Old Versus New

[Josheb]

One of the biggest current divides found in Christian discussion boards is that which exists among Protestants between the older Reformed views and the newer Dispensationalist views. I wonder how many of us understand the fundamental implication of this divide is that the older views coming out of the Protestant Reformation's effort to correct errors and abuses in theology existing at that time are all wrong and need to be replaced with a newer, and therefore much better theology that in many ways conflicts with, or contradicts what has long been held as orthodox thought, doctrine and practice in Christian theology. One last point relevant to the above: Dispensationalism also arose from a belief there were problems in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice but not at the expense of proving the Reformed theologies incorrect. Many, if not most, of the Reformation views persisted - at least in a superficial not to their validity. Most Dispensationalists still claim to agree salvation is by grace through faith and hold to a Reformed view of salvation.

For example, throughout the entirety of Christianity the covenant has been the primary, orthodox, and pre-eminent means of parsing scripture (and that condition preceded Covenant Theology more than a millennia before CT ever existed), but with the rise of Dispensationalism a new, man-made, means of parsing scripture has been invented and the covenant has been relegated to a lesser status (sometimes irrelevant). The older is, at a minimum, subordinated to something newer.

Another example stems from the first. In Dispensationalism the Bible is held to be discontinuous, whereas in all of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice prior to the 1800s the overwhelmingly prevailing orthodox view was the exact opposite: the Bible is continuous, not discontinuous. Here again, as is the case with the division between covenant and dispensation, there exists a radical departure from 18-20 centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice in favor of something new, and something largely man-made.

A third example is the dramatic shift in which doctrines are most important. For the last 18-20 centuries Christology and soteriology have been the preeminent doctrines; the ones considered primary to the faith and to which all others are secondary. With the rise of Dispensationalism the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology have been elevated above Christology and soteriology and the ecclesiology and eschatology of the Dispensationalism - Dispensational Premillennialism - is radically different from everything previously held true in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. These differences are so substantive that the two are irreconcilable with one another.​

Those are only three examples. I could list a few more. Those are categories of differences. Were I to cite specific examples many more could be cited. This op is NOT intended to discuss specifics, although the discussion of differences between the two theologies is likelt to entail more specific examples the above is intended to justify the op. There are clear differences between the two theologies, those differences are irreconcilable, and the Dispensational differences are entirely new to Christianity (less than 200 years old).



For the sake of this conversation, the point attempting to be made has less to do specifically with Reformed Theologies and Dispensational Theologies and more to do with this notion something old is inherently incorrect or of lesser validity because it is older and something newer is of inherently correct and is of greater validity because it is newer. Logically, we all (presumably) know and understand) age has nothing to do with the validity and veracity of any theology, but practically speaking the observations made above are important because the two sets of theology are irreconcilable with one another. They cannot both be true at the same time, and I wonder how many members of this forum recognize these very fundamental, foundational distinctions between the two theologies.
.

 

[Arial]

For the sake of this conversation, the point attempting to be made has less to do specifically with Reformed Theologies and Dispensational Theologies and more to do with this notion something old is inherently incorrect or of lesser validity because it is older and something newer is of inherently correct and is of greater validity because it is newer. Logically, we all (presumably) know and understand) age has nothing to do with the validity and veracity of any theology, but practically speaking the observations made above are important because the two sets of theology are irreconcilable with one another. They cannot both be true at the same time, and I wonder how many members of this forum recognize these very fundamental, foundational distinctions between the two theologies.

I will begin by saying that I am just this morning for the first time seeing this OP. If an OP does not get immediate response it is quickly lost to viewers who go only by searching recent or newest post or alerts. I fall into that category. As a result many valuable and interesting OP's sit idle in an archived position. Add to that, that it seems apparent that a great many people come to forums with no intent of learning, are not interested in detail, have no patience with it (another new vs old that greatly affects all the ingredients in theology and doctrine,) and want only to espouse there unsupported, often unsupportable, opinions or use them to start arguments and conflict. Now that, that is out of my system:

The two theologies, covenant and dispensational, are incompatible. And no, I do not think it is a common thing for even their existence, let alone what they are. Or care that they are.

I agreed completely with the dispensational view of Revelation for a long time, because I never even heard of another view, and without ever knowing it was a dispensational view. The pre-trib rapture view, the seven year tribulation, and not understanding all that was in it concerning Israel. That is the trap, and one seemingly difficult to escape from.

Even after I moved into the reformed camp, it was a while before I was introduced to covenant theology, and as a consequence, other views or interpretations of Rev. And ultimately, the entire Bible, the continuity of it, and was able to see clearly the division that was being made in dispensationalism. I began to study both sides.

