Thread: The "Sheol" of Dispensationalism

No longer dispensational, but not an adherent of covenant theology. Where does that put a person? Is there a middle position? Is it necessary to be one or the other? How many have abandoned dispensationalism but have not become a covenant theologian?

Bill,
Look this thread over as well as the Eschatology section:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi....php?tid=13513

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Bill,
Look this thread over as well as the Eschatology section:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi....php?tid=13513

Scott - okay...I perused through that thread. It seems to a do a good job defining preterists, idealists etc. Not sure I found specific answers to my question.

On an emotional level I would say agree that some prophecies are yet to be fulfilled and Christ has not yet returned! He is coming again. But I have not performed any critical study on the issue. It is enough for me (at this point) that I have Matthison's book on Post-Millennialism. I have also read Gerstners's book on dispensationalism. I don't have to be convinced that dispensationalism is incorrect...I am already there. I am asking, "Where to next?"

Covenant Theology holds behind it a "theology" of hope. It surrounds eschatological ideas whether one is Post- or A-.

Your eschatology, though is a consequence of your theological position. So CT or Dispensationalism is where one "starts" and then comes to their eschatological conclusion concerning the end.

Originally posted by webmaster
Covenant Theology holds behind it a "theology" of hope. It surrounds eschatological ideas whether one is Post- or A-.

Your eschatology, though is a consequence of your theological position. So CT or Dispensationalism is where one "starts" and then comes to their eschatological conclusion concerning the end.

Interesting observation.

Seems many Churches today start at their eschatalogical conclusion and never really say anything conclusive about much else except a generic "need for Christ" and that He's an example.

Dispies would say they have hope, a blessed one...the rapture.

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
No longer dispensational, but not an adherent of covenant theology. Where does that put a person? Is there a middle position? Is it necessary to be one or the other? How many have abandoned dispensationalism but have not become a covenant theologian?

I think this might be along the lines of what you are looking for:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...ad.php?tid=443

Originally posted by Dan....

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
No longer dispensational, but not an adherent of covenant theology. Where does that put a person? Is there a middle position? Is it necessary to be one or the other? How many have abandoned dispensationalism but have not become a covenant theologian?

I think this might be along the lines of what you are looking for:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...ad.php?tid=443

Oh man...talk about a smorgasboard. On first view of the link you provided I saw myself in the same quandray I now "enjoy." This is going to take much prayer and plenty of personal research.

Originally posted by webmaster
Covenant Theology holds behind it a "theology" of hope. It surrounds eschatological ideas whether one is Post- or A-.

Your eschatology, though is a consequence of your theological position. So CT or Dispensationalism is where one "starts" and then comes to their eschatological conclusion concerning the end.

Matt, would it be that all theological positions are the precursor to their respective eschatological positions.

If I understand dispensationalism correctly, a dispensationalist must believe in a rapture theory. Whether it be pre, mid, or post...a rapture is inherent to the system. I am not sure about PD's, but I would suppose that would be true for them also. Would someone please correct me if I am wrong?

So I ask myself a question: "Have I been pre-trib/pre-mil because I was a dispensationalist, or did my pre-trib/pre-mil position make me a dispensationalist?" Since I no longer believe in a rapture, does that automatically take me out of the dispensational system? If that is true, does the absence of a rapture view automatically put me in the CT or NCT camps, or is it possible to be in the middle somewhere? A theological man without a country?

I actually do not feel pressed to place myself in a camp just for the sake of doing so. I must be intellectually honest and tell you that I am compelled to investigate CT and NCT to a degree I would not have done in the past. I am probably skirting close to the line (if I haven't already crossed it) as an elder in my church. Our doctrinal statement says nothing about holding a pre-trib or pre-mil position, although the majority of our church is pre-trib and pre-mil. I suppose I need to be honest and inform the eldership of where I am in my theological journey. But I digress....

So for the Baptists in here, where are you theologically? Hopefully no one is dispensational. What do you guys believe?




[Edited on 11-1-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
So for the Baptists in here, where are you theologically? Hopefully no one is dispensational. What do you guys believe?

Eschatologically, I'm amil, kind of by default. Early on in my walk, I saw that dispensationalism didn't make sense to me. Shortly after coming to this realization, I attended a Bible study where the guy taught from the amil perspective. Against the backdrop of dispensationalism, amil made perfect sense to me and it kind of stuck. I'm sure, if I took the time to study them, some of the other camps (post-mil, partial preterism, historic premillenial, etc) would also make sense too against the backdrop of dispensationalism.

