 3:16". This includes the Jews.

It includes the Jews now and did so from the beginning. All the apostles were Jews.

Dispensationalist don't believe God deserted Israel like some of the Covenant theologist seem to believe.

Name one contemporary theologian that believes God deserted Israel. You are imposing your dispensational framework onto Covenant teaching. You see it as God deserting Israel. Covenant theology does not.

The problem I see with some of the Covenant Theology minded people is the discontent and aberrant behavioral attitudes displayed to dispensationalist.

Aberrant? Are you sure you know the meaning of that word?
Since I think I know what you meant, I will ask this question: Who is it but a dispensationalist who can't seem to follow the rules 2.1 and 2.2?

This is almost always seen in their mockery of the 1 Thes 4:16 rapture of the Church.

Disagreeing and providing alternate views is not mockery. Here would be an example of mockery:

Phew...wipes brow....good thing all the death is purely symbolic and lot literal.

strike down the nations,....from your quote. Sounds like Jesus is on earth. How is verse 19 and onwards not on earth?
The verse continues with "the beast was captured along with the false prophet,"....Does Jesus have a net that reaches down from heaven that He cast while riding His white horse and captures the beast and false prophet? What is Zech 14 about?

 

[CrowCross]

It includes the Jews now and did so from the beginning. All the apostles were Jews.

I agree...but they don't. Did you not realize that? They think the 3rd temple will establish their means to enter into heaven.

Name one contemporary theologian that believes God deserted Israel. You are imposing your dispensational framework onto Covenant teaching. You see it as God deserting Israel. Covenant theology does not.

God deserted Israel in the past. Ichabod. ‘The glory has departed from Israel!’
They were lead into captivity several times.

Despite that God will honor His covenant.

Aberrant? Are you sure you know the meaning of that word?

Yes, I used that word on purpose. It's part of the definition when I see when how some of the CT'ers here present their displeasure toward anything concerning Dispensationalism.

Since I think I know what you meant, I will ask this question: Who is it but a dispensationalist who can't seem to follow the rules 2.1 and 2.2?

A certain moderator here seems to misuse the rules of the forum...weaponize them...and shoe horn what some people say making it appear as violation. Mod Hat: Violation of Rule 2.1 All members must engage in discussions with humility respect, and peace.
2.2 Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person.
6.3 Respect the role of moderators. Moderators have the final say in rule enforcement, working to ensure that discussions remain constructive and in line with the vision and purpose of the CCAM forums. Publicly debating or criticizing moderator actions within the thread is not allowed. If you have concerns, contact the moderation team privately.

Did the moderator make up rules, weaponize them, or misuse them or make it appear they were violated---or did you violate them?

Disagreeing and providing alternate views is not mockery. Here would be an example of mockery:

No it's not. Certain CT'ers have presented dispensationalism as "heresy" amongst other demeaning remarks on other threads.

 

[EarlyActs]

It includes the Jews now and did so from the beginning. All the apostles were Jews.

Name one contemporary theologian that believes God deserted Israel. You are imposing your dispensational framework onto Covenant teaching. You see it as God deserting Israel. Covenant theology does not.

Aberrant? Are you sure you know the meaning of that word?
Since I think I know what you meant, I will ask this question: Who is it but a dispensationalist who can't seem to follow the rules 2.1 and 2.2?

Disagreeing and providing alternate views is not mockery. Here would be an example of mockery:

It does seem like once we have worked out a connection between Bab-El's curse and Pentecost's blessing, we pretty much have the this-world structure of the Bible. Then if someone wants to elaborate on things behind-the-scenes of this-world, that's up to them.

I recently listened to Heiser detail what I had thought about the two events, but didn't realize the 70 nations were as forefront, nor that they matched the number of proto-missionaries for that reason, Mt 10.

 

[Arial]

I agree...but they don't. Did you not realize that? They think the 3rd temple will establish their means to enter into heaven.

That slides right by my point. It wasn't about what modern Jews think today. It was directly related to your statement

After the rapture and the tribulation begins the means of salvation will still be "John 3:16". This includes the Jews.

God deserted Israel in the past. Ichabod. ‘The glory has departed from Israel!’

Is Ichabod a contemporary Covenant theologian?

