Am I dispensational?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonathonHunt

Guest
Matthew McMahon, in his interesting (but to me not persuasive) introduction to Covenant Theology, states that every Baptist is to some degree dispensational no matter how much they deny it.

How so?

I may have misunderstood something somewhere. Now, I do not believe in the Unity of the Covenants, but I believe that the Covenant of Grace applies to the Lord's people from the beginning of the world even unto the end, nor is there salvation for any man in any other covenant...


So how am I dispensational? How do I possibly believe that there are different dispensations?

Confused.
 
Jonathan,
I think he's referring to the continuity/discontinuity between the old and the new.

In CT, there is a continuity between the old covenants and the new covenant, circumcision and baptism, etc. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is known for its discontinuity between any and all covenants/dispensations. Since baptists don't recognize the same continuity as CTers do with regard to the old covenants and the new covenant, circumcision and baptism, etc., by default this lack of continuity indicates traces of dispensational thought.

They had a good discussion about this a while ago. I searched, but couldn't find the thread. I'll poke around a little more to see if I can find it. (as you may have guessed, there were a few other baptists like yourself who took exception to the dispensational classification).

Bob
 
John,

There is also the teaching I had received from my Reformed Baptist church highlighting the supposed different way the Holy Spirit operated in the OT as opposed to the NT. They are reluctant to describe the Holy Spirit as indwelling the OT believer. Ultimately Israel in Baptistic theology could not be considered a church because it contained so many external members. The Holy Spirit they say is the mark of the NT believer because he is indwelt and most believers are elect. So CT and NT disagree on what the holy spirit actually did differently in the NT as opposed to the OT. CT says that the differences are in the externals. The furtherance of divine revelation was given to the NT believer. The covenant became clearer and clearer, Christ's prophecies are seen fully and more perfectly in the OT texts. Also the NT texts are given to these same believers the Holy Spirit is then leading them into all truth. And in the apostolic age the Holy Spirit gave spiritual gifts to the early church to confirm the message of the CHurch. Also the Spirit was loosed to bring in more people to the kingdom, the Gentiles could no longer be kept at a distance. Remember the words of Peter, "Can anyone deny these men baptism?" The Holy Spirit confirmed that they belonged in the covenant community. The spirit was being poured into men's hearts!

As well in the OT someone who apostasizes is considered a covenant-breaker. In CT this model carries over into the NT. In Baptistic Theology however, there is further discontinuity, there are no external members of the church. If you apostasize you were never a part of the covenant. Baptistic Theology says that elect individuals ought to be baptized alone and that their families are not considered part of the covenant community. CT says that sincere professers receive the seal along with their families. This represents the lack of federal headship in Baptistic Theology.

Covenant Theology affirms federal headship and in fact points right to the gospel itself to its place in redemptive history. Baptistic Theology acknowledges headship in places but feels that it has a diminished place in NT church practice. This is lessened role of federal headship means that professors alone ought to be considered part of the covenant. Clearly then the emphasis of Baptistic thinking is the inward work of the spirit, they consider only those they consider sincere believers to be the church. The church is composed only of the elect. These differences highlighted are the outworking of this Baptistic aim. This marks a strong discontinuity from the OT assembly in Baptistic thinking. Therefore I feel it is a fair judgment to describe Baptistic Theology as containing a dispensational tendancy.

CT sees a clean process of the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace. These three elements flow clearly and perfectly through time.The Covenant of Works is made with Adam in the Garden when God says "Do this and live". This Covenant of Grace is made Adam and Even in Gen 3:15 when God points them to a salvific hope to attain by faith. The Covenant of Redemption is the covenant made between the Father and the Son more clearly revealed to us in the NT but certainly described in the OT. It is Savific plan while the Covenant of Grace is the outworking of the decree. Not all Baptists like using the term Covenant of Grace. All Baptists deny it should be applied to the covenant made with Adam and Eve and all who came to know God from Adam to Abraham. Particularly it is denied that the Abrahamic Covenant can be described as an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Baptist theology in fact emphasizes that the promises of God to man from Abraham until the New Covenant make up [i:6cfabc2643]covenants[/i:6cfabc2643] they are not the outworkings of a single salvific plan. This must be done to deny that Israel was externally part of [b:6cfabc2643]the [/b:6cfabc2643] Covenant.

