Covenant vs. Dispensation

[FreeinChrist]

I also think you might be missing some inteesting points about the sotry of Abraham and Issac.

Issac is the child of the promise - the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (she received the promise too!)

Abraham is told he must sacrifice this only begotten son.

They traveled there with a donkey - as Christ rode in on a donkey (keep reading).

Issac had to the carry the wood for the fire up the mountain - like Christ carried the cross.

The mountain the sacrifice was to take place on was Mt. Moriah - the mountain on which Solomon built the temple, and a bit aways from the temple was a place called Calvary.

When Abraham said, " the Lord will provide the sacrifice" - it was prophetic that God would would send His only begotten Son as the sacrifice for sin.

Now Abraham didn't understand the prophetic meaning of all this...but he knew that God promised nations from that one son.

 

[BT]

FreeinChrist. I'm sorry but you don't understand the scripture that you are using. Do you want to agree to disagree, or do you want me to exegete it all? I don't want to make this into a debate or anything by making you angry, and it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Sorry.

 

[BT]

I also think you might be missing some inteesting points about the sotry of Abraham and Issac.

Issac is the child of the promise - the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (she received the promise too!)

Abraham is told he must sacrifice this only begotten son.

They traveled there with a donkey - as Christ rode in on a donkey (keep reading).

Issac had to the carry the wood for the fire up the mountain - like Christ carried the cross.

The mountain the sacrifice was to take place on was Mt. Moriah - the mountain on which Solomon built the temple, and a bit aways from the temple was a place called Calvary.

When Abraham said, " the Lord will provide the sacrifice" - it was prophetic that God would would send His only begotten Son as the sacrifice for sin.

Now Abraham didn't understand the prophetic meaning of all this...but he knew that God promised nations from that one son.

Sorry but are you trying to prove my point or yours? Because in one post you say that Abraham understood it but now you say that he didn't...

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

BT,

What is your opinion on why the Jewish faith is still waiting on Messiah? If they just follow the Torah why would they be waiting on the Messiah?

 

[BT]

BT,

What is your opinion on why the Jewish faith is still waiting on Messiah? If they just follow the Torah why would they be waiting on the Messiah?

You're from that neck of the woods so you tell me.

 

[bleechers]

I believe that Eve was expecting the Messiah. I think when her first son was born she rejoiced thinking it was the promised one from Gen 3:15.

Note of interest (to me anyway): I named my second daughter "Moriah."

 

[FreeinChrist]

FreeinChrist. I'm sorry but you don't understand the scripture that you are using. Do you want to agree to disagree, or do you want me to exegete it all? I don't want to make this into a debate or anything by making you angry, and it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Sorry.

First, I am not angry.

Second, this statement: "it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway" was uncalled for, IMHO. Why are you attributing such a negative attitude to me? I wasn't being unkind to you.

Three, I don't understand the scripture I am using? Well, a whole lot of scholars understand it as I do.

What is funny is that I agree with regarding the fact that the OT saints did not receive salvation and went to Abraham's bosum and they were retrieved from there when Christ died and was resurrected. It was not hell that Christ went into but 'Abraham's bosum'.
The only thing I disagreed on was how much Abraham understood about the Messiah. The implication I saw from what you wrote is that Abraham probably had no clue about the future Seed. You had written:
" I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not.."


I beleive I posted scripture to show that Abraham did know about a future Seed. Did he know what town he would be born in, or what His name would be, or understand the sacrifice? I don't beleive he did.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Sorry but are you trying to prove my point or yours? Because in one post you say that Abraham understood it but now you say that he didn't...

Then please try to read my posts closer, BT. I don't really understand your problem with me.

I am a classic dispensationist. I beleive God progressively revealed His plan of salvation.

I see no reason why Abraham wouldn't have known about the promised seed of the woman from Genesis 3:15. And he had that encounter with Melchizedek AND communed directly with God, receiving his promises directly from God. But he didn't know what wasn't fully revealed yet.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

You're from that neck of the woods so you tell me.

actually, im from Georgia, USA. Just flying the Isreal flag in support of them. Just asking your opinion- isnt that what this forum is for?

I actually asked this in the MJ forum and am waiting a reply...

 

[BT]

First, I am not angry.

Second, this statement: "it looks like you're not going to listen to what I say anyway" was called for, IMHO. Why are you attributing such a negative attitude to me? I wasn't being unkind to you.

I didn't mean it in the way that it was taken. I only meant that you seem to have your mind firmly made up. I gave you some Biblical examples and use, and you skipped them and just threw out some more scripture. You've missed an important principle: You can not prove one piece of scripture (interpretation) wrong by setting another scripture at it. This is a bad thing. Either God's word is true or not. So if you want to prove the point you have to show where the scripture is improperly exegeted or understood. Then you move one.. That's all I meant. I certainly didn't mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize.

