Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Is there anyone that can articulate the basic differences? What are other ways of viewing Scripture?

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I'm specifically interested in a clear, concise comparison. A link would suffice.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Dispensationalism and Covenant theology differ on this major issue.

Disp teaching says that a mistake occurred when Israel rejected Jesus, since Israel was planned to accept Jesus. This caused a postponement of the Kingdom that was supposed to come when Israel accepted Jesus. The kingdom would instead come after a parenthesis in God's plan, due to the rejection by Israel, called the church. The church is a parenthesis. Since God postponed the Kingdom, the church was able to come into existence.

(Makes one wonder what would have occurred if Israel did accept Jesus, according to Disp thinking. No church?)

Covenant theology, on the other hand, claims that every covenant from the start progressively led to the present one with the church, and that Israel was expected to enter into the New covenant in the church, and, in fact, did, except for those who rejected truth. The church was for Israel. And the church opened its doors to the gentile world as well, as foretold in the Old Testament, predominantly Isaiah.

Also, disp teaching says the church was overlooked by the O.T. prophets, whereas Covenant Theology most assuredly says it was not overlooked.

Here are some links and statements:

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I don't endorse everything on this site,but it provokes thought.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Another site I don't agree with everything on,but it has some good info.
http://www.goehringenterprises.com/B...gy%20Chart.htm

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Of interest as well.
http://www.presenttruth.org/alcc/boo...ual-israel.htm

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Basically, dispensationalists think the promises of God to Israel remain unfulfilled, and require a future "kingdom" for Israel. Covenant Theologians argue that all the promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the church. All of them.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Do those who believe in Covenant Theology accept the divisions in Scripture, with how God deals with man (Age of Innocence, Conscience, Grace, Law, etc...)?

I obviously grew up never considering anything other that Dispensationalism -- it just made a lot of sense. Naturally, your explanation seems geared toward the debate on the forum about the Second Coming. Is that all it affects? Chronologically, mfblume, what is coming next for the church. Tribulation? Where do you see the church in the spectrum of history?

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Yes. But not as Disp does. Covenant Theology places these as progressions towards Grace. Disp teaches these were various attempts to show man his failure.

No, I think it affects the entire scope of how God does things and how we view Him.

And, also, it deals with how God works in the world especially with the church and the rest of the world, since Disp teaches what we deny... The Church and Israel are two forever separate entities. Covenant Theology says Israel is meant to come into the church.

The rapture which takes us straight to the white throne.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

FTF,

I said this elsewhere:

Covenant theology never assumes God might do things not stated in His word, so that we cannot say God will not do something in our future that is not stated in His word. That is what I am finding is the biggest chasm. We claim that the manner in which God DID MAKE certain statements disallows us to consider ANY further covenant, visible kingdom or plan of salvation in our future. Disps take what we claim prohibits these things and somehow, in our opinion, distort them. Had they not been dispensationalist, they would never say Christ's words about the Kingdom never being visible only deals with the church age when Christ made no such distinction, for example.

Luke 17:20 MKJV And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered and said, The kingdom of God does not come with observation.

Luke 17:20 GNB Some Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God would come. His answer was, "The Kingdom of God does not come in such a way as to be seen.

Disp takes words in Acts 1:6 where the disciples asked Jesus when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel. They did not ask Him if it would, just when it would. Jesus neither taught it would and did not tell them it would. In fact, after they were regenerated, none of them mentioned the thought again. But Disp makes an entire doctrine from this and claims they expected this due to OT prophecy. Where in the OT was this promised -- a physical kingdom?

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Also, actual 1830 Disp teaches Israel and the church are forever separated forevermore. the church is not for Israel and God will save Israel outside the church after the church is raptured. This means Israel is not intended to become new creatures in Christ!

Covenant Theology states the New Covenant was for Israel and expected Israel to come in! It teaches the church is the last work in this earth. And no apostle or NT writer said otherwise.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Hi Bro Blume

Does Covenant Theology state WHAT occurs to bring Israel in as the last work on earth?

Post Mils state that the Church will take over the world.....and THEN Israel is saved--and Christ comes to rule.

Pre-Mils state that a tribulation occurs that brings Israel to Christ--and Christ to this earth.

AMills, I do not think have a place for Israel to make a FULL RETURN as per Romans 11. Do they?


