Being fairly new to Calvinism (I strongly agree with 95% of Calvins teachings) I struggle with a few things yet that I hope to discuss here. I will start with what troubles me most.

Dispensationalism

What's wrong with it?

Especially with how it is defined here:

http://answers.org/theology/dispensationalism.html

Thanks all!

__________________
Adam Leavelle
Westminster OPC
Roaring Spring Pa.

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

http://www.monergism.com

go to their bad theology section or they should have a section under dispensationalism.

blade

__________________
Nathan Olaf Brandal
First Baptist Church of Kirkland

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
GEORGE WHITEFIELD TO JOHN WESLEY

My Blog

Adam,
An excellent read on the subject is, "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" by Jonathan Gerstner.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Adam, this is a [i:f6f0655687]very[/i:f6f0655687] short, simplistic answer that summarizes the main problem I see in Dispensationalism: It basically splits up God's major intents and purposes throughout different time periods, and in particular emphasizes that He has one plan for the Church, and another for Israel. As I see it, this view greatly misrepresents God's biblical unity and eternal nature. Covenant Theology, the Reformed understanding of God's working patterns, as opposed to Dispensationalism, teaches that God's purposes and His means for accomplishing them are essentially the same at heart throughout all of history, even if they seem to take on different external expressions at different times.

Covenant Theology is practically as major a tenet of Reformed theology as is salvation. One source I would recommend is actually some of Matt McMahon's own articles on the subject, which can be found at http://www.apuritansmind.com/MyArticles.htm. Also, articles on Covenant Theology at A Puritan's Mind by other authors can be found at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism...antBaptism.htm.

In Christ,

Chris

P. S. If you're looking for more book-length treatments of the subject, in additiopn to John Gerstner (whom Scott mentioned), another Reformed author who has written a leading work on the subject is Keith A. Mathison, who wrote [i:f6f0655687]Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?[/i:f6f0655687] There's also [i:f6f0655687]Christ of the Covenants[/i:f6f0655687] by O. Palmer Robertson, and some books by Meredith Kline. While I myself have not yet read these books, they are typically well-trusted and recommended resources within Reformed circles and by leading Reformed authors.

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am very intrested in all of this and have read several articles so far that you have recomended. But the teaching that the Church and Israel are different is very ingrained in me and it is going to take some time for me to change that view.

I am open to it being incorrect, but I am finding it difficult.

And after this I have some issues with infant baptism!

[Edited on 5/8/2004 by houseparent]

no worries as long as your willing to learn that is good enough.

Adam,
Did I say previously, I can relate; I have been there. One of the interesting factors for me was when I was told that the present day ideas behind dispensationalism was about 150 years old. Essentially, it was something _new_. This caused me to investigate outside of the dispensational camp on it's valididty.

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by Scott Bushey]

AW Pinks book on dispyism.

http://www.pbministries.org/Parachur...ationalism.htm

blade

What about Daniel, where the word says;

Daniel 12
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Does this not tell us that the teachings will not be fully understood until the time of the end is upon us?

I know "new" teachings can be dangerous but are ALL new teachings dangerous? Isn't that exactly why many came against Christ's disciples? because they were preaching something "new"?

I mean so far as the something new is biblicaly based.

Again, NOT arguing, just trying to understand.

Also, we are NOT discussing "replacement theology" here are we? That scares me terribly!

[quote:72cd5befa4][i:72cd5befa4]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:72cd5befa4]
What about Daniel, where the word says;

Daniel 12
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Does this not tell us that the teachings will not be fully understood until the time of the end is upon us?

I know "new" teachings can be dangerous but are ALL new teachings dangerous? Isn't that exactly why many came against Christ's disciples? because they were preaching something "new"?

I mean so far as the something new is biblicaly based.

Again, NOT arguing, just trying to understand. [/quote:72cd5befa4]

Compare Daniel 12 to Revelation 22:10, "And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."

One needs to carefully understand OT phrases in light of the NT revelation of Jesus Christ. They all point to Him.

The problem with much dispensational thinking is that it jumps right from the OT prophecies to far into our future, while bypassing the most important event in history; the birth, life, deth, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."

[quote:ffdd99e05d][i:ffdd99e05d]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:ffdd99e05d]
Also, we are NOT discussing "replacement theology" here are we? That scares me terribly! [/quote:ffdd99e05d]

What is it that scares you?

That makes sense tcalbrecht. I will continue to study this. Bear with me as I am certain to have more questions and thoughts.

Now, what about my concern about "replacement theology"?

What scares me is that every racist sect in the world seems to practice this. The Jews are blamed for killing Jesus and our command to pray for the pecae of Jeresulem is moot.