Three, I don't understand the scripture I am using? Well, a whole lot of scholars understand it as I do.

Yes you're right and that is the point really isn't it? You have some scholars that think in the same way as you. I mean it's not like I think you invented covenant theology
But you see this is yet another error (most especially of covenentalists not you in particular). When they find a conflict they run to the "scholars". It may interest you to know that I care not at all what the "scholars" say in most cases. I only care about what the Bible shows. Scholars are not divinely inspired (this is a beef with calvinism in particular...)

What is funny is that I agree with regarding the fact that the OT saints did not receive salvation and went to Abraham's bosum and they were retrieved from there when Christ died and was resurrected. It was not hell that Christ went into but 'Abraham's bosum'.

And you are absolutely correct.

The only thing I disagreed on was how much Abraham understood about the Messiah. The implication I saw from what you wrote is that Abraham probably had no clue about the future Seed. You had written:
" I wonder did Abraham even know the promise made in Genesis 3:15? Mabey.. mabey not.."


I beleive I posted scripture to show that Abraham did know about a future Seed. Did he know what town he would be born in, or what His name would be, or understand the sacrifice? I don't beleive he did.

Right on. This is the disagreement, and what I meant. The scriptures you posted were not about Abraham's understanding they were about his faith. When I say this is the disagreement I mean of the two sides not you and I (though we do disagree on this). The 11th chapter of Hebrews is the "faith" chapter, and I'm not sure which version of the Bible you are using but it seems to have muddied some of the doctrine (this only according to what I've read). The KJ language is quite clear. In only comparing what you quoted with my Bible I see huge differences (recall: I'm a KJV only). Differences in the doctrinal implications in particular for example you have that Abraham received Isaac as a "type" from Hebrews 11:19, but what it actually says is that he received him "in a figure", which is a wholly different thing...

On the whole there is not, I don't think, a huge difference in our opinion, and once again if I offended you I sincerely apologize.

 

[BT]

actually, im from Georgia, USA. Just flying the Isreal flag in support of them. Just asking your opinion- isnt that what this forum is for?

I actually asked this in the MJ forum and am waiting a reply...

Ah ok. And yes you can ask opinions...

The Jews are waiting for the Messiah, but they understand him to be a political leader, they don't see him as what we know Jesus was... the Son of God, and God, One with God...

Moses was the first messiah of the Jews... they are waiting for someone like that to come....

(I work and witness to Orthodox Jews so I have a little understanding about this... but not anywhere near what you'll find on the MJ boards for sure)

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color][/size]

I didn't mean it in the way that it was taken. I only meant that you seem to have your mind firmly made up. I gave you some Biblical examples and use, and you skipped them and just threw out some more scripture. You've missed an important principle: You can not prove one piece of scripture (interpretation) wrong by setting another scripture at it. This is a bad thing. Either God's word is true or not. So if you want to prove the point you have to show where the scripture is improperly exegeted or understood. Then you move one.. That's all I meant. I certainly didn't mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize.

Apology accepted. I'm sorry I misunderstood.

You are right that I have my mind pretty well made up...but that is because I have been really studying this stuff for years. Like in classes with homework, and deep study. I came to dispensationism slowly but I did through scripture study.

I don't think your response actually dealt with my first post. I didn't ignore it, but I never claimed that Abraham knew EVERYTHING about Christ.
John the Baptist and the disciploes beleived that Jesus was to be the victorious messiah and didn't see that He would die for their sins. That isn't in question.
My point was that Paul stated the gospel was preached to Abraham, and I see no reason why Abraham wouldn't know about God's promise of the seed of the woman. The scripture I posted was to show that.

Yes you're right and that is the point really isn't it? You have some scholars that think in the same way as you. I mean it's not like I think you invented covenant theology
But you see this is yet another error (most especially of covenentalists not you in particular). When they find a conflict they run to the "scholars". It may interest you to know that I care not at all what the "scholars" say in most cases. I only care about what the Bible shows. Scholars are not divinely inspired (this is a beef with calvinism in particular...)



And you are absolutely correct.

I think you are making a big assumption here.

I am not a believer in covenant theology. I am a classic dispensationist. have even posted about classic dispensationism in this forum and in the Eschatology forum and GT.

I came to my beliefs through scripture study as opposed to commentaries. I mentioned the scholars because you claimed I didn't understand the scriptures I was quoting....but I do.

Right on. This is the disagreement, and what I meant. The scriptures you posted were not about Abraham's understanding they were about his faith. When I say this is the disagreement I mean of the two sides not you and I (though we do disagree on this). The 11th chapter of Hebrews is the "faith" chapter, and I'm not sure which version of the Bible you are using but it seems to have muddied some of the doctrine (this only according to what I've read). The KJ language is quite clear. In only comparing what you quoted with my Bible I see huge differences (recall: I'm a KJV only). Differences in the doctrinal implications in particular for example you have that Abraham received Isaac as a "type" from Hebrews 11:19, but what it actually says is that he received him "in a figure", which is a wholly different thing...