That is when I discovered the first was old, the second new. And the reason often given in support of the new, is that we know more today than they did then. We can imagine more as to the meaning of the visions than John possible could or any could for centuries afterward. I.e. John was describing black helicopters and he could only relate them them as looking like grasshoppers. The old interpreters of the visions could not imagine a mark being given to all people being given in order to buy and sell. Now we can. Etc. etc.

That completely disconnects the book of Rev from serving any purpose except for "last days" people. In covenant theology, as you say was in existence long before it became a "thing" the Bible all the way through from the first word to the last, is integrated and consistent, no division of one thing for these people, and another for those over there. A different salvation for one nation and in a different time, and another for the rest of believers, in a different way and in a different time. IOW the "new" divides Christ. Never a good thing.

 

[Josheb]

The old interpreters of the visions could not imagine a mark being given to all people being given in order to buy and sell.

Which is why all such interpretations should be discarded except as post-fulfillment allegory.

The Idealist, for example, reads Revelation to be non-predictive. It describes patterns, patterns that reoccur throughout human history so we (Christians - whether subscribers of Idealism or not) can expect similar circumstances to come and go until God brings human history to a close. That view is compatible with other views of Revelation. I, for example, as a partial-preterist do read Revelation to be predictive AND predictive of events that did happen at the time and soon after the time when Revelation was written. That does not preclude me from understanding the same sort of conditions (not the same exact conditions) existed before Revelation was written and have continued to occur throughout human history after the specific predictions of Revelation came true. It is because prophecy was fulfilled that God is trusted. Having kept His word, He has monergistically proven all His claims about Himself, BUT it also means there is a basis for trusting Him in all similar circumstances that come thereafter.

This is a completely different view than any eschatology holding most or none of Revelation has transpired. For example, those holding to the point of view the first part of Revelation, the letters to the seven churches, was written about events that would transpire in 70 AD must therefore be early daters, and be consistent with that view. I won't mention any names so as not to digress from the op, but there are two very well-known Christian leaders of the Premillennial Dispensationalist persuasion who contradictorily hold to the pre-70AD seven churches but a late-date. Ironically, as far as that particularly set of views goes, it is the no-fulfillment-yet late-date set that has the greater integrity. The problem with that latter group, however, is they are in a constant state of prognostication, anticipation, and disappointment because nothing the interpret ever comes true. They are gradually letting go of their version of "imminence." They are the ones constantly asserting views..... the original readers could not imagine, and doing so at the expense of a plain reading of the text (which is something they claim their hermeneutic requires).

That completely disconnects the book of Rev from serving any purpose except for "last days" people.

I completely disagree for the reasons just posted. The preterist (to whatever degree small or large) does not "disconnect" the book from any era. He simply holds that because it was relevant in very real ways exactly was written (when understood using the whole of scripture) it continues to have relevance for all history. Just because an event happened doesn't mean it will not happen again. Just because an event happened exactly as described does not mean a similar-but-not-exactly-the-same event will not occur. Just because lessons to be learned long ago occurred does not mean those lessons are not applicable to day. It is a gross misrepresentation of preterism to say otherwise.


And what that means is critics of others' views do not do a very good job. I read six commentaries on Revelation last year (including the one you reviewed in one of your ops. None of them did a very good job of presenting those views they did not hold and some of them (like the two Dispensationalist tomes I read) did an outright horrible job - so bad they misled the reader.

Personally, I find that consistent with Dispensationalist practice. They literally invent stuff all the time. There's not a single place in the Bible where a specific "dispensation" is ever labeled by scripture. I have also literally read scores of books on Dispensationalism by leading Dispensationalists and have yet to find a single one of them acknowledging the term is not used in scripture the way the use it. Instead, the commonly used defenses are an appeal to the ECFs and/or an appeal to proof-texted verses like Ephesians 3:2. The problem with those views is that when the ECFs used the word "dispensation" they did so in the context of the covenant(s) and not as Premillennial Dispensationalist use the word. An appeal to historicity is made but the appeal is disingenuous because they'd changed the meaning and use of the word. The proof-texting appeals to Paul likewise fall apart because Paul never define a single dispensation's beginning or end. The word "dispensation" is not a term most modern translations use so early Dispensationalist were ardent KJVOists.

The entire paradigm is completely man-made and quite literally an invention of the 19th century.

It is wholly irreconcilable with Reformed theology. When the logical necessities of Dispensationalism's teachings are followed they lead to an entirely different Christology (Jesus is not yet king), a completely different soteriology (two methods of salvation, not one) a different ecclesiology (the Church is corrupt and will become impotent and in need of rescue), and, of course, a completely different eschatology (one that is so significantly different than the Historic Premillennial view that the Historicists changed the name of their view to openly and deliberately distance themselves from the Dispensationalist.