For some time now, I've been straddling the fence somewhere between baptist theology and CT. Being laid off and spending much time searching for a job, I've given my brain a rest from trying to figure out where I stand and what I believe. Quite honestly, I don't know if I have the brain power to dogmatically put myself into one camp to the exclusion of the other, though I'll keep trying. Both positions seem valid to me.

Recently, the pastor of the reformed congregational church I've been attending did a sermon where he explained why they baptize infants. I got a copy of it so I could listen to it at home at my leisure. I thought he did an excellent job explaining the reformed position and addressing some baptist objections to their doctrine. I found myself agreeing with most of the points he made. I guess I'm about as close as you can get to believing in CT without actually taking the 'pepsi plunge'.

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

. . .
So I ask myself a question: "Have I been pre-trib/pre-mil because I was a dispensationalist, or did my pre-trib/pre-mil position make me a dispensationalist?" Since I no longer believe in a rapture, does that automatically take me out of the dispensational system? If that is true, does the absence of a rapture view automatically put me in the CT or NCT camps, or is it possible to be in the middle somewhere? A theological man without a country?

I actually do not feel pressed to place myself in a camp just for the sake of doing so. I must be intellectually honest and tell you that I am compelled to investigate CT and NCT to a degree I would not have done in the past. I am probably skirting close to the line (if I haven't already crossed it) as an elder in my church. Our doctrinal statement says nothing about holding a pre-trib or pre-mil position, although the majority of our church is pre-trib and pre-mil. I suppose I need to be honest and inform the eldership of where I am in my theological journey. But I digress....

So for the Baptists in here, where are you theologically? Hopefully no one is dispensational. What do you guys believe?

Bill, I'm a Baptist and I hold to covenant theology. As for eschatology, I tend to a post-millenial view, but I waiver from time to time. I don't spend a great deal of time working on that in my thinking.

But I think it is a mistake to confine the rapture to the dispensational view. After all, the word comes from the Latin word "rapere" (which means to be "caught up") which was the Vulgate's translation of 1 Thes 4:17. I say with confidence that I believe in the rapture because Paul plainly teaches it.

The problem is not, then, with a rapture, but with a "secret rapture". That is where the dispensationalists first go wrong.

Vic

Originally posted by victorbravo

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

. . .
So I ask myself a question: "Have I been pre-trib/pre-mil because I was a dispensationalist, or did my pre-trib/pre-mil position make me a dispensationalist?" Since I no longer believe in a rapture, does that automatically take me out of the dispensational system? If that is true, does the absence of a rapture view automatically put me in the CT or NCT camps, or is it possible to be in the middle somewhere? A theological man without a country?

I actually do not feel pressed to place myself in a camp just for the sake of doing so. I must be intellectually honest and tell you that I am compelled to investigate CT and NCT to a degree I would not have done in the past. I am probably skirting close to the line (if I haven't already crossed it) as an elder in my church. Our doctrinal statement says nothing about holding a pre-trib or pre-mil position, although the majority of our church is pre-trib and pre-mil. I suppose I need to be honest and inform the eldership of where I am in my theological journey. But I digress....

So for the Baptists in here, where are you theologically? Hopefully no one is dispensational. What do you guys believe?

Bill, I'm a Baptist and I hold to covenant theology. As for eschatology, I tend to a post-millenial view, but I waiver from time to time. I don't spend a great deal of time working on that in my thinking.

But I think it is a mistake to confine the rapture to the dispensational view. After all, the word comes from the Latin word "rapere" (which means to be "caught up") which was the Vulgate's translation of 1 Thes 4:17. I say with confidence that I believe in the rapture because Paul plainly teaches it.

The problem is not, then, with a rapture, but with a "secret rapture". That is where the dispensationalists first go wrong.

Vic

Vic, I appreciate your reponse, although the pasage in 1 Thes. 4 causes me concern when applied to a rapture position. Looking purely at the text, my understanding is that those who have died in Christ will be with Him upon His return. In that sense they will preceed those saints who are alive when our Lord returns. Compare these two verses:

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

So which is it? Do the dead in Christ return with Him, or does our Lord first raise them up? If we believe that, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", do we conclude that this is just the resurrection of their bodies? Or could it just mean that those who have died in Christ are already with Him? They do not need to be translated, they are already with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes:

49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery;we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Those who have died in Christ have no need for their perishable body, nor can the perishable enter into the kingdom of God. If that is true, they have no need for the perishable body that has decayed on earth. Vic, some use this passage in concert with 1 Thes. 4 in order to support a rapture view. But the passage in 1 Corinthians has nothing at all do with a rapture (whether open or secret). It has everything to do with the resurrection (first of our Lord, and then of the elect).