It was NASB, but I have studied in KJV most of my life. No doctrine was muddied because I checked most of it with Greek too. Quoting the KJV wouldn't change what scripture says. Yes, Hebrews 11 is about faith, but it does not imply absolute ignorance on Abraham's part of Genesis 3:15. In fact, faith in God requires some knowlede on who God is. And in studying the faith chapter, I spent the time to go back and study the accounts in Genesis...as in when Abraham was told what. In fact, I took a class on Covenant which spent a great deal of time with the interactions of Abraham and God. Abraham had the promise of descendents through issac before God told him to take Issac to Mt. Moriah and sacrifice him. In Hebrews we are told:
Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

Hbr 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Hbr 11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

(KJV for you)
Abraham knew God was able to raise Issac up from the dead to fulfill the promise that God had given him in regards to Issac.

On the whole there is not, I don't think, a huge difference in our opinion, and once again if I offended you I sincerely apologize.

We are both dispensationists, so there isn't really much difference.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

I was referring to the "7 (for some it is less) dispensations" (or 7 "mini-covenants", as one poster has put it), versus the one "covenant of grace" of Covenant Theology.

I believe in 7 dispensations
but I also believe we are under the covenant of
#1
Luke 1:67-72
Gal 3:15-16,29
Gen 22:16-18 seed is singular meaning Christ is this seed then read Gal 3:29
#2 1 cor 11:25 new covenant
#3 eternal covenant Hebrew 13:20

But we are not under abrahamic covenant or davidic covenant since Gal 3:15-16

 

[BT]

[/color][/size]




I think you are making a big assumption here.

I am not a believer in covenant theology. I am a classic dispensationist. have even posted about classic

You're right I was under the impression that you on the covenental bench. But you aren't and I think I see where you are coming from now. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

[Ebb]

I have studied Dispensationalism for about 12 years as a layman and while it's an interesting way to interpret current events in the world, I have always had some problems with it. I have begun to read more about Covenant Theology, and it makes more and more sense to me. And I've found that this is a much more established and time-tested theology among Baptists than is Dispensationalism.

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which affirms Covenant Theology:


Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant

1._____ The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
( Luke 17:10; Job 35:7,8 )
2._____ Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
( Genesis 2:17; Galatians 3:10; Romans 3:20, 21; Romans 8:3; Mark 16:15, 16; John 3:16; Ezekiel 36:26, 27; John 6:44, 45; Psalms 110:3 )

3._____ This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
( Genesis 3:15; Hebrews 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 11;6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2, &c.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56 )

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc07.html

 

[Ebb]

(continued)

Chapter 8 "Of Christ the Mediator"

1._____ It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and saviour of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.
( Isaiah 42:1; 1 Peter 1:19, 20; Acts 3:22; Hebrews 5:5, 6; Psalms 2:6; Luke 1:33; Ephesians 1:22, 23; Hebrews 1:2; Acts 17:31; Isaiah 53:10; John 17:6; Romans 8:30 )

9._____ This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from him to any other.
( 1 Timothy 2:5 )

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc00.html

 

[BT]

I have studied Dispensationalism for about 12 years as a layman and while it's an interesting way to interpret current events in the world, I have always had some problems with it.

Such as?

I have begun to read more about Covenant Theology, and it makes more and more sense to me. And I've found that this is a much more established and time-tested theology among Baptists than is Dispensationalism.

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which affirms Covenant Theology:

Because if it's older then it must be right! LOL. I guess you ought to be a Catholic then. Ack!

 

[Ebb]

Such as?

In its soteriology, especially. Specificly, its contradictions of the postions of the Baptists in London in 1689 (as given above).

I understand that there are now "progressive" dispensationlists who have abandoned some of the more hyper-dispensationalist positions. Perhaps this is where you and Free In Christ differed?

I have been downloading some of the sermons on the problems of Dispensationalism here (from a Covenant Theology perspective):

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=covenant%20theology&entiresite=true

 

[FreeinChrist]

In its soteriology, especially. Specificly, its contradictions of the postions of the Baptists in London in 1689 (as given above).

I understand that there are now "progressive" dispensationlists who have abandoned some of the more hyper-dispensationalist positions. Perhaps this is where you and Free In Christ differed?

I have been downloading some of the sermons on the problems of Dispensationalism here (from a Covenant Theology perspective):

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=covenant%20theology&entiresite=true

The only things I disagree with in the 1689 London confession has to do its Calvinistic statements.

I wonder if you understand what progressive dispensation and hyperdispensation even are.

 

[Ebb]

I wonder if you understand what progressive dispensation and hyperdispensation even are.

I had not heard of these terms until just recently.