I can't see supporting replacement theology. All I picture when I say or type that term is the KKK.

[Edited on 5/8/2004 by houseparent]

[Edited on 5/8/2004 by houseparent]

Gentlemen,
Keep to the topic........leave the replacement theology for another thread later.

Adam,
Would you be willing to read some books on the subject?

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by Scott Bushey]

Ok Scott, I wanted to be certain that we wern't talking about these issues being one in the same.

Hi houseparent. Just tossing this in:

Romans 11

16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if [b:67eed99b82]the root is holy[/b:67eed99b82], the branches are too.

It's one root, not two.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [b:67eed99b82]rich root of the olive tree,[/b:67eed99b82]

Again, it's one root, not two.

18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, [b:67eed99b82]remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.[/b:67eed99b82]

Again, it's one root, not two. The Gentile church isn't on its own seperate root.

23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to [b:67eed99b82]graft them in again.[/b:67eed99b82]
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were [b:67eed99b82]grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?[/b:67eed99b82]

The future "end times" fulfillment of Israel is to return to the one root, not be re-established as the first of two holy trees. There [i:67eed99b82]are[/i:67eed99b82] two trees, the one of the people of God (cultivated tree), and the other of the reprobate (wild tree).

I'd never heard the term "replacement theology" till the other day - and its definition apparently depends on who uses the term!

Here's that thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d.php?tid=4349

I now return you to the actual subject of this thread, already in progress.

__________________
Len Moore
Member, Christ Presbyterian Church, New Orleans
Currently "between" churches and attending
New Life Presbyterian, Tifton, Georgia
Husband to Christie; Father to Hannah (6 mos!)

Just for the record, so we can move away from replacement theology:

Replacement theology is the idea that God has replaced any plan for Israel w/ the church based upon Israels rebellion.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

There has always, according to the doctrine of election, one people, and one salvific plan of God only.

Moving on...............



[Edited on 5-8-2004 by Scott Bushey]

[quote:b9c9d8a1d1][i:b9c9d8a1d1]Originally posted by Radar[/i:b9c9d8a1d1]
Hi houseparent. Just tossing this in:

Romans 11

16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if [b:b9c9d8a1d1]the root is holy[/b:b9c9d8a1d1], the branches are too.

It's one root, not two.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [b:b9c9d8a1d1]rich root of the olive tree,[/b:b9c9d8a1d1]

Again, it's one root, not two.

18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, [b:b9c9d8a1d1]remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.[/b:b9c9d8a1d1]

Again, it's one root, not two. The Gentile church isn't on its own seperate root.

23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to [b:b9c9d8a1d1]graft them in again.[/b:b9c9d8a1d1]
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were [b:b9c9d8a1d1]grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?[/b:b9c9d8a1d1]

The future "end times" fulfillment of Israel is to return to the one root, not be re-established as the first of two holy trees. There [i:b9c9d8a1d1]are[/i:b9c9d8a1d1] two trees, the one of the people of God (cultivated tree), and the other of the reprobate (wild tree). [/quote:b9c9d8a1d1]

AGREED!

What about branches?

...taught two peoples of God.

The lesson of the branches is that they are one. The wall of partition has been broken down. A natural branch in the vine and the grafted branch in the vine are now one type of branch, not two; the kind of branch that lives by the root.

Likewise, Christ had sheep that were "not of this fold." He didn't have a whole entire different herd of sheep to be kept in a second lush pasture. Rather, he went to gather them into His one fold.

Dispies in my experience disagree.

Wow, NO ONE in my area caried "Wrongly dividing the word of truth". Not two Christian book stores, not Borders, not Barnes and Nobel! I had to order it from Barnes and Nobel for 29.99 so I suppose it is a THICK book?

Adam,
It is a beautifully bound hardcover that you will so be blessed by. Are you familiar w/ Gerstner?

I have heard of him, but that's about it.

[quote:0271b27890][i:0271b27890]Originally posted by houseparent[/i:0271b27890]
I have heard of him, but that's about it. [/quote:0271b27890]

Jonathan Gerstner was one R.C. Sproul's professors. He is the expert on Jonathan Edwards. If you have never seen him, you should endevor to get a video of one of his classroom teachings. He many times wore a twead jacket w/ patches on the sleeves. Always w/ a chalk board and always chalk all over that jacket; up to the elbows!!!

Do a google on him. I believe I have a couple papers on my site from him. Possibly Matt also.

Adam,

Welcome to the board! Have I said that already? If I have, welcome again!

Also, thanks for