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

So its end is the same as the pre tribulation rapture. Jesus could simply come any time.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I know it teaches the manner Israel is to be saved is the same manner anyone else is saved in the church age, but I would have to research some more to say anything else beyond that.

Amills definitely state Israel can make a full return but only by way of entrance into the church. I will research some more to get more specifics.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Yes, except for a pretrib rapture having more events to follow before the white throne -- MANY more.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

More succinct and terse definitions.

COVENANT THEOLOGY systematizes the biblical information concerning the manner in which God saves sinners through Jesus Christ. It places the Bible into a covenantal framework that makes biblical sense. The Bible speaks of salvation in terms of “covenant.” God is a covenant God who saves His people through covenants. The three main theological covenants of the Bible are the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. These are theological terms that are packed with biblical information dealing with the way God saves sinners. When someone asks, “How does God save people?” the answer lies within the framework of Covenant Theology.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I would be greatly interested to see how Amills regard a FULL RETURN by Israel to occur.

As I remember, it seemed as if Israel COLLECTIVELY would NEVER make a Full Return according to Amills. Israel would be no different than Iceland or some other obscure nation.

Thus far in my reading of preterist material, I have NOT come across where preterists allow for a FULL RETURN by Israel...except for those that hold to the preterist--post-millennial view. (The book loan to me by a pastor friend was written by a preterist--post-millennialist.

After 2,000 years, however, I do not foresee the rosy picture of THE CHURCH being the official religion of the world.

Muslims, for example, consider death the proper measure to deal with critics and those that abandon their faith.

Nor does it seem that the SATANIC influence has abated in nations or in individuals...even though FULL PRETERISTS claim Satan has been writhing in the fiery abyss since 70 AD.


Israel has always been at the center of prophecy....and shall remain so until Christ brings them back into relationship at His Coming.

As you are coming to your conclusions regarding HOW IT IS or WHAT EVENTS TRANSPIRE that bring Israel collectively back to God....please do not discount that God often takes away our ability to take care of ourselves...causing us to realize that our help comes from the Lord alone.

Psa 121:1 A song for going up to worship. I look up toward the mountains. Where can I find help?
Psa 121:2 My help comes from the LORD, the maker of heaven and earth.


And please remember that OT prophecies ALREADY state what transpires.


Blessings


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Parsons

I see where you are trying to lead this I think. I would like to address your questions if I may. My respons is in Italics and underlined


Godsdrummer/laromans12

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

As far as ascendency over other nations to award them a distinct dispensation, or viewing them as something more than another nation as far as opportunity to come into the church goes, Israel is no different than Iceland. This does not mean a full return is not possible, though. To say that Israel is like any other nation is to say that God respects them no more than any other nation, and that they are not above need to come into the church as members of any other nation are concerned.

Also amills do not see Israel as experiencing anything special above other nations as though God is working with them and the church simultaneously as two different works.

I allow for a full return! :) Only, they can fully return into the church alone, and by no other means, and, that, before the rapture.

Matters not. :) The Kingdom is growing more and more.

The Church is gaining ground and I propose it will occur exponentially in the close future.

Not so. Israel ceased being center of prophecy when the cross occurred. It is this very viewpoint you propose that I believe shows the need for properly viewing Israel.

That passage speaking of that issue must be reviewed more. Presently I feel it simply meant the door is wide open for them, and that God will not leave them without a chance and then make them get saved, as though Calvinism were the proper understanding. For God to withhold Israel from salvation and then suddenly cause them to be saved is to make them serve God. Somehow the thought of whosoever will cannot be violated when we consider "all Israel" being saved.

God bless!

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Godsdrummer hit the nail on the head, which is what I said alluding to Calvinism when he wrote:

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Top of the Morning Godsdrummer
I must point out, Godsdrummer, that God had a collective relationship with Israel in the OT. You WOULD agree to this would you not?
And this collective relationship existed in the OT even though Israel collectively was NOT in line with God’s Word. You would agree to THAT….would you not??
And Israel’s collective relationship ended in the NT and was described by Paul in the book of Romans.
You would agree to this……….would you not??
I am simply pointing out that Paul stated that Israel collectively would make a return to God in the relationship that was broken off due to Israel’s refusal/rejection of Christ.
Furthermore, Godsdrummer, the earthly kingdom does NOT take away man’s choice. You will have to explain how it does, should you think I would be incorrect.

