Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 61 of 61

Dispensationalism discuss Progressive Dispensationalism in the Covenant Theology forums; Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening.... Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this ...

  1. #41
    Robin is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,597
    Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

    Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

    CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)



    Robin
    Robin
    Christ Reformed Church, Anaheim, CA
    Laity, under the care of Pastor, Kim Riddlebarger
    Heidelberg, Ursinus, Belgic Confessions; Canons of Dordt
    Revelation 14:2

  2. #42
    tcalbrecht's Avatar
    tcalbrecht is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,919
    Originally posted by Robin
    Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

    Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

    CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)



    Robin
    Part of this confusion may be over the language in the WCF where it says, "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

    The language is related to the matter of the keys of the kingdom that were entrusted to the officers of the church (cf. XXX:2). I don't think it was intended to renounce any jurisdiction of Jesus Christ over the nations of the world as an expression of His present kingdom. Indeed, Matt. 28:19 is the positive statement about Christ's authority in this very area.

    The kingdom of God is not limited to any one political kingdom, but encompasses all.

    "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:13,14)

    Just to add on. The reason dispensationalists (progressive or otherwise) think CT confuses the church and the kingdom is due to the fact that they have the relationship all wrong.

    Classic dispensationalism pushes the kingdom out to the exclusive domain of the future millennium. While not able to deny it fully, the earlier dispensationalists got around the implications by inventing an arbitrary distinction between the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. I suppose that to a certain degree all modern dispensationalists suffer from this errant view of the offered/delayed kingdom and the "hidden" church.

    [Edited on 3-7-2005 by tcalbrecht]
    Tom Albrecht
    Grace & Peace PCA, Pottstown, PA.

    "When I find the time, I'm going to sit down and write the social history of bourbon."

  3. #43
    BlackCalvinist's Avatar
    BlackCalvinist is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Originally posted by Robin
    Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

    Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

    CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)



    Robin
    Minor point of contention - it's not my list. It's PastorWay's list.

    What exactly do you mean regarding PD 'getting Gal. 3 right' , Tom ?
    KG
    Theologically Correct dot Com
    http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
    Wallace PCA in College Park, MD
    The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
    Join * Contribute * Discuss: Life | Doctrine | Music
    streaming music • blog • message board • christian music hub

  4. #44
    BlackCalvinist's Avatar
    BlackCalvinist is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Originally posted by tcalbrecht
    Originally posted by Robin
    Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

    Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

    CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)



    Robin
    Part of this confusion may be over the language in the WCF where it says, "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

    The language is related to the matter of the keys of the kingdom that were entrusted to the officers of the church (cf. XXX:2). I don't think it was intended to renounce any jurisdiction of Jesus Christ over the nations of the world as an expression of His present kingdom. Indeed, Matt. 28:19 is the positive statement about Christ's authority in this very area.

    The kingdom of God is not limited to any one political kingdom, but encompasses all.

    "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:13,14)

    Just to add on. The reason dispensationalists (progressive or otherwise) think CT confuses the church and the kingdom is due to the fact that they have the relationship all wrong.

    Classic dispensationalism pushes the kingdom out to the exclusive domain of the future millennium. While not able to deny it fully, the earlier dispensationalists got around the implications by inventing an arbitrary distinction between the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. I suppose that to a certain degree all modern dispensationalists suffer from this errant view of the offered/delayed kingdom and the "hidden" church.

    [Edited on 3-7-2005 by tcalbrecht]
    See.... this proves my point completely that you don't read everything, Tom.

    I never said CT confuses anything in this thread. That list and that particular statement was put forth by PastorWay. The list (minus my corrections above) is HIS. You can simply click back one page and see the same post for yourself. So if you think his statement in his list implies that CT 'confuses' anything, you need to blame that on him.

    Methinks, in your haste to bash dispensationalism, you misread.

    Further proof.....