I will reiterate something that is important: Just because something is new does not mean it is incorrect. Dispensationalism is not wrong because it is new. It is wrong because it does not reconcile well with whole scripture. It departs from centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice (much of which long preceded Reformed theology) but that, in and of itself does not mean Dispensationalism is wrong if that criticism is a fallacious appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populum). It does, however, mean Dispensationalism is wrong on every occasion where it parts ways with the scripturally established view long held by the Church. That is what happens. It's a completely different theology built on a completely different hermeneutic.

 

[Arial]

I completely disagree for the reasons just posted. The preterist (to whatever degree small or large) does not "disconnect" the book from any era.

I was only referring to the pre-trib, pre-mill dispensationalist view in what I said, not all views.

The Idealist, for example, reads Revelation to be non-predictive. It describes patterns, patterns that reoccur throughout human history so we (Christians - whether subscribers of Idealism or not) can expect similar circumstances to come and go until God brings human history to a close. That view is compatible with other views of Revelation. I, for example, as a partial-preterist do read Revelation to be predictive AND predictive of events that did happen at the time and soon after the time when Revelation was written. That does not preclude me from understanding the same sort of conditions (not the same exact conditions) existed before Revelation was written and have continued to occur throughout human history after the specific predictions of Revelation came true.

I don't know that the Idealist reads Rev as non-predictive, but I concede that I do not know exactly how you are using that word in this context. I probably lean most in the Idealist direction, but I do not dismiss all of all other views. There are no doubt elements of truth, however small, in all views, but some, more than others, go so far outside what we are actually given in Scripture, the whole counsel of God, and coventally, as to lose sight of any good they may contain. I would say this of the full preterist and if there is any truth in the pre-trib, premil dispensationalist view, it completely doesn't matter. Whatever truth there is can be found elsewhere.

Truthfully, I have not come to a conclusion on everything in any of the views, and I don't suppose I ever will this side of the grave or His return, if then. Mostly what I believe about it is the basics put into my own words and cannot be attributed really, to holding to a view other than in general. So I see Rev as predictive, in that it is not only showing the past, the present, but also the future as to end result. All of which have already been given in one form or another in the rest of the Bible. I think there are two ages, not dispensations. This age and the age to come. The world as it is, and the world as it will be. Within those two ages are two main covenants---old and new--- the new within the old but not yet realized in the old, awaiting and moving towards the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension of Christ. The thousand years of Rev are between the two comings of Christ, and the visions and judgements of Rev are not chronological but parallel from different perspectives, and are going on now, have been, and will be until He returns. As far as I am concerned we have seen that in history and are seeing it even now. As such, I agree with what you have said above. (As near as I can tell.)

Personally, I find that consistent with Dispensationalist practice. They literally invent stuff all the time. There's not a single place in the Bible where a specific "dispensation" is ever labeled by scripture. I have also literally read scores of books on Dispensationalism by leading Dispensationalists and have yet to find a single one of them acknowledging the term is not used in scripture the way the use it. Instead, the commonly used defenses are an appeal to the ECFs and/or an appeal to proof-texted verses like Ephesians 3:2. The problem with those views is that when the ECFs used the word "dispensation" they did so in the context of the covenant(s) and not as Premillennial Dispensationalist use the word. An appeal to historicity is made but the appeal is disingenuous because they'd changed the meaning and use of the word. The proof-texting appeals to Paul likewise fall apart because Paul never define a single dispensation's beginning or end. The word "dispensation" is not a term most modern translations use so early Dispensationalist were ardent KJVOists.

Agree.

It is wholly irreconcilable with Reformed theology. When the logical necessities of Dispensationalism's teachings are followed they lead to an entirely different Christology (Jesus is not yet king), a completely different soteriology (two methods of salvation, not one) a different ecclesiology (the Church is corrupt and will become impotent and in need of rescue), and, of course, a completely different eschatology (one that is so significantly different than the Historic Premillennial view that the Historicists changed the name of their view to openly and deliberately distance themselves from the Dispensationalist.

Agree. They might as well have two different Bibles. One for the Jew the OT, and then they jump from the Gospels to Rev and find out when and how they get saved. And another for the Gentile, where they make the dispensationalist takes all hope in the promises away from the Gentile, as they discover it wasn't for them but for national Israel and later, after Israel is finally done sacrificing bulls and rams,---again--- then and only then do non-Jewish believers get theirs. Kind of like the Messianic Jew of today, or the non Messianic Jew today, still waiting for their Messiah. Israel and the church become two separate entities---same Savior, two different salvations. But you can't ever show them this or get them to see it. They are counting on not having to face what they see as the tribulation, not knowing that they are in it now. The very thing the book of Rev was revealing to its recipippiants and to us, not to instill fear and dread, but to comfort, encourage, and strengthen to stand firm.