Please consider the fact that in Revelation 20—NATIONS rise up to attack God’s people and the beloved city. This occurs at the conclusion of the millennial earthly reign of Christ…and implies CHOICE of obedience.

ALSO, Godsdrummer, the OT prophecies declare that man will have the CHOICE to obey Christ or not.

Being BOUND and CONFINED to a limited area as per Revelation 20 is a far cry from the mere restraints that you attempt to give. I quite agree that the power of the Spirit given to us is quite effective in defeating Satan in our personal lives.

And consider this, Godsdrummer—Revelation 20 was written, according to Preterists, sometime in the 60s…..shortly before the magical date of 70 AD.
This would mean that the CHURCH—empowered just as YOU AND I are today—existed from 33 AD to 70 AD with Satan NOT BOUND……….AND NOT CONFINED as Revelation 20 describes.

Please note that Peter warned about Satan’s roaming the earth seeking WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR.

DOES this not occur today??? Is not Satan STILL prowling around seeking whom he may devour.

Some preterists think that this has to do with DECEIVING NATIONS to attack the church.

Is not there MORE attacks on the Church today than at any other time in HISTORY??? There have been MORE persecutions against Christians in the past 50 years than in all of the previous years combined.

So……….how is it different TODAY with Satan than before 70 AD…and the time of this BINDING AND CONFINING?? There is NO difference as Revelation 20 is yet in our future.

I never stated that God would not allow Israel a choice in the matter, nor did I state that God would not give Israel A PATH to the relationship with God.
I was bringing attention to Bro Blume the method that God OFTEN uses to get our attention and bring us to our knees.

Please consider the Apostle PAUL. How did God bring Saul/Paul into relationship? Saul was literally knocked off his high horse. And YET Saul STILL had the choice to believe Christ or reject Him. Saul’s will was NEVER in question.

It was THIS method I was bringing to Bro Blume’s attention. And I asked Bro Blume to consider THE METHOD that God will use to knock Israel off HER high horse. The OLD TESTAMENT speaks of THIS METHOD.

And rest assured, Godsdrummer, NOT ALL of Israel will come back into relationship with God. This TOO is an OT prophecy. Being JEWISH is not one of the criteria for them being saved. But THE EVENT that brings Israel to repentance does allow for the FULL RETURN of Israel back into relationship with God.


Splendid!!!!!!!!! Then point out in history when the following passages took place.

There are a lot of cows in Texas………..and I have seen many a pasture. But I never saw a bear grazing with them. Never saw a lion eating straw either. Can’t say that I ever saw a wolf resting with a lamb or a child sticking their hand in a den of poisonous snakes and not be hurt.

Some OT prophecies, Godsdrummer, have NEVER been fulfilled….yet.

Blessings

Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Hi Bro Blume

Please re-read what I said Bro Blume.

I did not say Israel WAS THE CENTER.......I stated that Israel was AT the center......which is a big difference.

The BREAKING OFF OF RELATIONSHIP with Israel marked the beginning of the Gentile's relationship with God..........and the RENEWING IN RELATIONSHIP of Israel will mark the 2ND ADVENT of Christ.


The point I am making is that Israel has been and will be involved in the fulfillment of prophecy.

And if the FUTURISTS are correct (and THEY ARE), then the Tribulation will "knock Israel off her high horse"--Israel collectively will realize that her only hope is God.

Difficult times has softened the hardened heart of many a Gentile...and cause them to seek God for help.

This is what I ask you to consider in the method that brings Israel collectively to God.

Blessings and success in your studies


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

An earthly kingdom does not take away the ability to choose, Bro Blume.

please note the passages I point out to Godsdrummer.


Blessings


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I would never have guessed there was a difference in those two statements, but since these statements obviously do mean something different from one another, I accept your clarification. :)

Thanks.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I am seeing in my studies that DARBY was the first one to propose the gap theory between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel.

Can anyone verify or nullify that thought?

Darby admitted he read Manuel de Lacunza's study on the 45 day tribulation period after the rapture of the church, which was translated from Spanish into English by Edward Irving in 1827 called "The coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty." Darby felt felt Daniel's Seventieth week of 7 years would fit that period better than Lacunza's mini trib of 45 days.

http://www.upwardcall.net/rapture.html

This put a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

From: http://www.dispensationalism.org.uk/


Dispensationalism is a method of Bible interpretation which was first devised by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), and later formulated by the controversial American Cyrus Ingerson Scofield [sometimes referred to as Cyrus Ingersoll Scofield] (1843-1921), and is also known as Pre-millennial Dispensationalism. Although Darby was not the first person to suggest such a theory, he was, however, the first to develop it as a system of Bible interpretation and is, therefore, regarded as the Father of Dispensationalism.