    [Edited on 3-8-2005 by OS_X]
    KG
    Theologically Correct dot Com
    http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
    Wallace PCA in College Park, MD
    The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
    Join * Contribute * Discuss: Life | Doctrine | Music
    streaming music • blog • message board • christian music hub

  5. #45
    tcalbrecht's Avatar
    tcalbrecht is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,919
    Originally posted by OS_X

    See.... this proves my point completely that you don't read everything, Tom.

    I never said CT confuses anything in this thread. ...
    Hey, Kerry, if you read very carefully you'll see I never mentioned you in my comment.

    You need to not be so paranoid. We don't talk about you all the time ... at least I don't. :bigsmile:

    BTW, isn't the charge made by classics against progressives that y'all confuse the church and the kingdom?
    Tom Albrecht
    Grace & Peace PCA, Pottstown, PA.

    "When I find the time, I'm going to sit down and write the social history of bourbon."

  6. #46
    Peters is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    280
    Hi Kerry

    According to progressive dispensationalism, what Old Testament covenant promises has Christ not yet fulfilled?

    Thanks
    Marcos Peters
    Twynholm Baptist Church (FIEC)
    London England

    [i]For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED." And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling." But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. [b]Hebrews 12:18-24[/b][/i]

  7. #47
    BlackCalvinist's Avatar
    BlackCalvinist is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    We are seeing partial fulfillment of the OT promises now in the church (i.e.- Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2), but will also see complete fulfillment of the literal OT promises to literal Israel in a literal millennium (not a 'spiritual' one). It's not an 'either/or' (dispensational vs covenant), but a 'both/and'.

    Already/Not Yet.

    Pick up the '4 Views on Revelation' book and read C. Marvin Pate's chapter. A short summary of it from Bible.org -

    Both the progressive and classical dispensationalists are in the futurist camp, believing that most of Revelation, especially from chapter 4 forward, will yet be fulfilled in the future.

    I won´t attempt to summarize the views here. I think that these "œfour views" formats are very helpful, and it would be well worth your time to read them. I found particularly interesting the differences between the two dispensational camps. The progressive camp tends to make use of the already/not yet tension in its hermeneutic. For example, Pate says:

    The classical dispensationalist relegates the events of Revelation 4-5 to the distant future. The progressive dispensationalist, however, perceives the overlapping of the two ages to be operative in John´s vision of the exaltation of Christ to the throne of God. On the one hand, the age to come has dawned in heaven. This is nothing less than the beginning of the fulfillment of the reign of the Davidic Messiah"¦On the other hand, Christ´s David-like kingdom has not yet fully descended to the earth. Chapters 6-19 detail the process by which that messianic kingdom will manifest itself on earth. Thus at the time of the events of Revelation 4-5, the age to come had not yet been completed (page 144).

    In other words, this approach interprets chapters 6-19 through the lens of the already/not yet tension. In what follows, we divide this hermeneutic into its two constituent parts: (1) the already aspect"”the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation 6-19 in John´s day; (2) the not yet aspect"”the final accomplishment of those prophecies in the period immediately prior to the Parousia (page 146).

    Pate sees a parallel structure between the first half of Jesus´ Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) and the seal judgments of Revelation 6. Thus the fall of Jerusalem "œis part of the "˜already´ aspect of the age to come, while the return of Christ constitutes its "˜not yet´ aspect"¦(and while) the signs of the times began with Jesus and his generation, especially the fall of Jerusalem, (they) will not be complete until the return of Christ" (page 148). So you see some overlap with the preterist view.

    In response, Thomas states that progressive dispensationalism "œrepresents a significant change in principles of interpretation , so that the name "˜dispensationalism´ does not apply to that system" (page 180). So there appears to be a very sharp division between the two dispensationalist camps.
    http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1627
    KG
    Theologically Correct dot Com
    http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
    Wallace PCA in College Park, MD
    The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
    Join * Contribute * Discuss: Life | Doctrine | Music
    streaming music • blog • message board • christian music hub

  8. #48
    Peters is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    280
    Kerry,

    What would you point to in the New Testament to prove that:

    a) Every Old Testament covenant promise mentioned in the New Testament has been only "partially" fulfilled.

    b) These same promises await a greater, fuller realization than that which the New Testament writers attribute to Christ already.