:gpl:
 
I don't think it makes you dispensational. It could be argued that it has hints of dispensationl theology, but certianly it does not make you a follower of Darby of Scofield. But at the same time, one could argue, that some element of paedobaptism has dispensational leanings. Not in sense of spliting up the bible but in the sense that it places too much emphasis on the rituals of ethnic Israel. Although I am no way saying that that is as nuts as the dispensational understanding on the aaronic priesthood. I'd be a paedobaptist long before I would be a dispensationalist.

VanVos
 
VanVos,

I would say that Baptistic theology shows hints of Dispensational tendencies and does not make one a card carrying Dispensationalist. Please don't think that is what we are saying when we say Baptist thinking is somewhat dispensationalist.

I disagree with the notion that paedobaptist theology emphasizing unity between the OT and NT believers is placing "too much emphasis on the rituals of ethnic Israel". Rather it is seeing the continuity between Israeli "ritual" and Church "ritual". Dispensationalism favors discontinuity.
 
This is a quote from Mr. John Murray

[quote:fe49423ca3]
The covenant theology not only recognized the organic unity and progressiveness of redemptive revelation but also the fact that redemptive revelation was covenant revelation and that the religion of piety which was the fruit and goal of this covenant revelation was covenant religion or piety.
[/quote:fe49423ca3]
 
It matters on how one uses the term dispensationalist. If by the term "dispensationalist" one means that Israel and the church are totally distinct and that they are two different peoples of God... then, no, Confessional baptists are not in the least bit dispensational.

If one defines dispensational based on there being some discontinuities between the present administration and the former, then yes, we are all in a way dispensational. -Hence, [b:df923feaac]Matthew McMahon is a dispensationalist[/b:df923feaac], as are all othordox baptists and paedo-baptists. Anyone who is not dispensational in this manner (in that there is some areas of discontinuity between the administrations) is a Judaizer.

Now, if we drew out a spectrum and, on one end wrote "hyper-covenantal" and on the other end wrote "hyper-dispensational", with all forms of covenantal and dispensational teachings between, then, as confessional baptists, we would be a little closer to the dispensational side than would the confessional presbyterian. The confessional presbyterian would be closer to the dispensational side (I would say much closer) than the hyper-covenantalist.


However, if dispensationalism is to be limited to the ideology that there is two different peoples of God and two different purposes of God in relation to those peoples and that there are two different laws of God (one for the Old Testament one for the New Testament), then by no means can one be a Confessional Baptist and dispensational.
 
Paul if you answer "no" to Ianterrell, then you are also a Dispensational in terms of the law,a nd its extensions. Rather, there is a distinction as to how far one takes the law, what it applies to and what aspects of it are binding, and what aspects are not binding based on civil, ceremonial and moral aspects.
 
[quote:467ef93e61]
If one defines dispensational based on there being some discontinuities between the present administration and the former, then yes, we are all in a way dispensational.
[/quote:467ef93e61]

Who in the world defines this in this way Dan? Quote someone...
 
[quote:9fecfee8ae][i:9fecfee8ae]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:9fecfee8ae]
[quote:9fecfee8ae]
If one defines dispensational based on there being some discontinuities between the present administration and the former, then yes, we are all in a way dispensational.
[/quote:9fecfee8ae]

Who in the world defines this in this way Dan? Quote someone... [/quote:9fecfee8ae]

I could be wrong, but I think that Dan wasn't trying to say that anyone actually defines it this way, but was rather using this as a hypothetical example of how we can mean different things by the term Dispensational, and can have vaying degrees of associating the definition with discontinuity in our minds, which is what often causes some of the confusion and disagreement over definitions, such as whether or not credos are Dispensational, etc.

[quote:9fecfee8ae][i:9fecfee8ae]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:9fecfee8ae]
It matters on how one uses the term dispensationalist. If by the term "dispensationalist" one means that Israel and the church are totally distinct and that they are two different peoples of God... then, no, Confessional baptists are not in the least bit dispensational.

If one defines dispensational based on there being some discontinuities between the present administration and the former, then yes, we are all in a way dispensational. -Hence, [b:9fecfee8ae]Matthew McMahon is a dispensationalist[/b:9fecfee8ae], as are all othordox baptists and paedo-baptists. Anyone who is not dispensational in this manner (in that there is some areas of discontinuity between the administrations) is a Judaizer.

Now, if we drew out a spectrum and, on one end wrote "hyper-covenantal" and on the other end wrote "hyper-dispensational", with all forms of covenantal and dispensational teachings between, then, as confessional baptists, we would be a little closer to the dispensational side than would the confessional presbyterian. The confessional presbyterian would be closer to the dispensational side (I would say much closer) than the hyper-covenantalist.