The origin of this theory can be traced to three Jesuit priests; (1) Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), (2) Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) one of the best known Jesuit apologists, who promoted similar theories to Ribera in his published work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time, and (3) Manuel Lacunza (1731–1801). The writings of Ribera and Bellarmine, which contain the precedence upon which the theory of Dispensationalism is founded, were originally written to counteract the Protestant reformers' interpretation of the Book of the Revelation which, according to the reformers, exposed the Pope as Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon.

Ribera's theory lay dormant until it was revisited by Lacunza, and Lacunza's work the Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty (Vol.I, Vol.II.), was translated into English by Edward Irving (1792–1834) in 1827. However, Irving was not aware that the author of this work was not the converted Jewish Rabbi he pretended to be, but a Roman Catholic imposter, and a Jesuit at that! Irving was duped into believing that Lacunza was a converted Jewish Rabbi named Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, and he was taken in by his anti-Protestant writings. It should be noted that J. N. Darby was also vehemently opposed to Protestantism and at one time, like his friend John Henry Newman, considered converting from Anglicanism to the Roman Church. Having been led astray by this Jesuit work, Irving completely rejected the historical orthodox Christian belief concerning the return of Jesus Christ; as the following extract from his introduction to his translation of Lacunza's work clearly shows.

"...having, by God’s especial providence, been brought to the knowledge of a book, written in the Spanish tongue, which clearly sets forth, and demonstrates from Holy Scripture, the erroneousness of the opinion, almost universally entertained amongst us, that He is not to come till the end of the millennium, and what you call the last day, meaning thereby the instant or very small period preceding the conflagration and annihilation of this earth; I have thought it my duty to translate the same into the English tongue for your sake, that you may be able to disabuse yourselves of that great error, which hath become the inlet to many false hopes, and will, I fear, if not speedily corrected, prove the inlet to many worldly principles and confederacies, and hasten the ruin and downfall of the present churches."

Another Roman Catholic counter-interpretation to that held by Protestants is that of Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), a Spanish Jesuit. Alcazar also wrote a commentary on the book of the Revelation entitled An Investigation into the Hidden Meaning of the Apocalypse. In which he suggests that the entire Revelation applies to pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. Perhaps the Roman Catholic origin of the dispensationalist view is best described by Le Roy Edwin Froom.

It was Irving's own interest in prophecy which led him to the works of Manuel Lacunza, (who wrote using the false Jewish name of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra). Lacunza's ideas were similar and probably based on the writings of the sixteenth century Jesuit, Francesco Ribera. Ribera was one of the Jesuits commissioned by the Pope to write a commentary on the book of Revelation that would hopefully counteract the anti-Catholic Protestant interpretation held at that time.

In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem.

George Eldon Ladd. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. 1956. pp. 37-38.

Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (II Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God—asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God.”

Ralph Thompson. Champions of Christianity in Search of Truth. p. 89.

The result of his work [Ribera’s] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.

Robert Caringol. Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative. p. 32.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Hi Bro Blume
I read your posts just a few minutes before having to leave for church.

Here is an excerpt of an article entiled: The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, By Thomas Ice

I will give this more attention this afternoon and will provide you with resources to support the excerpts.
Please note that it is after Christ comes and the gospel is preached everywhere that there will remain only one week.


Blessings


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Parsons

Good morning to you I just spent an hour with a response and for some reson lost it all when I went to post so I will redo it this after noon

God bless Godsrummer

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Man I hate it when that happens!

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I understand your frustration as that has happened to me several times over the years.

I look forward to your thoughts.


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Hi Bro Blume
Here are some quotes from the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers that I found posted. I could not find the author of the info……but it should answer your question.

The following quotes are from Irenaeus:
These are important as he was taught by Polycarp who in turn was discipled by the Apostle John himself.