I will reiterate something that is important: Just because something is new does not mean it is incorrect. Dispensationalism is not wrong because it is new. It is wrong because it does not reconcile well with whole scripture. It departs from centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice (much of which long preceded Reformed theology) but that, in and of itself does not mean Dispensationalism is wrong if that criticism is a fallacious appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populum). It does, however, mean Dispensationalism is wrong on every occasion where it parts ways with the scripturally established view long held by the Church. That is what happens. It's a completely different theology built on a completely different hermeneutic.

Amen.

 

[Josheb]

I was only referring to the pre-trib, pre-mill dispensationalist view in what I said, not all views.


I don't know that the Idealist reads Rev as non-predictive, but I concede that I do not know exactly how you are using that word in this context. I probably lean most in the Idealist direction, but I do not dismiss all of all other views. There are no doubt elements of truth, however small, in all views, but some, more than others, go so far outside what we are actually given in Scripture, the whole counsel of God, and coventally, as to lose sight of any good they may contain. I would say this of the full preterist and if there is any truth in the pre-trib, premil dispensationalist view, it completely doesn't matter. Whatever truth there is can be found elsewhere.

Truthfully, I have not come to a conclusion on everything in any of the views..........................

If it hasn't already been read, when you have the time and inclination give Kim Riddlebarger's book, "A Case for Amillennialism," a read. It's not specifically relevant to this op but you might find it an interesting contrast to Poythress. I think you'll also enjoy Michael Williams' "As Far as the Curse is Found." It's similar to Poythress's view. It's a slow read at first and most of it you probably already know but by the time he gets to chapter 12 he ties things together in a manner I found very impressive. My pastor recommended it, and it was well worth the read. Neither spends much time on Dispensationalism. They're just two Reformed thinkers applying scripture eschatologically.

The very thing the book of Rev was revealing to its recipippiants and to us, not to instill fear and dread, but to comfort, encourage, and strengthen to stand firm.

Amen.

I'd add "overcoming" and "victory," but otherwise, I completely agree. As someone with postmil sensibilities I endeavor to be victorious over whatever God sends my way every morning when I step out my front door. My world is very small in comparison to the entire planet, but I'm not called to overcome the entire planet. Just the small portion in which God has placed me.

And..... getting back to the op..... I do so within a covenant relationship with God through His resurrected Son who is NOW ascendant and enthroned for all eternity and there is not a sliver of space or time where that is not true. Outside of my disdain for Dispensationalism I have compassion (and a little pity) for those ever-waiting and never realizing his kingdom NOW on earth and in heaven. You and I have a covenant. You and I do not have a man-made dispensation (despite protests to the contrary). In His covenant in which we share, there is NOW no more condemnation, and we are royal priests chosen by God to be members of His holy nation. Of course, any Trinitarian must also acknowledge Jesus is/has been/and always will be King of all kings because there is no rational way God can not be king.



Gotta go, but I might take up another point or two in Post 4 when I return.

 

[Arial]

If it hasn't already been read, when you have the time and inclination give Kim Riddlebarger's book, "A Case for Amillennialism," a read. It's not specifically relevant to this op but you might find it an interesting contrast to Poythress. I think you'll also enjoy Michael Williams' "As Far as the Curse is Found." It's similar to Poythress's view. It's a slow read at first and most of it you probably already know but by the time he gets to chapter 12 he ties things together in a manner I found very impressive. My pastor recommended it, and it was well worth the read. Neither spends much time on Dispensationalism. They're just two Reformed thinkers applying scripture eschatologically.

I'd add "overcoming" and "victory," but otherwise, I completely agree. As someone with postmil sensibilities I endeavor to be victorious over whatever God sends my way every morning when I step out my front door. My world is very small in comparison to the entire planet, but I'm not called to overcome the entire planet. Just the small portion in which God has placed me.

And..... getting back to the op..... I do so within a covenant relationship with God through His resurrected Son who is NOW ascendant and enthroned for all eternity and there is not a sliver of space or time where that is not true. Outside of my disdain for Dispensationalism I have compassion (and a little pity) for those ever-waiting and never realizing his kingdom NOW on earth and in heaven. You and I have a covenant. You and I do not have a man-made dispensation (despite protests to the contrary). In His covenant in which we share, there is NOW no more condemnation, and we are royal priests chosen by God to be members of His holy nation. Of course, any Trinitarian must also acknowledge Jesus is/has been/and always will be King of all kings because there is no rational way God can not be king.