Yes, I used that word on purpose. It's part of the definition when I see when how some of the CT'ers here present their displeasure toward anything concerning Dispensationalism.

What would be aberrant (abnormal) behavior would be if they didn't.

No it's not. Certain CT'ers have presented dispensationalism as "heresy" amongst other demeaning remarks on other threads.

So what? That is probably how they see it and discussions have controversies. If someone directly called you a heretic it would violate the rules and should have been reported. In any case it is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Carbon]

Of course it does. Nothing I say ...according to you...seems to be on your point.

Curious bro, do you expect her to agree with you on these points? She agrees with Covenant theology, and you're a dispensationalist. Isn't that normal to disagree?
I wouldn't expect different.

 

[CrowCross]

Did the moderator make up rules, weaponize them, or misuse them or make it appear they were violated---or did you violate them?

EDIT BY ADMIN>

 

[TMSO]

A comparison.


God's plan of salvation.

1. Covenant Theology believes that God has a plan of salvation for His people during the outworking of His one plan since the fall of Adam. That plan of salvation is a plan of grace, in that each covenant is an outworking of the everlasting covenant of grace. The content of faith of both testaments has been the Lord Jesus Christ, though obviously, the New Testament era has a deeper concept and understanding of its content of faith concerning Christ.

Such passages as John 5:39, where Christ commanded the Jews to search the Old Testament scriptures because they testify of Him, and John 5:46, where Christ said Moses and the prophets wrote of His, and Luke 24:27, where Christ began at Moses and the prophets and expounded the scriptures of things concerning Himself, convince the covenent theologian that the Old Testamant does have in its content the revelation of Christ, and therefore faith had for its content the person of Christ also.

Okay, this may be a little long. BTW, I passed logic crying in the corner, you wouldn't have anything to do with that, would you? (Take it in the humor it is offered.) Remember, a text without context is a pretext. You have a lot of presupposition here. You force your belief onto scripture, and, not your fault, this is terrible exegesis.

First, please, please, please, handle scripture properly. Read John 5:39 before telling us what it doesn't say.
"39 [q]You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me; "
From this, there is obviously, and it is blatant, a lot of context that is missing. In fact, the context is the whole entire chapter. Jesus is not commanding anyone to do anything. He just performed a miracle... on the Sabbath, which totally miffs the religious leaders. Why? Jesus broke the law... GASP!! Jesus broke the Mosaic Law?!?!? Nope. Even the religious leaders knew He didn't. However.... GASP He broke the... the... Mishna Law. (OH NO!!!) 4 alarm fire here. He dared to break some made up rabbinical law... while the religious leaders were watching. (GASP!!!) [I'm sorry, I always pictured what it would look like in person. I mean, the religious leaders were a bunch of drama queens.]

He then expounds on truth, and later speaks of those people and things that testify to who He is. John the Baptist (obviously), the Father (blatantly so, in loud voice at Jesus' baptism), Jesus works that He did of the Father, and... the scriptures. Jesus is testifying AGAINST the religious leaders for failing to recognize Jesus from all the testimony given of Him. That's it. None of this reflects back onto the people of the Old Testament. They didn't have John the Baptist, did the? The Father didn't testify of Jesus to the Jews at Mount Sinai, did He? Moses didn't preach the gospel at Mount Sinai, did he? Wouldn't that make Moses complicit in the damnation of Jew? I mean, He KNEW, according to your argument, yet did not tell them. I would throw in, refused to tell them, but then you would call me a drama queen. Jesus was speaking to that generation. He was standing before them, performing miracles that only the Messiah can do, and that is recorded in the Old Testament and the rabbinical teachings, yet they refused to recognize Him, or simply failed to. That is what this is about. Again, it does not say anything as to what the people in the Old Testament knew. That is forced into the text solely for the sake of one's belief.

Thus, to deny the faith of the Old Testament saints was faith in the Messiah is to make them completely ignorant of the interpretation of the Old Testament revelation which they had received. Thus, covenant theology holds to one plan of salvation for God's one people as He works out His one plan throughout history since the fall.