Points from the highlighted parts:
• Irenaeus believes that the ‘temple of God’ from 2 Thes 2 is speaking about the temple in Jerusalem. After quoting 2 Thes 2 he says that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of God, and the apostle Paul distinctly calls it the temple of God. He does not ‘spiritualize’ this passage away as you would attempt to do, but is quite literal in his interpretation.
• He says that ‘the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed…’ and ‘in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ.’ This obviously is exactly as futurists believe. A literal temple, a literal antichrist, a future literal placing of himself in the temple to be proclaimed as God.
• To show that the antichrist will sit in the temple in Jerusalem, he quotes from Matt 24:14 where Christ speaks of the abomination of desolation. Clearly, like futurists, Irenaeus saw this as a future event and not related to 70AD as you would.

You should realize that a FUTURE Anti-Christ literally sitting in the Temple proclaiming himself to be God would mean that the 70th Week would be separated from the other 69 weeks…and thus a gap.
Irenaeus continues:

As Irenaeus saw this as a FUTURE event—of a necessity, there would have to be a GAP between the 69th week and the 70th. And as Irenaeus speaks of the HALF-WEEK…separate from the 69 other weeks…the Gap did exist in his teachings.

Irenaeus speaks also of the tyranny of the antichrists rule and quotes from our favorite passage Daniel 9:27. Three points can be made from this -

1. He applies Dan 9:27 with the sacrifice being taken away to the antichrist, not to Jesus as you would.
2. He places the event as yet to occur. It is during the tyranny of the antichrists rule, not when Jesus died on the cross.
3. He again specifies the length of time of the antichrists rule as three years and six months.

continued

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

The following quotes from Hippolytus (AD. 170-236)

• Hippolytus believed that the 70th week was separate to the other 69 weeks and would remain until the gospel had been preached in every place.
• He ties Daniel’s 70th week in with the appearance of the two witnesses and clearly says that in the midst of this last week the antichrist will manifest the abomination of desolation.
• Hippolytus believed that the antichrist would rebuild the city of Jerusalem and restore the sanctuary.
• He confirms that Daniel’s 70th week is split between the two witnesses preaching for three and ½ years, and the antichrist making war upon the saints. Again, he did not believe that the last week was fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry and the three and ½ years following.
• The abomination of desolation was to last 1290 days.
• In this different work of Hippolytus he again confirms that the antichrist will build the temple in Jerusalem and give it to the Jews.
• Again he shows that when Daniel was said the covenant would be made for one week, it was a reference to the end when the antichrist reigned on the earth… not Jesus’ ministry.

• Here is another work of Hippolytus where he again confirms that Daniel’s last week is ‘at the end of the whole world’
• The two witnesses take up the first half of this week and they preach for a LITERAL 1260 days.
from the above quotes I can say that these prominent church fathers believe that -
• ‘Daniel’s 70th week’ was still future and at ‘the end of the whole world’.
• Daniel’s 70th week was separated from the other 69 weeks.
• The covenant spoken of in Daniel 9:27 deals with the antichrist, not Jesus.
• In the midst of this last ‘week’, the antichrist would put himself in a literal temple, in the literal city of Jerusalem.
• Matt 24:15 which speaks of the abomination of desolation is future and is connected with the desecration of the Jewish temple by the antichrist in the last week of Daniel's 70 weeks.
• Antichrists reign would last 3 ½ years, or 1260 days.
• There is a literal 1000 year kingdom reign in Jerusalem still to be fulfilled just as the prophets of old prophesied.

As you can see, Bro Blume, Darby was not the origin of the GAP in the 70 weeks of Daniel.
Blessings

Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Thanks for your information.

I am trying to see what Darby introduced, because when Bro Chalfant said Darby brought NEW LIGHT to prophecy teaching not known by the apostles, it threw me off. And even if Darby did not introduce the idea of a future 70th week of Daniel, the disciples certainly did not preach it in the New Testament.

I see you validating your point that others believed a gap before Darby, in two more of your posts following the one to which I just responded.

I will point out, though, that you claimed I spiritualize the man of sin in the temple. I have come to conclude in the last few years that the distinct fulfillment of 2 Thess 2 was with John Levi of Gischala, as I have recently responded in the afp1996 and Jason remarks in the general discussion area. And I believe there is a spiritual application for every physical fulfillment as well, causing me to continue to use 2 Thess 2 and John Levi as an example of how our old man sits in the temple of the Spirit, our bodies, and rises to headship in our lives. I told Ray Strange several times that I see the same thing in Revelation. Though a physical fulfillment occurred in Revelation in AD70, the principle of how things occurred and how God dealt with them can be applied spiritually as well.