Gotta go, but I might take up another point or two in Post 4 when I return.

Yes, and not realizing that His kingdom is now, one is apt to recognize that we, all His people are soldiers in His army, each with our designated by God position and duties. He is gathering His lambs, and those already gathered have the honor and privilege of being His voice, our prayers going up like incense---the gospel calling. It is astonishing really. And perfect. How it humiliates and shames the powers and principalities He conquered!

How many today might crumble to find themselves in the position of the martyrs (and it could happen again) as some have been in history. In and of myself I do not feel I could, but I know I would, because my God is able to make me stand. And as you said before, it is that covenant relationship, that makes us able to depend on every promise God has made to His covenant people. His mercy endures forever. His love endures forever. And our great hope that makes the sufferings of this life as nothing in comparison. That has us standing on solid ground, on the Rock, even when God's mercy towards us and love towards us, does not look or feel like mercy or love in our situation. Even if we die, we live!

 

[Arial]

If it hasn't already been read, when you have the time and inclination give Kim Riddlebarger's book, "A Case for Amillennialism," a read. It's not specifically relevant to this op but you might find it an interesting contrast to Poythress. I think you'll also enjoy Michael Williams' "As Far as the Curse is Found."

I will take a look at them. Thanks.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, and not realizing that His kingdom is now, one is apt to recognize that we, all His people are soldiers in His army, each with our designated by God position and duties. He is gathering His lambs, and those already gathered have the honor and privilege of being His voice, our prayers going up like incense---the gospel calling. It is astonishing really. And perfect. How it humiliates and shames the powers and principalities He conquered!

I'd amend that to say we're called at times to fight, to be warriors what is otherwise an already-won war, and the role of warrior should never be used to define us at the expense of our other roles (such as king, priest, lover). I'd also want to make sure the uniformity and continuity of whole scripture is maintained because Dispensationalism is largely discontinuous and hold there are two completely separate peoples with two completely separate purposes (and therefore the role of warrior, etc.) might look enormously different. In Dispensationalism the Church is the heavenly-purposed people and Israel is the earthly-purposed people. Our fight is not with flesh and blood..... and the Jews are supposedly heading for Armageddon where a large number of them will die dead.

How many today might crumble to find themselves in the position of the martyrs (and it could happen again) as some have been in history.

Few, I think. Most of us are not called to such an end. The seven congregations in Revelation are called to be overcomers, not martyrs. The martyrs in Revelation appear to be a minority. Of course, Dispensationalists don't think Christians need concern themselves with this because we're not going to be here. The Church will impotent, ineffective, in the face of depravity's onslaught that God supposedly wants for His creation, so He's going to remove us all from the planet to watch the depraved mess ensue (and I never read any commentary on exactly what is is God does with this impotent pile of Christians who failed to realized commands like the cultural mandate and great commission.

In and of myself I do not feel I could, but I know I would, because my God is able to make me stand.

LOL! You fight well enough here in CCAM .

And as you said before, it is that covenant relationship, that makes us able to depend on every promise God has made to His covenant people. His mercy endures forever. His love endures forever. And our great hope that makes the sufferings of this life as nothing in comparison. That has us standing on solid ground, on the Rock, even when God's mercy towards us and love towards us, does not look or feel like mercy or love in our situation. Even if we die, we live!

AND HE IS GOD!

He's not like you or me. He can snap His fingers or blink an eye and all creation instantly ceases to exist. How that reconciles with Dispensationalist ecclesiology escapes me.

 

[Josheb]

I will take a look at them. Thanks.

I have scores of books and articles of eschatology. Anthony Hoekema's book, "The Bible and the Future" used to be my go-to book but Riddlebarger's replaced it. I keep two copies of each (in addition to my Kindle versions) and re-read him to measure the reasoning and exegesis of others. It's shocking how often a writer will say something and then include Bible references in parentheses that are supposed to support the statement, but if they are looked up the verses do NOT state what they have been made to say. Everyone eisegetes but, in comparison, Riddlebarger does very little. I don't agree with everything he writes (he's not preterist enough for me ) but that guy was having a good day when he wrote that book.

 

[Arial]

I'd amend that to say we're called at times to fight, to be warriors what is otherwise an already-won war, and the role of warrior should never be used to define us at the expense of our other roles (such as king, priest, lover).

I fully agree with that and would also make another amendment. I consider that Christians are the armies of God. We carry out the earthly work in our lives, but God is the power and the direction behind it. And I do not mean by that that we are always fighting, though in a sense we are, "tearing down every stronghold, and taking every thought captive to Christ"---and not earthly strongholds as that is often used, but those in ourselves and our families. We are constantly at war with the world, the flesh, and the devil as Paul says.