However, if dispensationalism is to be limited to the ideology that there is two different peoples of God and two different purposes of God in relation to those peoples and that there are two different laws of God (one for the Old Testament one for the New Testament), then by no means can one be a Confessional Baptist and dispensational. [/quote:9fecfee8ae]

Dan, while I'm a paedo and obviously disagree with your view on baptism and some administrations and continuities in the covenants, I think that you have well-defined the issue of terms here, and clarified why us paedos think you credos to be Dispensational-esque to some extent, and yet why you all deny being "dispensational" per se. I think that you've really nailed it here as far as how our minds' definitions of the terms "Dispensational" and "continuity" can sometimes lead to misunderstanding, and where each group is coming from in terms of how they classify themselves and the other group.

In Christ,

Chris
 
Chris,

And if one thinks about the argument as to whether one is Reformed or not, the is issue is made clearer I think. The "Reformed Baptist" is not [b:6f43ca9ef6]reformed[/b:6f43ca9ef6] but he tends towards [i:6f43ca9ef6]reformed[/i:6f43ca9ef6] thought. The Baptist is not a [i:6f43ca9ef6]Covenant Theologian[/i:6f43ca9ef6] but he tends towards [i:6f43ca9ef6]covenantal [/i:6f43ca9ef6] thought. In this sense it is not incorrect for the Paedobaptist to argue that Particular Baptistic theology tends towards dispensational thought (as opposed to the Reformed theology which conforms more to covenant thought). The varies from individual to individual as to how consistent they are in this line of course.

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
Matthew writes,

[quote:1795dd8021]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If one defines dispensational based on there being some discontinuities between the present administration and the former, then yes, we are all in a way dispensational.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who in the world defines this in this way Dan? Quote someone...
[/quote:1795dd8021]

No problem, I'll just quote you in this very thread.
You said to Paul, "[i:1795dd8021]Paul if you answer "no" to Ianterrell [that he does not keep new moons festivals, multiple Sabbaths and wear a Tzizit], then you are also a Dispensational in terms of the law,a nd its extensions.[/i:1795dd8021] "

In what way would that make him a dispensationalist? By implication you have defined the discontinuity in the continuation of the ceremonial law (i.e., its fulfilment in Christ) as dispensational. This is that to which I am refering. We are all, by your implications, dispensational.




[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Dan....]
 
Your right Paul I was mostly boxing air on that one. I guess I misunderstood the theonomists' position. I do not, however see civil government being a concern in apostolic writings. I'm not sure that civil laws should be lumped together with the legal scriptures on morality. Why not consider all the OT laws "moral"?

The civil laws were for Israel as a national body. Theonomy would in my opinion begin to blur the line between government and church. The civil laws were for the Israeli church and were temporary.
 
This has all been very interesting and useful to my thinking. I'm not going to debate with all you folks - I think the debate has been done to death. Suffice it to say that I now understand why the tag 'slightly Dispensational' might be attached to me... and I take it with good grace!

One day we'll all meet in heaven and laugh about this... well, we'll all meet in heaven anyway!

Really useful stuff brothers, thanks for your input.
 
[quote:7751392c7f][i:7751392c7f]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:7751392c7f]
Your right Paul I was mostly boxing air on that one. I guess I misunderstood the theonomists' position. I do not, however see civil government being a concern in apostolic writings. I'm not sure that civil laws should be lumped together with the legal scriptures on morality. Why not consider all the OT laws "moral"?

The civil laws were for Israel as a national body. Theonomy would in my opinion begin to blur the line between government and church. The civil laws were for the Israeli church and were temporary. [/quote:7751392c7f]
Ian the way I understand theonomy is this Isaiah 11:9 says that the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. If we understand this in light of the progress of Christ's Kingdom here on earth wouldn't his law ultimately become the governing body of law among men.
 
Sean,

Are you a postmill. I'm exactly expecting great progress with Christian influence generally, though I hope it does! If Christian influence were to increase it would be great obviously for the laws to be God centered, biblically based as well.

Paul,

If it wasn't on the front-burner for them I find it hard to place "political activist" ideas on the front burner for myself. I feel that Christ's Kingdom is not of this word. The already/not-yet principle, the two-age principle, all from scripture teach me to hope for an eternal kingdom not a Christian theocracy.
 