But at the end of the day, for me to read of Christ confirming a covenant with Israel in the New Testament writings, and to note His ministry lasted 3.5 years until the time when Christ ended sacrifices by His death in Heb 10, I stand amazed at how futurists propose things of Dan 9:27 that the New Testament never stated, and neglect to apply these perfectly corroborating passages I mention here to Dan 9:27 that the New Testament did state!

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

I should point out, Bro Blume, that in the posts following the one to which you responded--MY comments are highlighted in dark blue. The rest is a response someone (identity unknown) made to the idea that no one taught futurism in the ante-nicene age. As the information did include the teachings of THE GAP, I posted the argument for your benefit.

None of the YOUS that are part of the post were intended for you personally.......but to whom the author was addressing. According to the introduction of the article......the receiver of the article was a historicist.

I have no idea of what Bro Chalfant meant by NEW LIGHT. I know that Paul brought NEW LIGHT in the relationship with Gentiles and God as he argued that Gentiles did not have to keep the same rites as the Jews were doing. No other apostle was declaring this at the time.

Perhaps, (as I do not know Bro Chalfant's intent), Bro Chalfant meant something similar.

Futurists tie ALL scriptures together...both OT and NT alike. The gifts and callings of God are irrevocable.......and would not be dismissed.

A few weeks ago a pastor friend loaned to me a recently published book on preterism that stated that the man of sin was OUR CARNAL NATURE.

Such ideas make good preaching fodder, I suppose...but hardly meets the acid test of eschatology.

The best approach to scripture is using the same rules one applies to every other written document.

I understand that you regard JLG as being the fulfillment of the man of sin.

I, of course, disagree. Mainly because of this passage.

JLG was an opportunist, but never did he do "false miracles" and wonders.

In your studies, please remember that in the earliest stages of the ante-nicene age, the church saw the man of sin/anti-Christ as a future event. The overwhelming majority of teachings were about the coming millennial reign of Christ.

This was due to the off and on persecution of the Church.

When Christianity was accepted as the state religion of Rome.........the lack of persecution, plus some of the extreme ideas of what the millennial reign would be like, caused a change of focus in eschatology from millennial to amillennial.

Until Christianity became the state religion of Rome--no one in the second century saw JLG as being the fulfillment of the man of sin, nor did they regard the destruction of Jerusalem as being the great tribulation.

You will find many warnings regarding the tribulation that was to come.


Blessings


Parson

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Top of the Morning Godsdrummer
Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer;
]I answer this with a question. When in history has every man women and child in Israel been collectively in line with Gods word? You and Disp. are looking for the impossible. Furthermore your earthly kingdom would do away with choice and that is the reason behind all of Gods plan to bring man to the point to have a personal relationship with him
I must point out, Godsdrummer, that God had a collective relationship with Israel in the OT. You WOULD agree to this would you not?
And this collective relationship existed in the OT even though Israel collectively was NOT in line with God’s Word. You would agree to THAT….would you not??
Godsdrummer
When we speak of collective I mean every man women and child are in perfect agreement in following God. Or else as I understand Disp. teaching things would not work. We know that in OT Israel did not have a collective relationship in this manner else we would not have all the disobedience to God over and over again.

And Israel’s collective relationship ended in the NT and was described by Paul in the book of Romans.
Godsdrummer
As I see it Israels collective relationship did not end with the NT Romans chapter 9 Paul speaks how God looks on the children of Israel. Those that accept the gospel are collectively children of Israel and children of God. But those that do not accept the gospel are in the eyes of God no different than anyone else in the world. Therefore the collective children of Israel are already counted before God. There is no other return of the Jew than that which has already taken place.

You would agree to this……….would you not??
I am simply pointing out that Paul stated that Israel collectively would make a return to God in the relationship that was broken off due to Israel’s refusal/rejection of Christ.
I ask your where is Paul making this statement of a future return of all the Jews to God? And also in what manner will they return to God? Will God accept sacrifices and a new temple as a return to God after he gave the supreme sacrifice for all mankind?
Quote:

Rom 11:12 But if the rest of the world's people were helped so much by Israel's sin and loss, they will be helped even more by their full return.

