What is more dangerous to our theology? FV or Dispensationalism?

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by Doulos McKenzie, May 16, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    I currently see that the Church was always part of the plan of God, so was done after israel proper rejected Jesus as messiah, so do not see it as plan B, but also do see Israel as still part of the plan pf God in the sense that to me spiritual israel would be saved Jews, and that Jesus does save a faithful remnant of them in each generation... Also take the all israel shall be saved as the generation alive at time of Second Coming...
     
  2. Doulos McKenzie

    Doulos McKenzie Puritan Board Freshman

    Congratulations my friend, you are by definition a dispensationalist.
     
  3. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Would tend to see myself more along lines of a Covenant preMil person though!
     
  4. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Covenant Premil guys like Blomberg and Ladd do not hold your views on Israel. All a Covenant Premil needs to say is that some of the cosmic promises in the OT can't be fulfilled until Jesus returns. Nothing about Israel.
     
  5. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    Do you agree with the LBC, Chapter 8?

    Paragraph 6. Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,being the same yesterday, and today and for ever.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  6. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    That's because they've already taken over those churches.

    I can think of only a couple of fairly recent new Dispensational plants in the heart of Dispyland, and one of those was a split from a former Presbyterian church taken over years ago; the other is a legitimate, 'from scratch' operation. From a group that claims to be evangelical, you don't see a lot of new "Bible Church" works.

    And, of course, they infiltrated and took over lots of Southern Baptist churches a generation or two back.
     
  7. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    To the OP, because it asks specifically about "our" theology, I would have to say FV is the more dangerous because it seeks to alter the meaning and practice of what we confess, whilst dispensationalism is fairly recognisable as being a different theology belonging to a different group. Dispensationalism creates all kinds of troubles in its own environment, but it is not native to the reformed community. FV causes all kinds of troubles in a reformed community because it grows up within the environment, sucking all the nutrients out of the soil, overspreading the garden, and slowly choking the life out of the plants.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Edifying Edifying x 1
    • List
  8. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Edward, you say that FV'ers are fairly easy to smoke out. That has not been true in my rather extensive experience, precisely because they use terms in such a slippery manner. Even the diagnostic questions that I usually ask can be answered by the more intelligent proponents in a way that is just ambiguous enough to try to allay fears, and yet still allow room for their own withheld definitional changes. The only easy ones to spot are the ones who used to use the internet extensively to promote their views: Mark Horne, Jeff Meyers, Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, etc. The smaller fish can be much more difficult to spot.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  9. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    I do not see the Lord hving promises still to them as a nation per say, but do see that the lord is still dealing to save out of them a remnant unto himself in each generation, that He did not cease dealing with them totally after AD 70, is that wrong?
     
  10. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Yes
     
  11. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Good point, as those Christians who hold to non Covenant theology would be seeing it in total different ways, but would not be part of the reformed landscape
     
  12. Gforce9

    Gforce9 Puritan Board Junior

    Who is the remnant? Who is the Israel of God? Who are Abraham's true sons?
     
  13. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Perhaps we can phrase it a different way: is the land upon which the current, atheistic nation-state of Israel significant to Judaism in the future promises of God?
     
  14. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    The remnant in this case would be the jews God chose to save out in each generation, just as He did under the Old Covenant. The israel of God now would be those saved by the grace of God, and the true sons of Abraham are those with faith in Jesus, not those just of the flesh!
     
  15. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Not at the present time, honestly not sure if will be when Jesus sets up his Kingdom l reign here upon the earth...
     
  16. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Okay. When you say stuff like "God still has a plan for the Jews/Israel," does that mean that they will be converted en masse at the end of history, or does it mean that the territory in Palestine belongs to the atheistic nation of Israel today? The first proposition is the view by most in church history. The second is to be rejected.
     
  17. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    My take would be that all of the jews alive at time of the Second Coming will get saved, as they will see and mourn over their true messiah.... So its not the land, but the Jewish people...
     