    I want to understand why, from the New Testament, progressive dispensationalism thinks that now (in Christ) is NOT the "not yet" that they're waiting for in the future. This seems to be exactly what the New Testament teaches, that "now" all the promises in Christ are "yes". Why does "yes" mean "almost yes"?

    Thanks again
    Marcos Peters
    Twynholm Baptist Church (FIEC)
    London England

    [i]For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED." And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling." But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. [b]Hebrews 12:18-24[/b][/i]

  9. #49
    Peters is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    280
    Marcos Peters
    Twynholm Baptist Church (FIEC)
    London England

    [i]For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED." And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling." But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. [b]Hebrews 12:18-24[/b][/i]

  10. #50
    BlackCalvinist's Avatar
    BlackCalvinist is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Just haven't gotten to it yet. I'm frying several dozen other fish right now, Peters. Don't assume 'victory' yet
    KG
    Theologically Correct dot Com
    http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
    Wallace PCA in College Park, MD
    The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
    Join * Contribute * Discuss: Life | Doctrine | Music
    streaming music • blog • message board • christian music hub

  11. #51
    Peters is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    280
    Brother, i assume no such thing
    Marcos Peters
    Twynholm Baptist Church (FIEC)
    London England

    [i]For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, "IF EVEN A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE STONED." And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I AM FULL OF FEAR and trembling." But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. [b]Hebrews 12:18-24[/b][/i]

  12. #52
    BlackCalvinist's Avatar
    BlackCalvinist is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Originally posted by Peters
    Kerry,

    What would you point to in the New Testament to prove that:

    a) Every Old Testament covenant promise mentioned in the New Testament has been only "partially" fulfilled.

    b) These same promises await a greater, fuller realization than that which the New Testament writers attribute to Christ already.

    I want to understand why, from the New Testament, progressive dispensationalism thinks that now (in Christ) is NOT the "not yet" that they're waiting for in the future. This seems to be exactly what the New Testament teaches, that "now" all the promises in Christ are "yes". Why does "yes" mean "almost yes"?

    Thanks again
    I think these three articles can answer all of your questions. I'm in the midst of a huge blog entry dealing with some exegetical bizz against traditional dispensationalism.

    http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html
    http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp2.html
    http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/israel.html
    KG
    Theologically Correct dot Com
    http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
    Wallace PCA in College Park, MD
    The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
    Join * Contribute * Discuss: Life | Doctrine | Music
    streaming music • blog • message board • christian music hub

  13. #53
    New wine skin is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    336
    I took your advice and read the article link"¦ here are some thoughts after reading the excerpt below:

    Paragraph from Link:
    THE DAVIDIC COVENANT AND THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
    Some progressive dispensationalists believe the Davidic Covenant is also partially fulfilled during this dispensation, with Christ seated on David's throne at the right hand of the Father. This in no way diminishes His future reigning in the Millennium. However, this is NOT a crucial issue within progressive dispensationalism. Other progressive dispensationalists, including this author, agree with traditional dispensationalists that this covenant will only be inaugurated upon the second coming. On Palm Sunday, the crowds cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" [Matt. 21:9]. This was the crowd's acknowledgment that Jesus was the one to fulfill the Davidic Covenant, and they expected Him to assume the throne immediately, [see: Luke 19:11]. However, when the scribes and priests heard the crowd call Jesus the "Son of David" they were "sore displeased." A few days later, after Jesus' scathing denouncement of the Scribes and Pharisees, He said, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." [Matt. 23:38,39]. Jesus implied that taking His seat as King of Israel, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, was suspended until Israel repents as a nation. This will only occur at the second coming of Jesus, when they "look on Him whom they have pierced" [Zech. 12:10], and then "all Israel shall be saved," [Rom. 11:26]. That the Davidic Covenant will only be inaugurated when Israel is restored is clearly stated in Jeremiah 23:5-8.