Godsdrummer
Here is the difference of interpretation, I see the fulfillment of this chapter happening around 70 AD. And the time of the Gentiles Paul is speaking of as the time Rome comes down on Jerusalem. This is not a new doctrine as is the teaching of Disp.
Furthermore, Godsdrummer, the earthly kingdom does NOT take away man’s choice. You will have to explain how it does, should you think I would be incorrect.
Godsdrummer
See I don't see an earthly kingdom as some do Jesus speaks repeatedly his kingdom of one of a spiritual nature not an earthly nature.

Please consider the fact that in Revelation 20—NATIONS rise up to attack God’s people and the beloved city. This occurs at the conclusion of the millennial earthly reign of Christ…and implies CHOICE of obedience.

ALSO, Godsdrummer, the OT prophecies declare that man will have the CHOICE to obey Christ or not.

Quote:

Zec 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer;
I want to address the influence of satan, your opinion as others cannot see the restraints God has place on satan in our time. Satan has been defeated and has no power except that which is been given him by man. If satan has power it is because you gave it to him.
Being BOUND and CONFINED to a limited area as per Revelation 20 is a far cry from the mere restraints that you attempt to give. I quite agree that the power of the Spirit given to us is quite effective in defeating Satan in our personal lives.

And consider this, Godsdrummer—Revelation 20 was written, according to Preterist, sometime in the 60s…..shortly before the magical date of 70 AD.
This would mean that the CHURCH—empowered just as YOU AND I are today—existed from 33 AD to 70 AD with Satan NOT BOUND……….AND NOT CONFINED as Revelation 20 describes.

Please note that Peter warned about Satan’s roaming the earth seeking WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR.
Godsdrummer
See bro either Jesus gave us power over satan as he said and bound him giving us that power or the word of God is not true. We either have the power on not no inbetween. I choose to see satan as a defeated foe. This has brought more power to my life than when I thought satan still had power. Does satan still roam the earth seeking whom he may devour? Of course, trying to literalize everything that was ment to be symbolic is like the Pharisee of Jesus time they looked for a literal kingdom on earth when God never intended his kingdom to be any more natural or literal than the influence we are to have in the world which can and will change the course of things in our world.
This is the thing that makes me steer from Disp. teaching more than anything, else the idea that the church cannot make a change in the world unless Jesus himself comes down and brings the change. This reasoning weakens the mind of the church to fulfilled the work we are to do in the world.

Quote:

1Pe 5:8 Keep your mind clear, and be alert. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion as he looks for someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Be firm in the faith and resist him, knowing that other believers throughout the world are going through the same kind of suffering.
DOES this not occur today??? Is not Satan STILL prowling around seeking whom he may devour.

Some preterists think that this has to do with DECEIVING NATIONS to attack the church.

Is not there MORE attacks on the Church today than at any other time in HISTORY??? There have been MORE persecution against Christians in the past 50 years than in all of the previous years combined.

So……….how is it different TODAY with Satan than before 70 AD…and the time of this BINDING AND CONFINING?? There is NO difference as Revelation 20 is yet in our future.

Godsdrummer
More persecutions today than all the previous years combined how do you figure that? Maybe if you count the population explosion. If anything we have more religious freedom in the world than at any time in history. Persecutions Jesus said we will all suffer persecutions. Satan was bound when Jesus died on the cross 70 AD was simply the end. We can hipothisis on the continuity of the prophecy all we want and never make things line up perfectly. The fact is it is all history. I choose to obey the command of God and work today to bring the kingdom of God to the world which in return will bring change to the world.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer;
And just how is God going to bring Israel back into relationship without force. Again the word of God is not about how powerful God is as it is about God giving man the path to be in relationship with God.
I never stated that God would not allow Israel a choice in the matter, nor did I state that God would not give Israel A PATH to the relationship with God.
I was bringing attention to Bro Blume the method that God OFTEN uses to get our attention and bring us to our knees.

Please consider the Apostle PAUL. How did God bring Saul/Paul into relationship? Saul was literally knocked off his high horse. And YET Saul STILL had the choice to believe Christ or reject Him. Saul’s will was NEVER in question.

It was THIS method I was bringing to Bro Blume’s attention. And I asked Bro Blume to consider THE METHOD that God will use to knock Israel off HER high horse. The OLD TESTAMENT speaks of THIS METHOD.

And rest assured, Godsdrummer, NOT ALL of Israel will come back into relationship with God. This TOO is an OT prophecy. Being JEWISH is not one of the criteria for them being saved. But THE EVENT that brings Israel to repentance does allow for the FULL RETURN of Israel back into relationship with God.