  18. Gforce9

    Gforce9 Puritan Board Junior

    Are not we the remnant, the Israel of God, and Abraham's true sons?
     
  19. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    I will concede that they are slippery in that they use secret definitions for commonly understood terms. But many (most?) will trip themselves up with Paedocommunion.
     
  20. greenbaggins

    greenbaggins Administrator Staff Member

    Edward, that is true that they will. However, paedo-communion is not a sure-fire sign of FV theology. I have known several PC guys who were not FV (although they tend to be soft on FV, which is its own problem). So there is a slippery tendency even there.
     
  21. Backwoods Presbyterian

    Backwoods Presbyterian Puritanboard Amanuensis

    This is a good point. FV is very localized in one corner of the Reformed world. Dispensationalism effects the entirety of the Protestant world (even more so, you'd be amazed at how many RC's I know who hold to a Pre-Trib Rapture) and strikes at the vitals of a number of doctrines (Covenant Theology, Ecclesiology, Anthropology, etc...)

    Dispensationalism is at the heart of the Antinomianism, especially when it comes to the 4th Commandment, in evangelical circles.
     
  22. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    These things almost never come up in conversations I have with people.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  23. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    If someone is PC and soft on FV, I really don't have any problem counting them as being on the other side of the river. Just because the FV Pope in Idaho might not consider them orthodox doesn't mean that I have to accept them.
     
  24. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Most of those whom i still are friends with though do not seethe life in Christ as being just do your own thing now, as they would pretty much agree that since now saved by Grace, they do not have the licensee to now just freely sin...
     
  25. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Yes, but to me there is also 'something" God is still doing with the Jewish people, NOT their nation/land, but among them., as He always seemed to call out among them that faithful remnant unto this present day... And i am still trying to understand better just what is meant by all israel being saved in the end, and also what Peter in Acts meant when they turn to the Messiah, how much more glorious that will be...
     
  26. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    FV seems to be trying to get us back to the mother Church of Rome, and have unity at sake of doctrine purity, and don't know any Dispensational who would agree with that!
     
  27. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    I think most would say they are their brothers. I think what you are driving at is that they would deny that they are members of the church, which isn't necessarily the same thing from their point of view. They would say that the "tribulation saints" are also not part of the church and that the church only exists between Pentecost and the (pre-trib) Rapture. This divvying up of the redeemed is what even MacArthur's statement of faith teaches.

    BTW, anyone who claims to hold to the 1689 as well as MacArthur's eschatology should pointed to the respective articles on the church and the incompatibility should hit them immediately. The 1689 says that the church encompasses the whole company of the redeemed from Genesis to Revelation. As noted above, every form of dispensationalism that I know of denies this.
     
  28. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    God doing something with Israel/the Jews (including a restoration to the land) isn't even limited to premil, much less dispensationalism. (One would probably be correct in saying that what is nowadays called Zionism is generally limited to millennialism though, which would include some forms of postmil that are rarely espoused today.) Things have gotten so polarized these days though that too often one is considered to have Dispensational leanings if one espouses anything more than maybe a "end time" conversion of a great many Jews just before the Second Coming.
     
  29. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    FV also calls itself Reformed, which is a big difference.

    Perhaps a better way to state the question is which one is more dangerous to Reformed churches in 2017. When is the last time the alleged dispensational views of a ministerial candidate were discussed or debated in a Presbytery of a NAPARC church, whether in committee or on the floor? Maybe it happens more than I would imagine, but surely it is much less often than FV and related doctrines.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  30. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    If that is the litmus test, then the historic premils Spurgeon, Ryle, Bonar, M'Cheyne as well as Edwards and a number of other postmils should all be considered dispensationalists.

    Historically, whether or not there are any promises related to the promised land that are yet to be fulfilled is not the dividing line of "historic premil" and dispensationalism. Ladd basically recast the view and moved it closer to amil with regard to interpretation of OT prophecy.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page