So are you saying that Abraham is damned, since he lived before Moses and the prophets? That is so harsh. There is nothing in scripture that says the content of the faith had to be Christ. Once He was revealed, that obviously changes. I mean, somehow covenant theologians miss this, even though they have the perfect case study in... Abraham. Consider this. Abraham did not have ANY testimony to Jesus. He couldn't read Moses, or any of the prophets. Abraham had no Messianic content for his faith, yet the salvation of every Gentile who is to be saved, rests solely in Abraham's faith. So, if the content of the faith had to be the Messiah, of which Israel did not even exist yet for there to be a Messiah of Israel, then we should all be damned. Yet... we aren't. Why? Not because Abraham had faith in the Messiah of a nation that wasn't even a gleam in his eye yet. I mean, he didn't even hear about Jesus until AFTER he presented faith. And even then, it was in passing. The content of Abraham's faith is given in the Old Testament. It was his unwavering faith in God's faithfulness. That is God's inability to break His promise. Though better worded, it was Abraham's belief that if God said He would do something, it doesn't matter the circumstance, it is going to happen. God promised Abraham a nation in covenant, through a son Abraham should have never had in the first place (due to age). Abraham learned and came to fully believe that God will do exactly what he said no matter what. Why can't covenant theologians have that kind of faith? Instead of saying, there is no way that is going to happen even though God said it, why not say, it is going to happen exactly that way, because God said so? Why is it so hard? Abraham didn't change anything when God said it.

Consider this. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham's reaction was not wondering if Sarah would be able to have another child for God to fulfill his promise. It was... God said he would give me a nation through Isaac, so I know, and believe that no matter what, I'm getting a nation through Isaac. I wonder what it will be like seeing God raise Isaac from the dead. I mean, there was not even a shadow of a doubt in Abraham's mind that God would raise Isaac from the dead. God had to. I mean, a dead Isaac is useless to God and Abraham, given God's promise. So he never doubted that God would fulfill His promise, no matter what. THAT is the faith that God credited to Abraham as righteousness, and that is the faith that guaranteed salvation to the Gentiles.

So you understand. I not only believe, but I know God will do what He said, so if I ever reach a point where it appears God will not, I immediately know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am wrong. It's as simple as that. I didn't read something right. I missed the context. I am missing information. It doesn't matter. I automatically know I am wrong if there is any semblance of God not doing what He said He will do, how/as He said He would do it. You should realize that when there is nothing to exegete in the Old Testament, to where you are getting it from the New Testament, that you are already in the wrong. Why? Just as faith is a big deal when God says something, it is also a big deal when God doesn't say something. You have to have the faith that the reason why there is nothing in the Old Testament is because it isn't required. God would not leave anything out. That is another take on faith. The belief, the knowledge, the understanding that God has given us everything we need. Abraham is our case study. His faith, the faith that saved him, was the faith He had in God, and God's faithfulness.

Besides, aren't we saved by grace?

2. Dispensationalism has been in some controversy over the years as to whether it believes in one plan of salvation or two. All modern Dispensationalists would argue for one plan of salvation (salvation by faith), yet some, like Charles Ryrie, have argued for a salvation by faith, yet meaning by such a statement a salvation by faith in God, without any content of Christ.

There is but one plan of salvation. Grace by faith. However, what differs is the content of the faith. Remember, we aren't saved by some magic formula. We offended God. We did not tell God that here is how you will save us. It is grace that saves us, through faith. Do we tell God what faith that is, or is it God who decides? Abraham's case study should tell you that it is God, not the covenant theologian. Abraham didn't go to heaven when he died, did he? Why not? I mean, anyone saved by Christ goes to heaven, right? And that is because their faith is in Christ, right? So, if the content of Abraham's faith was Christ, and Christ's death had eternal ramifications, and was not simply a point in time, why didn't Abraham go to heaven? Why did the Jews know Abraham didn't go to heaven? Why did Jesus share a true story that showed Abraham wasn't in heaven? God credited Abraham's faith in Him and His faithfulness, and He credited the faith of all the saints of the Old Testament, as righteousness. That was cashed in with Jesus death, and they all got to go to heaven with Him. (He led captive a host of captives.)

The controversy over whether dispensationalism has held to two plans of salvation or one may well go back to statements made by early dispensationalists. The first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible stated:
As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ.

If you want to go by technicalities, I can't fault the above. The Old Testament saints didn't go to heaven until Christ's death/resurrection. However, they went to heaven, because there is only one plan of salvation. If they went to heaven before Jesus died, then we would have questions. Some major questions.