But there are other battles in which all are called to take up the sword (of the Spirit, which is the word of God) and contend for the faith. (Jude.) If forums are any example, not many are equipped to do so. It takes work! And time! And this not being equipped, and hundreds if not thousands of pastors who are not equipped to equip their congregations, is a massive ingredient in all areas of out with the old, in with the new. The worst is the advent of the altar call and choosing to believe, with often no Christology, sorterology, sound doctrine, and no biblical consistent theology. I wonder how in the world people got saved all those centuries before this new phenomena? (Rhetorical question.)

And there are those who are called to be on the front lines, and God has given many to His church, the number increasing. I do not feel called to that, but I do feel like a warrior. It thrills me the expressions, "Take up arms!" "Stand your ground." "Don't back down!" when it comes to contending for the faith. It was the book of Nehemiah that first stirred that in me---many years ago, and it still does. His prayers for Jerusalem. His cry to God again and again, "Our walls are broken down and our gates are burned with fire!" And I thought, that is what has happened to the church, as the old and trustworthy and solid, from the pens, and hearts of men given by God once before to rebuild the walls and set the gates, is discarded, trampled on even. And the new, feel good, complacent, polluted, ungrounded in theology etc. or doctrine based on who God is, and who Christ is, and what was done and accomplished, utterly complacent, becomes the norm.

So I do what I am able, and I pray. What is interesting about Nehemiah and the rebuilding process is powerful to me.When they met with the mockery of their enemies who mocked God, and were trembling in their boots under threat, there were appointed watchers on the wall, while the rest built, and each with their own family sections of the wall. ANd when the alarm was sounded, they all took up arms and went to fight where the danger was. And in the background so to speak there were those taking care of the home front and supplying the needs at hand, and doing the daily chores. We all have a purpose. We are all necessary.

Few, I think. Most of us are not called to such an end. The seven congregations in Revelation are called to be overcomers, not martyrs. The martyrs in Revelation appear to be a minority.

True. And I do not think I am. Martyrs always have been a minority and they have always served the opposite purpose for which the murderers intended. It is just a thought I had.

Of course, Dispensationalists don't think Christians need concern themselves with this because we're not going to be here. The Church will impotent, ineffective, in the face of depravity's onslaught that God supposedly wants for His creation, so He's going to remove us all from the planet to watch the depraved mess ensue (and I never read any commentary on exactly what is is God does with this impotent pile of Christians who failed to realized commands like the cultural mandate and great commission.

According to one person who I won't name, Jesus is going to express His hatred of them for thinking God made a covenant with them and vent His wrath on them---they are all Gentiles in this scenario of course.

AND HE IS GOD!

He's not like you or me. He can snap His fingers or blink an eye and all creation instantly ceases to exist. How that reconciles with Dispensationalist ecclesiology escapes me.

I thank God every morning for His faithfulness. I remember when I lived near the MIssouri river in Iowa walking back to the house with my Rotties, Sarah and Avi, in the migration path of the Monarch in full flight, thinking if God turned away for less than a blink of an eye, everything in creation would be no more.

 

[makesends]

One of the biggest current divides found in Christian discussion boards is that which exists among Protestants between the older Reformed views and the newer Dispensationalist views. I wonder how many of us understand the fundamental implication of this divide is that the older views coming out of the Protestant Reformation's effort to correct errors and abuses in theology existing at that time are all wrong and need to be replaced with a newer, and therefore much better theology that in many ways conflicts with, or contradicts what has long been held as orthodox thought, doctrine and practice in Christian theology. One last point relevant to the above: Dispensationalism also arose from a belief there were problems in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice but not at the expense of proving the Reformed theologies incorrect. Many, if not most, of the Reformation views persisted - at least in a superficial not to their validity. Most Dispensationalists still claim to agree salvation is by grace through faith and hold to a Reformed view of salvation.

For example, throughout the entirety of Christianity the covenant has been the primary, orthodox, and pre-eminent means of parsing scripture (and that condition preceded Covenant Theology more than a millennia before CT ever existed), but with the rise of Dispensationalism a new, man-made, means of parsing scripture has been invented and the covenant has been relegated to a lesser status (sometimes irrelevant). The older is, at a minimum, subordinated to something newer.​

​

Another example stems from the first. In Dispensationalism the Bible is held to be discontinuous, whereas in all of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice prior to the 1800s the overwhelmingly prevailing orthodox view was the exact opposite: the Bible is continuous, not discontinuous. Here again, as is the case with the division between covenant and dispensation, there exists a radical departure from 18-20 centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice in favor of something new, and something largely man-made.​

