Dispensationalism

[Andrewn]

Do you know whether your denomination is dispensational?

 

[Andrewn]

Do you know whether your denomination is dispensational?

I guess Baptists don't know and/or don't care.

 

[twin1954]

Many, if not most are. Even the ones who are Calvinistic. The Reformed Baptist usually are covenental. Though I am not of the Reformed I am historic Baptist covenental. We differ completely from Presbyterian covenental.

 

[Andrewn]

Though I am not of the Reformed I am historic Baptist covenental. We differ completely from Presbyterian covenental.

I guess all combinations are possible.

I assume from what you wrote that you believe Communion & Baptism are ordinances (not sacraments) and baptism is not for infants. You do not believe in Arminianism and do not believe in Dispensationalism.

Please correct me.

 

[twin1954]

I guess all combinations are possible.

I assume from what you wrote that you believe Communion & Baptism are ordinances (not sacraments) and baptism is not for infants. You do not believe in Arminianism and do not believe in Dispensationalism.

Please correct me.

You are correct. I consider Dispensationalism as heresy and Presbyterian covenentalism as grave error. I agree with much of the 1689 London confession but disagree strongly on several points in it. My only rule of life and faith is the Scriptures as a whole. I believe, and therefore am convinced until the Spirit corrects, me which can certainly happen, that what I have arrived at through faithful and prayerful study to be truth. I do not follow men except as they follow Christ. I have read many men who have been used of God to give me light in the Scriptures as they were used of God in times past. While I wouldn't call myself a student of Baptist history I am very familiar with it. Which, of course, puts me on the outside looking in as far as modern Baptists are concerned.

If you would like to discuss what historic Baptist covenant theology is I would be happy to do so.

 

[Andrewn]

I consider Dispensationalism as heresy and Presbyterian covenentalism as grave error.

Yes, i agree.

My only rule of life and faith is the Scriptures as a whole.

The problem is that everyone says this but people read the Scriptures differently.

I believe, and therefore am convinced until the Spirit corrects, me which can certainly happen, that what I have arrived at through faithful and prayerful study to be truth.

Amen.

I do not follow men except as they follow Christ. I have read many men who have been used of God to give me light in the Scriptures as they were used of God in times past.

Who are your favorite authors?

While I wouldn't call myself a student of Baptist history I am very familiar with it. Which, of course, puts me on the outside looking in as far as modern Baptists are concerned.

A lot of Christians do not read but depend on TV preachers for their theology.

If you would like to discuss what historic Baptist covenant theology is I would be happy to do so.

I'm not familiar with their theology and would love to hear your take on it.

 

[twin1954]

Yes, i agree.


The problem is that everyone says this but people read the Scriptures differently.


Amen.


Who are your favorite authors?


A lot of Christians do not read but depend on TV preachers for their theology.


I'm not familiar with their theology and would love to hear your take on it.

Let me give you a link to peruse before we begin our discussion:
https://www.amazon.com/Distinctiveness-Baptist-Covenant-Theology/dp/1599253259

 

[twin1954]

Do you know what Federalism is?

 

[Andrewn]

Do you know what Federalism is?

Another name for Covenant Theology? But, no. I don't know the details.

 

[twin1954]

Another name for Covenant Theology? But, no. I don't know the details.

Here is a Sunday school message that I preached a while ago:

TITLE: THE HEADSHIP OF CHRIST SUBJECT: CHRIST OUR REPRESENTATIVE HEAD DATE: SUNDAY SCHOOL REDEEMER BAPTIST CHURCH LOUISVILLE , KY. 10/5/2014 Introduction: My subject today is the Representative Headship of Christ. Sadly it is a subject unheard of in this generation. Yet it is of utmost importance to grasping how we are saved in Christ. I want you to write this down, we cannot be saved in Christ if we did not sin in Adam. What is Representative Headship? Representative Headship, or sometimes known as Federal Headship, is the Biblical teaching that one represents all those who are in him. Turn to Heb. 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. (Heb 7:9-10) This passage cannot be understood in any other way than by representation. Levi was the fourth generation from Abraham but he paid tithes in his father Abraham by representation. When Abraham paid tithes he paid tithes. The Biblical teaching is that the head represents the whole. Whatever the head does all who are in him does and are responsible for that which is done. That is why we read in Ex. 34:7 that the iniquity of the father is visited on the third and fourth generations. The father represents all in him and by him and are guilty of his iniquity because of representation. In the same way all born of Adam are guilty of his sin and responsible to God for it. When he sinned we sinned. We became guilty before God because of the sin of Adam not just because of our own sin. I can hear someone say “that’s not fair, we didn’t actually sin so we can’t be held responsible for sin we didn’t commit.” I would answer that in three ways: First, if the penalty of sin is death and we are not responsible for sin that we didn’t commit why is it that infants and the unborn die? It must be because of the guilt of our father Adam who stood as the head of all mankind in his sin. Turn to Rom. 5:14. Infants die because of the imputed sin of Adam to all who are in him by natural generation. Second I would answer that we all have inherited the guilty nature of sin from our father Adam. Adam was created innocent but lost that innocence when he sinned. We have inherited from him that nature which can never be innocent again. The innocence of Adam in creation can never be regained by any act of man or by natural generation. We come forth from the womb speaking lies and in sin did our mother conceive us. Psa. 58:3, Psa. 51:5 We are sinners by nature not by acts. We sin because we are sinners not sinners because we commit sin. Lastly and most importantly, if you deny the representative headship of Adam and the imputation of guilt in him you must also deny the representative headship of Christ and the imputation of righteousness in Him. You simply cannot have one without the other. Turn to 1Cor. 15:22, 45. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Co 15:22) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1Co 15:45) Now turn back to Rom. 5:14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14) Notice the last phrase in that verse. Adam was a figure, or type of Christ. Adam’s representation of all his seed is the figure of the representation of Christ for all His seed.

 

[twin1954]

Double post

 

[twin1954]

Double post

 

[twin1954]

Here is a thread where I debate Federalism
Help | Christian Forums

 

[Andrewn]

My subject today is the Representative Headship of Christ. Sadly it is a subject unheard of in this generation. Yet it is of utmost importance to grasping how we are saved in Christ.

This is a very good explanation. I think I always believed this but never knew what it was called. Is this Historical Covenantal Baptism?

I'll read your debate. Can't imagine anyone would disagree with you.

 

[JM]

Do you know whether your denomination is dispensational?

Gospel Hall / Brethren, some Primitive Baptists.

 

[Newtheran]

Do you know whether your denomination is dispensational?

Lutherans are not dispensationalists.

What’s Dispensationalism?

I would say that about the only dispensational concept I would be willing to accept is a pre-millenial return of Christ with a literal thousand year reign as opposed to a figurative amillenial interpretation that assigned that period to church history. It's 100% clear to me that the events of Revelation 19 and Matthew 24 describe the same, one time occurence. But rapture, etc...nope.

I would say the overwhelming majority of baptists are.

 

[JM]

Lutherans are not dispensationalists.

What’s Dispensationalism?

I would say that about the only dispensational concept I would be willing to accept is a pre-millenial return of Christ with a literal thousand year reign as opposed to a figurative amillenial interpretation that assigned that period to church history. It's 100% clear to me that the events of Revelation 19 and Matthew 24 describe the same, one time occurence. But rapture, etc...nope.

I would say the overwhelming majority of baptists are.

Some were. Peters was...

https://www.amazon.com/Theocratic-Kingdom-3-Set/dp/0825435404

 

[Andrewn]

Lutherans are not dispensationalists. What’s Dispensationalism? I would say that about the only dispensational concept I would be willing to accept is a pre-millenial return of Christ with a literal thousand year reign as opposed to a figurative amillenial interpretation that assigned that period to church history. It's 100% clear to me that the events of Revelation 19 and Matthew 24 describe the same, one time occurence. But rapture, etc...nope.

This is a possible interpretation. But, to me it doesn't make sense to have a mix of mortal people and glorified people living on earth for a limited period of time and then satan is released again and initiates a war against Christ. The reign of Christ could be on earth, but I believe it will be eternal with everyone in glorified bodies.

I would say the overwhelming majority of baptists are.

Yes, and the sad thing is that most baptists don't know that their churches are officially dispensationalist!

 

[GodLovesCats]

the sad thing is that most Baptists don't know that their churches are officially dispensationalist!

I have never read the word anywhere except this forum. So it is hard to know if your church is one of the churches that believes in it.

If dispensationalism was important to the Baptist de4nomination,. I would expect that to be known by the congregation.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Yes, and the sad thing is that most baptists don't know that their churches are officially dispensationalist!

Are they officially dispensationalist? That ought to be found somewhere in the church's statement of faith, if it's official. I know my pastor is dispensationalist, but I don't believe it's written anywhere as the church's official position.

For the record, I don't agree with it.