Ian,
Yes I lean strongly toward the post-mill camp. I believe that as Christ's Kingdom advances so will his influence in govt. and society. I am an opptimistic believer in Christs progressive Kingdom. Psalm 2
 
But as Reformed Baptists, we still believe that children are under the covenant, as long as we are speaking of spiritual babes in Christ who undergo their circumcision following the new birth. I believe in unity and continuity between the covenants, and don't see why I would be a Dispensational just because I believe that NT baptism/circumcision deals with spiritual birth and not physical. :puzzled:

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by Ranger]
 
The NT obviously must "gnosticise" birth occasionally since I'm pretty sure that John 1:12-13 isn't talking about physical birth since it says "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Or in John 3 where a connection between this spiritual birth and baptism is made (3:3-5)


[quote:14d5657ed4]
What about when it talks about ahving kids... does that mean making disciples or something.
[/quote:14d5657ed4]

Probably not, but "children" is a pretty common NT term for disciples. There is a clear connection throughout the NT between new believers and infants. Since the original covenant was physical, yet still had spiritual interpretations in the OT (i.e. circumcision of the heart), why do we assume that those spiritual implications are thrown out in the NT when Jesus himself uses "birth" in a completely different manner than in the OT?
 
The truth of the matter is that the more I study this baptism thing, the more it irks me. It used to just seem so clear to me when I was more ignorant of the issue. "Jesus was baptized as an adult, therefore so are we..." Blah, blah, blah... :banghead:

Realistically, I stray from figurative interpretations, but if the text makes it clear that the meaning is figurative then I will interpret it as such. My original post basically said that since the most important birth in the NT is the spiritual birth, then I don't see why circumcision (which is also so important) could not come after this birth. I have no problem connecting NT baptism with circumcision and see that clear connection in Colossians 2, but I also see a connection between being born of water and the spirit in John 3, and could see our baptism/circumcision coming after the new birth and not necessarilly after the physical birth.
 
Jonathan....

I hope you're still reading this thread. I debated about sending you a u2u, but I wanted to know if anyone else shared the view I'm about to expound.

Could we say that whether CT or Dispensational, the issue follows a certain hermeneutic?

I tend to think that pure CT takes a front to back approach to the Scriptures. After having had dialog with many on this board and with other truly dispensational people, I would say that theirs is a back to front approach to the Scriptures.

Depending on the viewpoint, one can either see much continuity or much discontinuity.

I don't mind the term dispensation because the Bible uses it. I don't mind seeing discontinuity between the OT and the NT. However, what I call dispensational is when a truth that was known from the beginning isn't brought forward in its proper context. I think, and Matthew may correct me, this is what webmaster is getting at. Those who look at Scripture from the top down do not get a full picture.

I view dispensationalism as a person who looks at a tapestry from 6 inches away. They really know that part of the tapestry well. However, those who look at the tapestry from the proper distance to be able to see the whole and not just the part, these are the ones with the perspective it takes to understand God's Redemption.

So, I have used the term, and probably will from time to time. However, when I use it, it is usually to point out the hermeneutic behind some thought or idea. If a person uses the Scripture having displaced the foundational truth, then I consider them as being "dispensational" in their thinking.

I don't mean to offend anyone by this. I think that we would all be better served with a proper hermeneutic of the Scriptures. And that hermeneutic, In my humble opinion, is from front to back.

In Christ,

KC
 
Kevin,

An interesting post! I just found this thread again and noticed it was longer than when I left it.

I would just say this: I read the Bible - the whole Bible, from front to back - looking at the whole, and not at parts. There is indeed one Covenant of Grace, and we may see that the scriptures are 'shot through' with it.

I think it is almost attacking a 'straw man' to talk of reading the scriptures 'back to front' as bringing out a view that is not Covenant Theology.

I would say that reading the scriptures 'back to front' definately produces what I would understand as 'Dispensational' theology. But reading the scriptures in perspective, in my opinion, can give rise to more than the 'Covenant Theology' position. I believe that it gives rise to the historic calvinistic baptist position also.

My head hurts... :deadhorse:
 
[quote:a0b5fdf3b8]
I think, and Matthew may correct me, this is what webmaster is getting at. Those who look at Scripture from the top down do not get a full picture.
[/quote:a0b5fdf3b8]

I would agree heartily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Am I being too harsh on dispensationalist?
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
heartoflesh
heartoflesh
Scott
  • Locked
dispensational quotes
Replies
11
Views
6K
Dan....
D
BlackCalvinist
  • Locked
Why I am a dispensationalist with a small 'd'...
Replies
2
Views
4K
Fernando
F
Fly Caster
  • Locked
Dispensational Nature of Israel?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Iconoclast
Iconoclast
panta dokimazete
  • Locked
Covenant vs Dispensational Theology
Replies
9
Views
8K
Christusregnat
C
Back
Top