And here is why I link a rapture view with dispensationalism. In order to be a dispensationalist, you must believe in a future seven year tribulation period. I do not know of many dispensationalists who believe the elect of God, will go through the entire tribulation. To be sure, there are some mid-tribbers out there who would pull believers out before the beginning of the Great Tribulation. Those who hold to a post-trib position are a rarity. Darbyism strongly held to a pre-mil position and most dispensationalists have not traveled far from the farm on that issue.

Vic, just my thoughts..and all typed in the love of Christ.

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

Bill, my only point was that the word rapture meant "caught up", which I take to be talking about the same thing as "being changed". "Caught up" also seems to me to be one aspect of being "raised again".

I admit my view on the sequence is pretty simple, but I think it is supportable: A shout, with trumpets; Christ raises the dead and changes the living; catches them up into the air; and returns. All on the last day.

And judgment follows.

But the particulars of that sequence, as near as I can tell, do not really bear on covenant theology. I view covenant theology (in a very bare fashion) as the framework for redemption:

Before the foundation of the world, the Father appointed the Son to die for sin. (Covenant of Redemption).

Adam sinned (violating the covenant of works). His sin is imputed to all of us, rendering us incapable of fulfilling the law.

Christ's righteousness was imputed to his chosen, who believe, through his death. (Covenant of Grace).

My rendering might be disputed by others, and there are, of course, many nuances and questions. My only point here is that one's view of the sequence of the end times does not necessarily keep you from holding to covenant theology.

Vic,

I seemed to have jumped the gun. I did not understand what you meant by a rapture. I automatically placed your comment in the typical dispensational-pretrib position. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by victorbravo


My rendering might be disputed by others, and there are, of course, many nuances and questions. My only point here is that one's view of the sequence of the end times does not necessarily keep you from holding to covenant theology.

I think it does. How about a Pretrib interpretation of the Millennium.
A. According to them there are two classes of people.
1. Glorified Saints
2. Natural man.

The natural man is the man saved through the tribulation, and begats natural offspring that rebels against God.

B. The heavenly Jerusalem is for the Saints, while Jews inhabit the promise land in peace, with there being natural man who populate the earth.


Right there, we have a two tiered category of salvation in relation to benefits. Christ saves yes, but He saves some for glorification where their, "bodies will be like unto Him", but others he saves to be purely Adamic in nature, "Adam before the fall".

While the above is not an explicit violation of the convenant, it shows that the convenant does not merit equity in terms of redemption.

Slippery, I agree with what you say. Classic Dispensationalism (as taught by Scofield et al.) does lead one to deny covenant theology.

But I know amils, post mils, and even Calvinistic premils who all hold to covenant theology and deny that there are separate forms of salvation.

Vic

Originally posted by victorbravo
Calvinistic premils who all hold to covenant theology and deny that there are separate forms of salvation.

Vic

I think a Calvinistic Premil is the most disingenuous os all eschatological position, this is supposing that there are other disingenuous eschatological positions which I doubt.

What the Progressive Dispies and the Calvinistic Premills have done, is they have assumed that the Premill doctrine is the correct one, and they simply purged out the elements of it that contradicts Covenant theology.

That's like a waiter upon realizing that he had meat in a food that was for a vegetarian, simply taking out the meat and serving the vegetarian.

In the pure legalistic notion of a vegetarian not eating meat, he has succeeded, but the dish is by a long shot far from being vegetarian.

Originally posted by Slippery
I think a Calvinistic Premil is the most disingenuous os all eschatological position, this is supposing that there are other disingenuous eschatological positions which I doubt.

What the Progressive Dispies and the Calvinistic Premills have done, is they have assumed that the Premill doctrine is the correct one, and they simply purged out the elements of it that contradicts Covenant theology.

That's like a waiter upon realizing that he had meat in a food that was for a vegetarian, simply taking out the meat and serving the vegetarian.

In the pure legalistic notion of a vegetarian not eating meat, he has succeeded, but the dish is by a long shot far from being vegetarian.

I like that! And I pray that I would be delivered from straining out gnats (or meat, for that matter).

Vic

I couldn't get rid of dispensational thinking until I got rid (somewhat) of perfectionistic thinking.