    This quote is from http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html by Tim Warner

    My Response:
    Is it not a stretch to make the assumptions above??? Is this the Jewish sinners prayer when they unanimously acknowledge " He that comes in the name of the Lord"¦" As a response to this I should point out that Jesus says in John 3, speaking to Nicodemus you must be born again to see the kingdom, to discern spiritual things"¦. If a person is regenerated and sealed with the Sprit whether Jew or Gentile, living then or now, that person ought to have the capacity to say as Christ intimates in Matt 23 "blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord""¦.

    Ok"¦ another issue: Seems prog. dispie assuming only OT prophecies related to Christ apply to Jews as with Zech 12:10 mentioned above???? Huhhhh this is rhetoric in my mind. How does Zech 12:10 get made into a future event beyond Advent of Christ?

    Now lets move on to the issue w Rom 11:26..."All Israel Saved". To assume all means all in this statement and Israel means ethinic Iseal which exludes Gentile contradicts limited atonement and Pauline theology by declaring universalism for all ethnic Israel. The all statement makes sense if it implies that Israel is the "elect in Christ" which would include Gentiles (Grafted into the tree). Perhaps dispies have a problem understanding the "all passages".????
    Now w Jer 23:5-6 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this [is] his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. ( now as an adherent to Covenant Theology, I agree that this verse refers to Christ which is the root and branch of the Tree, which fulfills the Covenant of Grace (aka Covenant of David per Progressive dispie Tim Warner) but This is spiritual not physical kingdom"¦ Christ states he is not establishing an earthly Kingdom"¦.. I am confused how this verse helps the dispie close his argument in the paragraph listed above.

    Any comments are welcome as I am wearing my flame suit.
    Scott McManus
    Attending Hillcrest Church
    RTS Charlotte - MA Distance
    Dallas TX

  14. #54
    govols's Avatar
    govols is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,393
    Here is an article about "all Israel" found in Romans 11:26:
    All Israel

    Here is an article in which I believe Johnny Mac would agree with:
    Am I A Dispensationalist
    For the sake of the Name,

    John Hill
    Faith Community - Woodstock, Ga
    Adopted. Husband for 15 years. Father of 5 children.
    http://faithcommunitychurch.org- My home church
    Rocky Top, you'll always be, home sweet home to me.

  15. #55
    New wine skin is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    336
    Thanks for the links John, I plan to read over them later today.
    Scott McManus
    Attending Hillcrest Church
    RTS Charlotte - MA Distance
    Dallas TX

  16. #56
    tcalbrecht's Avatar
    tcalbrecht is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,919
    Originally posted by govols
    Here is an article about "all Israel" found in Romans 11:26:
    All Israel

    Here is an article in which I believe Johnny Mac would agree with:
    Am I A Dispensationalist
    Am I missing something, or does the author ever define what he means by "Israel"?

    I think this is the primary defect in the dispensational system. It treats "Israel" as an ethnic entity rather than as a covenantal entity (unless it makes a distinction between "Israel" and "Jews", which it does not appear to do). They believe (erroneously) that the promises to Abraham were to his physical seed, rather than to Jesus Christ. But this is contrary to Galatians 3. And if the promises are to Abraham's physical and yet need to be fulfilled in the future, they have no way to account for all the converts to Judaism from the gentiles throughout history. Do gentiles who convert get a "piece of the action"?

    Likewise they have no way to account for all the Jewish converts to Christianty. Do they speculate on the place of centuries of Jewish converts to Christianity during the dispensational version of the "thousand years"? Do they live in "Israel" with their "tribe" or do they live somewhere else with the rest of the gentiles? IOW, are they in the Church or Israel?
    Tom Albrecht
    Grace & Peace PCA, Pottstown, PA.