Godsdrummer
again I don't know Mikes feelings on this subject but I see this as already having happened at the time of 70 AD. The Jewish religion today is no different than budism, hinduism or any other cultural religion in the world today they must be reached the same as any one else with the gospel.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer;
OT prophecies state what ALREADY HAPPENED.
Splendid!!!!!!!!! Then point out in history when the following passages took place.

Quote:

Isa 11:6 Leopards will lie down with young goats, and wolves will rest with lambs. Calves and lions will eat together and be cared for by little children.
Isa 11:7 Cows and bears will share the same pasture; their young will rest side by side. Lions and oxen will both eat straw.
Isa 11:8 Little children will play near snake holes. They will stick their hands into dens of poisonous snakes and never be hurt.
Isa 11:9 Nothing harmful will take place on the LORD's holy mountain. Just as water fills the sea, the land will be filled with people who know and honor the LORD.
Isa 11:10 The time is coming when one of David's descendants will be the signal for the people of all nations to come together. They will follow his advice, and his own nation will become famous.
Isa 11:11 When that day comes, the Lord will again reach out his mighty arm and bring home his people who have survived in Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Ethiopia, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the land along the coast.
Isa 11:12 He will give a signal to the nations, and he will bring together the refugees from Judah and Israel, who have been scattered all over the earth.
There are a lot of cows in Texas………..and I have seen many a pasture. But I never saw a bear grazing with them. Never saw a lion eating straw either. Can’t say that I ever saw a wolf resting with a lamb or a child sticking their hand in a den of poisonous snakes and not be hurt.
Godsdrummer
Aw bro Parsons Just as Jesus fulfilled the six points of Daniels prophecy when he came to earth fulfilling the 70 weeks these things have aready been fulfilled. What do you think heaven is like any way. Jesus said I am the resurection it is my belief that when we die we go strait to heaven. No waiting for a rapture. This meaning that the kingdom of God is already in full effect in heaven Jesus is already reigning on Davids throne in Heaven. Our job is to complete the work on earth Jesus started and has completed in heaven. I will say this every animal in Gods creation can be and has been domesticated. Haven't seen a wolf resting with a lamb? Raised from infancy any any animal can change their animal instincts. If you don't beleive that then you must beleive homosexuals are born and not a product of outside influance although that is a nother subject altogether.

Blessings

Parson
I know many of what I have said may not follow any ones ideas but this is my understanding from the last 10 years. It all started with understanding Daniels 70 weeks were completed with the cross. With that understanding everything fell into place in my mind. I don't profess to understand everything but daily God brings things to my understanding.

One last statement I don't try to change your veiw as much as I try to give give a different opinion to get others to take another look at prophecy as I have. As I have said my change of understanding did not come over night. And it has not only been concerning prophecy but many other areas of bible understanding. My study's began with the simple idea that I wanted to find what the word truly ment without mans ideas and traditions clouding the issue. I wanted God to truly put his word in my heart not just my mind. I will say I did not leave my base teachings for years even though I came to see things differently. But with every discustion with others instead of inforcing the things I was raised with it only reinforced what God had been showing me.

God bless
Godsdrummer/laromans12

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Parson,

Bro Chalfant told me of his view of Darby as "new light" after I said the New Testament writers said nothing about the novelties of disp teaching. That makes his intent of thought clear to me. I can never agree with that.

Disps say that this new light was reserved until 1830 since the truths did not concern anyone else beforehand.

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Bro Parsons and anyone else

I ask this one question. If Jesus paid the price for sin for all time, doing away with the sacrifice system then how can a new temple be desicrated by an anti-christ. When God will not recognize the temple and sacrifice again? To say that God will be pleased that the Jew builds a new temple and begins to offer sacrifice after he God came to earth and gave his life for all mankind to bring all mankind into relationship with him goes against everything scripture teaches about salvation.

There fore there can never ever be an abomination of desecration of the temple in the eyes of God. Because another Jewish temple will be no different than any other temple man makes. This is one of the main flaws of Mormanisn they teach that they are to build temples to God based on the OT temple. God no longer dwels in temple made by hands but in our hearts.

God Bless
Godsdrummer/laromans12

Re: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
 

Very good and interesting point. It is impossible to desecrate that which is NOT accepted by God as being Holy. So the antichrist cannot stand in the Holy place, because God is what would make it holy, and He is not going to do that.