​

A third example is the dramatic shift in which doctrines are most important. For the last 18-20 centuries Christology and soteriology have been the preeminent doctrines; the ones considered primary to the faith and to which all others are secondary. With the rise of Dispensationalism the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology have been elevated above Christology and soteriology and the ecclesiology and eschatology of the Dispensationalism - Dispensational Premillennialism - is radically different from everything previously held true in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. These differences are so substantive that the two are irreconcilable with one another.​

Those are only three examples. I could list a few more. Those are categories of differences. Were I to cite specific examples many more could be cited. This op is NOT intended to discuss specifics, although the discussion of differences between the two theologies is likelt to entail more specific examples the above is intended to justify the op. There are clear differences between the two theologies, those differences are irreconcilable, and the Dispensational differences are entirely new to Christianity (less than 200 years old).



For the sake of this conversation, the point attempting to be made has less to do specifically with Reformed Theologies and Dispensational Theologies and more to do with this notion something old is inherently incorrect or of lesser validity because it is older and something newer is of inherently correct and is of greater validity because it is newer. Logically, we all (presumably) know and understand) age has nothing to do with the validity and veracity of any theology, but practically speaking the observations made above are important because the two sets of theology are irreconcilable with one another. They cannot both be true at the same time, and I wonder how many members of this forum recognize these very fundamental, foundational distinctions between the two theologies.
.

Perhaps Off Topic, but do you see McArthur as as simply trying to go with what he sees as Biblical with his dispensational hermeneutic, or as inherently lacking dependability because of his going with this 'new' view?

Neither old nor new is inherently correct/ incorrect, but I definitely suspect 'new'. Lol, ask Gamaliel.

 

[Josheb]

Perhaps Off Topic, but do you see McArthur as as simply trying to go with what he sees as Biblical with his dispensational hermeneutic, or as inherently lacking dependability because of his going with this 'new' view?

Yes. Presumably, he sees the Dispensational hermeneutic as biblical or he would not use it. As a consequence of his using that hermeneutic much of his teaching (and practice) lacks dependability. One of the oddities about Dispensationalist teachers is they may teach certain doctrines well. In my locale the Christian radio is over-populated with Dispensationalists, so I routinely hear a variety of teachings on a variety of subjects. Most of them can and usually do teach salvation well. The same is generally true of a day's broadcast on Christology. Unblessedly, most of them also manage to stick some comment about the rapture into their teachings, at least once a week, whether or not eschatology is the subject of that day's broadcast or not. They cannot not preach imminent rapturism or some other Dispensational imminence. Unblessedly, they also do not see the inconsistency between that day's teaching on salvation or Christ and the logically necessary conclusions of Dispensational Premillennialism (like a salvation by works for Israel, or Jesus not yet being king of the earth). When they overtly apply the DP hermeneutic false, or unreliable, teaching is inevitable. Another practical error, or error in practice, that is specific to John MacArthur, is that the leader of Grace to You's education ministry, Phil Johnson, was an openly vocal critic of Christian's homeschooling. For years they railed against it and it was only with the onset of COVID that any change in their messaging has occurred. Yet Grace Community Church runs a private school. Another example is that last year I read six books that were commentaries on the book of Revelation and MacArthur's was by far the worst of the bunch. It is bad. How can a man with his advanced education, his diverse education, his many years of experience and examining the Bible write such a poor book? How can he not know how bad it is? How can he continue in good conscience to keep it on the market and/or pocket the profits?

However, to be fair, MacArthur is not a very good example of orthodox Dispensational Premillennialism. He's Reformed in many ways. He's a cessationist. He has reportedly retracted the view, but he once held to incarnational sonship Christology (the belief Jesus did not become the Son of God until his incarnation). The area where his Dispensational Premillennialism is most recognizable is on those occasions where he interjects personal opinions pertaining to current events and his belief the rapture is near or will soon occur. I usually use David Jeremiah to make this next point because he does this often, but MacArthur is also guilty of this. Modern DPers have gotten away from "date setting," or the practice of setting a specific date or specific brief time period for the rapture of Christ's return. After the abject failure of scores of DP leaders predicting Christ's return in 1988 and equally failing attempts to "adjust the math," they now hide behind "no one will know the day or hour" as they continue to "timeframe set" instead of "date-set." On every occasion when a Dispensationalist says, "I believe X will happen within my lifetime" they are timeframe setting. That is a pretty vague claim if the preacher is a young person (because the younger they are the more time there is for the prediction to come true), but if the preacher is someone like David Jeremiah (age 83) or John MacArthur (age 85) then there's not much time before that prediction has to either come true or prove them false teachers. If John MacArthur lives to be 100 years old (possible, but unlikely) that means he has implicitly taught every person listening to that day's broadcast Jesus is coming back, or the rapture is going to occur, within the next 15 years.