    "When I find the time, I'm going to sit down and write the social history of bourbon."

  17. #57
    New wine skin is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    336
    Tom, I hear you brother, in addition to your comments I would add few thoughts :

    From what I have read so far about the ThM thesis, the fellow who wrote this makes some rather drastic claims, which seem reckless to me. For example he says" where Wright goes astray, however, is in his belief that these OT promises are presently seeing fulfillment". pg 37 Weymeyer ThM Thesis (all Israel paper * see link above) This comes across to me as a sweeping judgment with no basis or back up. Sorry if its hard to get my point with such a small quotation. The PDF file will not let me copy paste.

    While reading the thesis, I noticed Weymeyer makes many such comments suggesting that with a difficult passage such and such theologian is wrong because it is "clearly" ( a favorite word of Weymeyer) evident from Weymeyers exegesis to be ... As if Weymeyer can "clearly" understand a difficult passage that Calvin or NT Wright couldn't??? I don't think Calvin, Wright or Palmer are the sine qua non of Exegesis, but one should not dismiss them so lightly.

    I am not impressed by this paper
    Scott McManus
    Attending Hillcrest Church
    RTS Charlotte - MA Distance
    Dallas TX

  18. #58
    Herald's Avatar
    Herald is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    15,087
    In my blog entry "Baptist in Crisis" I made the following statement:

    "So herein lies the crux of my quandary. I am a "Baptist in crisis" because my beliefs are in conflict with the popular view of modern day Baptist teaching. I am certainly not alone in this "crisis." There is a growing minority of Baptist theologians that have gone through a similar change in their thinking. They have adopted the biblical view of God's sovereignty. But modern day Baptist teachings are opposed to more than just Calvinism. Dispensationalism is as much a hallmark of modern day Baptist teaching as the sacrament of baptism itself. It is in this area that I struggle. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool dispensationalist. I cannot fall on my sword for that system anymore. While I have not embraced covenant theology, I have distanced myself from dispensationalism in order to study what I truly believe. There is no doubt that my acceptance of the biblical view of God's sovereignty (often labeled as Calvinism) has thrown doubt upon my once strong dispensational position. I do not know where it will eventually lead me. I trust in God on that question."

    The above being said, I am reading this thread with a pinch of amusement and great deal of interest.
    Bill Brown
    Elder
    Grace Baptist Church
    Student at Midwest Center for Theological Studies


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

  19. #59
    Denny is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    48
    Originally posted by houseparent
    Are there any books out dealing with this? For example, John MacArthur's form of dispie thought. Has anyone refuted it at length? It makes some signigant changes from the traditional stuff.
    I believe a couple of Professors at Dallas Theological Seminary have written articles, and maybe even a book dealing with Progressive Dispensationalism. I can't for the life of me remember their names,but a Friend of mine who graduated from DTS,who is now in the Reformed Episcopal Church,mentioned it to me in a discussion we where having regarding PD.

    [Edited on 9-27-2005 by Denny]

  20. #60
    Covenant Joel is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    897
    Darrell Bock would be one of them if I am not mistaken. Craig Blaising as well, though I'm not sure he's at DTS.

    Joel
    Joel
    TE (PCA)

  21. #61
    Greg's Avatar
    Greg is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    583
    Hi Kerry,

    You mentioned two books for PD, one by Blaising & Bock, and the other by Saucy. Have you read the book "Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views" by Herbert W. Bateman? If so, would you say that it does a good job in showing the comparison between Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism?
    Greg Carpenter
    Attending Lake Osborne Presbyterian Church
    Lake Worth, FL

    "It is a throne of grace that God in Christ is represented to us upon; but yet it is a throne still whereon majesty and glory do reside, and God is always to be considered by us as on a throne." –John Owen

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72