Lewis Sperry Chafer appears to have made some very unguarded and unexplained statements on the subject of salvation, or he truly believed in two plans of salvation. He wrote as follows: With the call of Abrahah and the giving of the Law and all that has followed, there are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen, might come into the favor of God.

What does "coming into the favor of God" have to do with salvation? I would most certainly like to see the context, and not this pretext you created. Abraham came into God's favor (so to speak), and God credited his faith as righteousness. That brought about his "salvation" (his trip to heaven) at Christ's death, because it is, ultimately, Christ's death that is our salvation. Be careful of slander, please.

Under grace, the fruit of the Spirit is, which indicates the present possession of the blessings through pure grace; while under the kingdom, the blessing shall be to such as merit it by their own works.

In this age, God is dealing with men on the ground of His grace as it is in Christ. His dealings with men in the coming age are based on a very different relationship. At that time, the King will rule with a rod of iron. There is no word of the cross or of grace in the kingdom teachings.

Any view of two plans of salvation, however, would be strongly denied by modern dispensationalists. They, too, would argue for one plan of salvation, but note the modification above in the view of some, such as C.C. Ryrie.

It isn't that there is one plan of salvation. There is only one way of salvation, one way to God, through Christ's death and resurrection. Jesus released all the Old Testament saints to heaven at His death/resurrection. The thief on the cross got to see Abraham and all the rest before they all headed up. Again, the content of the faith that brought grace is the only thing that was different. The grace never changed. And it is upon God whom He decides to give grace.

 

[TMSO]

The rod of iron
I have always found this to be the D'ist system at its worst. You'd have to go against the grace of the Gospel, for one thing. If you go literalist, you have this ugly piece of equipment as the emblem of the kingdom.

As metaphors go, it communicates something that is strong and unchallenged. When I realized that the resurrection was the enthronement event of Christ, and that it was not that his kingdom was news to look for but rather that it was imperative (that all mankind should honor the Son), I pretty much found that I had a 'rod of iron.'

It wasn't His enthronement. Except, give me a second. I need to word this properly. Except if Jesus got to heaven and kicked the Father over the throne and He took it for Himself. It's the perfect coup. I'm not sure why I didn't see that before. Except... it says here that He is sitting at the right hand of... wait a minute. That isn't the king's throne, or even a king's throne. A place of power, sure. But it isn't the throne. Also, at this time, Jesus' purpose in heaven is to act as High Priest, mediating for believers.

And apparently you don't understand how literal works for the D'ist. The question to ask is, is it normal-literal, or figurative-literal. It is obviously not a literal iron rod, so it isn't normal-literal, but figurative-literal.

If you want to seen Jesus' enthronment, you have to go back to Daniel 2. His messianic kingdom, where He is the king and has the throne, is that which brings an end to the times of the Gentiles. The stone that strikes the symbol of the times of the Gentiles, Nebuchadnezzar's statue, and so destroys is that it is not even remembered. And what does God say about this kingdom? When does this kingdom come in? You know those 10 toes? Those are 10 kings ruling at the same time, who are Gentiles (times of the Gentiles and all), and who do not get along. They are also spoke of as the ten horns of the beast of Daniel's other vision which is a retelling of this vision from a divine point of view. (The times of the Gentiles from the divine point of view is... beastly.) What God says is that the kingdom is setup during the times of these kings. Which kings? The ten toes, the ten kings which is the last vestige of the times of the Gentiles. When will this be? We don't know. Consider the first two parts. The iron is Rome. What about the two legs of iron and clay. Ah, that is the division of Rome into East and west that didn't happen until the 4th or 5th century. If you go to the vision of the beasts, you find out a lot more about this final part of the times of the Gentiles. First, it devours the whole world. Rome never did that, so Rome is not the focus of the final part of the statue. What did devour the world? Imperialism, of which colonialism was a form. And devour the whole world it did. An author I was reading says that there comes a unified one world government, out of which comes the 10 kingdoms/regions with 10 kings/rulers. So... best guess is we still have a little ways to go before the Great Tribulation begins, because we haven't even gotten to the one world government yet. The horn that comes up and takes out three horns (the eighth horn, not the eleventh....) is the antichrist. So we haven't even gotten to the antichrist yet, according to Daniel's prophecy.