These guys die and nothing they eschatologically predicted came true. Eschatologically speaking, every single one of them proved to be false and now that they're dead no one says anything about the mistaken teachings, no one ever even attempts to correct the errors or the pattern of practices that led to those errors, or the hermeneutic that begat those errors. There is an abject lack of accountability and reform and (unless he changes) John MacArthur will die with all of that on his ledger.

James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

There is an open disregard for James' admonition in Dispensational Premillennialism! It's a good thing MacArthur is covered by the shed blood of Christ because (if so) there is now no more condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). It's a particularly curious set of circumstances because 1) no other theology creates this problematic condition, 2) the New Testament has a lot to say about false teachers that draws their salvation into question and 3) it is an enormous irony that Dispensationalism places so much emphasis on false teachers in the last days yet they are the single greatest source of false teachers in Christendom today.

Neither old nor new is inherently correct/ incorrect, but I definitely suspect 'new'. Lol, ask Gamaliel.

If I understand that correctly, what was intended was "Neither the Old or New is inherently correct [by themselves]...." If I have that correctly understood then, yes, your statement is correct. If not, then I disagree. The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments together, are inherently correct and necessarily and inescapably so. The doctrine of scripture's infallibility and authority asserts that exact premise. Scripture is always correct. Our interpretation of it may not be but that is a problem of interpretation and not errors inherent in scripture. You've probably seen me say the following before:

Tanakh is always correct.
Judaism is often incorrect.

That same statement could be said of any theology, although some theologies are clearly more consistent with the whole of scripture than others.

Scripture is always correct.
Dispensationalism is often incorrect.
Reformed Theology is sometimes incorrect .


As far as this op goes, the classic ECF, RC, and Protestant position is that of scripture's continuity. DPism teaches discontinuity and they do so intentionally and openly both globally and in various particulars. There are other difference but that one difference leads to a huge divide in the way one portion of the Church reads, perceives, and renders scripture and the way the other portion does it all differently.



(apologies for the length)
.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Neither old nor new is inherently correct/ incorrect, but I definitely suspect 'new'. Lol, ask Gamaliel.

If I understand that correctly, what was intended was "Neither the Old or New is inherently correct [by themselves]...." If I have that correctly understood then, yes, your statement is correct. If not, then I disagree. The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments together, are inherently correct and necessarily and inescapably so. The doctrine of scripture's infallibility and authority asserts that exact premise. Scripture is always correct. Our interpretation of it may not be but that is a problem of interpretation and not errors inherent in scripture. You've probably seen me say the following before:

What I was referring to by "old nor new" was orthodoxy vs newfangled doctrine (esp Dispensationalism).

Tanakh is always correct.
Judaism is often incorrect.

That same statement could be said of any theology, although some theologies are clearly more consistent with the whole of scripture than others.

Scripture is always correct.
Dispensationalism is often incorrect.
Reformed Theology is sometimes incorrect .


As far as this op goes, the classic ECF, RC, and Protestant position is that of scripture's continuity. DPism teaches discontinuity and they do so intentionally and openly both globally and in various particulars. There are other difference but that one difference leads to a huge divide in the way one portion of the Church reads, perceives, and renders scripture and the way the other portion does it all differently.

Thanks for taking time to respond at such length.

 

[fastfredy0]

Covenant Theology Criticism

Covenant Theology (allegorical) hermeneutics stands in contrast to literal hermeneutics and is usually resorted to when the literal sense seems unacceptable to the interpreter. The actual words, then, are not understood in their normal sense but in a symbolic sense, which results in a different meaning of the text, a meaning that, in the strictest sense, the text never intended to convey. If used consistently, allegorical hermeneutics would reduce the Bible to near-fiction, for the normal meaning of words would be irrelevant and would be replaced by whatever meaning the interpreter gives to the symbols. However, for the most part, allegorical hermeneutics is not practiced consistently or thoroughly. Whether you should interpret a passage figuratively or literally depends solely on which gives the meaning consistent with the readers viewpoint. This, of course, is a circular argument.
Author Unknown

Put in my 2 cents (well, someone else's 2 cents)
Man has set up hermeneutic rules. Dispensationalists use difference rules to some extent than CT people; they heavily favor "literal" interpretation.
Maybe 1 Christian in 50 has much of idea of what dispensationism and C.T. is all about.
I was an avid dispensationalist for years. When I got into Bible study is was under the influence of dispensationalists (Chafer's Systematic Theology book) was first then I studied.
I'm not a dispensationalist now....not sure if I tend to C.T. either.