The Messianic kingdom is yet to come, and it will bring an end to the times of the Gentiles.

 

[TMSO]

The Birth of the Church.

A. Covenant theology holds that the church existed prior to the New Testament era, even back to the Old Testament period, and included all the redeemed people of God since the fall of Adam. Certainly, this view would agree, there are two testaments, but not two peoples of God. There are two different sets of ordinances for the two testaments for the local manifestation of the body of Christ, but there is still only one body. What took place on the day of Pentecost was not the birth of the Church as the body of Christ, but the empowerment of the New Testament manifestation of the body of Christ.

THis is also poor exegesis. Jesus Himself told Simon, when He changed his name to Peter, upon this rock I will build My church. Wait a minute. If the church already exists, why is Jesus saying it isn't here yet, He still needs to build it? The church started at Pentecost. Peter took those keys that Jesus gave to him, and him alone, and opened to door of the church to the Jews. A door that would never be closed. Next, he went and spoke to Cornelius and the Gentiles, and again, he used those keys to open the door of the church to the Gentiles, a door that would not be closed. The Philip and others went to the Samaritans, and the Samaritans believed, and... they waited for Peter to bring the keys to open the doors of the church to the Samaritans, a door that would not be closed. The sign that they entered the church? The Holy Spirit. Philip and company were with the Samaritans, who did not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter came. So Peter is the one who Jesus entrusted the keys to. The keys are not for the church, no matter what the Catholic church says.

As to the power given to bind and release, that too was solely to the apostles. The church has the right to discipline, but only the apostles had this power. Paul showed the power in the most blatant way, when he pronounced a death sentence on Ananias and Sapphira, and heaven carried it out. That is the power Jesus gave to the apostles, which only belonged to the apostles, no matter what the catholics and charismatics say.

If you take God at HIs word, as Abraham did, there are two distinct groups, Israel and the church. Israel has the Abrahamic covenant, the church does not. Israel WILL experience the physical and spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant while the church will only experience the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. An argument has been made that because Paul says there is neither Jew nor Greek in the church, that means there is no longer Jew or Greek as separate before God, but one. So, I guess that means that transgender people are right, since there are no longer men and women either. This is one way to test using logic. If you take it to its logical conclusion, you will see that the conclusion is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention unsound.

Gentiles and Jews are distinct, and will be all the way through the end. After the Messianic Kingdom, all will be one in the eternal existence that follows. You see, God made a promise to Abraham, and God always makes promises to the living, not the dead. Abraham will live to see the promise fulfilled. However, Covenant theology says, nope. God will not fulfill His promise. Do the right thing. Live the faith of Abraham who believed God would fulfill His promises no matter what. What did Abraham do that caused God to decide to break His promise?

Israel WILL possess all the land God PROMISED to Abraham. He didn't make the promise to Israel, He made the promise to Abraham. That will be the Messianic Kingdom. It is everlasting, however, given the original language, it will be an age. The english does not convey the proper understanding of the original language. Israel will also be saved, and the Gentiles as well, which is another promise made to Abraham. If God's promises to Abraham fail, then all Gentiles are damned. It's as simple as that. God promised that, because of Abraham's faith, in connection to the covenant, by his seed [Christ], all the nations of the world shall be blessed.

B. Dispensationalism believes that the Church was born on the day of Pentecost, and that it did not exist before that point of time in history. The body of Christ is strictly New Testament and not to be found in the Old Testament. The Old Testament saints do not make up or are part of the body of Christ.

P:aul did say that the church was a mystery completely unknown in the Old Testament. The body of Christ is strictly in the New Testament, and is not to be found in the Old Testament. Remember, "Upon this rock, I will build my church." The Old Testament Saints do not make up the body of Christ, because the body of Christ is said to be the church. That does not mean their salvation was not by Christ's death, because we know it was. They never entered the church. Peter had the keys. One must step carefully, for the land mines are nuclear. The least that can be said about the Old Testament Saints is that they have their inheritance in the Abrahamic covenant. Anything else, we may not find an answer for, but what does that have to do with salvation? Do we need to know? If we don't need to know, then God doesn't need to tell us, and quite possibly... didn't. We know they went to heaven, however, we may not know all the extenuating circumstances.