recomend a good intro book on dispensationalism?

[enygren]

Can anyone recomend a good introductory book on understanding the covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate? Thanks.

[EdJones]

Dispensational Truth, by Clarence Larkin is a good book on dispensationalism

[bar Jonah]

I highly recommend two books. They are both fairly comprehensive (the latter even more than the former), using an excessive amount of scripture to explicitly convey the stark contrast between these two views.

"Things That Differ" -- C.R. Stam

"The Plot" -- Bob Enyart


Especially the latter has some lists of passages (column A vs column B) of contrasting scriptures that sometimes go on for pages. The Plot actually has roughly 10,000 scriptural references to make its case.

[EdJones]

.




The Companion Bible with Appendixes by W. E. Bullinger.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 04:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=294974#post294974)
enygren:

Can anyone recomend a good introductory book on understanding the covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate? Thanks.

The Israel of God in Prophecy by Hans K La Rondelle

Awesome book dismantling dispensational nonsense.

[Socrates]

C.C. Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today is from the perspective of a leading classical dispensationalist, as opposed to what he terms "Ultra-dispensationalists" such as Stam or Bullinger.

Renald Showers' There Really is a Difference contrasts dispensationalism with convenant theology, written from a classical dispensationalist position.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum's Ph.D. thesis Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology analyses Israel and argues that only classical dispensationalism gives a correct account, but even that needs development.

[EdJones]

Rightly Dividing The Word of Truth by C. I. Scofield

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 10:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=295707#post295707)
Dee Dee Warren:



The Israel of God in Prophecy by Hans K La Rondelle

Awesome book dismantling dispensational nonsense.

That was not very nice at all!! Repent!! :grin:

[bar Jonah]

Not at all, Bill. That's a book about dispensationalism. Enygren didn't ask for pro-dispensational books, necessarily. Nothing wrong with that at all. :ri:

[joelkaki]

enygren, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? by Keith Mathison is a good starter book on the subject. It is not exceedingly deep, but gives a good overview of the errors of dispensationalism. If you want a deeper, try the classic: Prophecy and the Church by O.T. Allis.

Joel

[EdJones]

One Book Rightly Divided: The Key to Understanding the Bible-- By Dr. Doug Stauffer.

[adam.naranjo]

Hears a short list of books, and a couple other recourses, that cover dispensational theology -- some more than others. However, they are not from the dispensational view point -- they are critiques of dispensationalism. (I used to be a dispensationalist)

- Book: Greg L. Bahnsen & Kenneth Gentry, "House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology" (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=339&1=341&3=8851) You can Also download it and read it for free at freebooks.com, at this link: http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21fe_47e.htm
- Article: "Blaising Battles" -- Kenneth Gentry interacts with progressive dispensationalist theologian Craig A. Blaising over issues of millennial theory. (This is great, and in depth) (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/blaising.htm)
Article: Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate -- - Kenneth Gentry discussing the movement away from dispensationalism and the move towards orthodox perterist amillennialism (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/eschatologicaldevelopments.htm)
- Book: Israel and the New Covenant (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=203&1=212&3=9127)
- Book: The Christ of the Covenants (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=203&1=212&3=791)
- Book: The Israel of God (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=203&1=212&3=792)
- Book: Hal Lindsey and the Restoration of the Jews (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=203&1=210&3=762)
- Mp3 Audio: Eschatology of Optimism - A four part class shows the serious flaws of dispensational theology, and covers preterist postmillennial theology and the proper understanding of the future return of the physical nation of Israel to the Messiah, and the one true church. (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=207&1=475&2=-1)
- Mp3 Audio: Why Am I a Postmillennialist - A 3 part class with a critique of premillennial eschatology, followed the by reasons why Bahnsen left Amillennialism for Post-Millennialism (http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=207&1=368&2=-1)
- Article: The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism, by Dr. Greg Bahnsen - (as printed in the Journal of Christian reconstruction (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt031.htm)


Plus, dozens of Journal articles from "Dispensationalism in Transition" can be found at: http://www.freebooks.com/sidefrm2.htm

Plus, download and read Gentry's following books for free at: http://www.freebooks.com/docs/_bksauth.htm - Scroll down to "Gentry"
Gentry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beast of Revelation Revelation 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Jerusalem Fell Dating the Book of Revelation Revelation 1989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greatness of the Great Commission The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World Great Commission 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He Shall Have Dominion A Postmillennial Eschatology Eschatology 1992


-------
Adam n

[EdJones]

Dispensationalism Misunderstood (http://www.biblebelievers.com/BlueDISP.html) By Dr. Ken Blue

[adam.naranjo]

ED,

That article, dispensationalism misunderstood, only deals with the most elementry objections to dispensationalism -- it's kind of a strawman argument/defense of dispensationalism. I've never heard anyone use those objections, or 'misunderstand' dispensationalism that way. In fact, covenant theologians believe in 'dispensations' as well -- but not the 'seven' or 'twelve' or 'thrity-two' dispensations that some dispensationalists hold to.

[EdJones]

The Difference is in the Dispensations (http://www.biblebelievers.com/Dispen1a.htm)
By Timothy S. Morton

[Trinitarian]

Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig Blasising and Darrell Bock.

The Millennial Maze by Stanley Grenz.

Both of these are excellent overviews of dispensationalism and its varities. Grenz's book concentrates on the issue of the Millennuim, but it is very fair and balanced to all of the different views.

For a good statement of Covenant Theology see O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Trinitarian!!! Long time no see!

[EdJones]

John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991)







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


Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. -Romans 16:17-18 KJV

[Act9_12Out]

The Big Difference by Pastor Bob Hill

Visit Biblical Answers (www.biblicalanswers.com) for comprehensive Biblical Answers to the tough questions no one will touch...

*Pastor Bob Hill and / or Tim McMahon will gladly answer any question you might have...

[Trinitarian]

11-23-2003 @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309084#post309084)
Dee Dee Warren:

Trinitarian!!! Long time no see!

Yeah, school and my two jobs have been keeping me uber busy. But I still try to poke around and comment when I can.

Peace.

[bar Jonah]

Act9_12Out:
The Big Difference by Pastor Bob Hill

Visit Biblical Answers (www.biblicalanswers.com) for comprehensive Biblical Answers to the tough questions no one will touch...

*Pastor Bob Hill and / or Tim McMahon will gladly answer any question you might have...
Agreed, I highly recommend this, as well. :thumb:

[Socrates]

11-22-2003 @ 03:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=305096#post305096)
adam.naranjo:

That article, dispensationalism misunderstood, only deals with the most elementry objections to dispensationalism -- it's kind of a strawman argument/defense of dispensationalism. I've never heard anyone use those objections, or 'misunderstand' dispensationalism that way.

Then you need to keep certain anti-dispensationalists in line. Jaltus accused dispensationalists of denying inerrancy www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=145915#post145915 , Rushdoony accused them of being anti-nominian and even that their stand on Israel was works-based salvation, Gerstner accused them of believing in more than one way of salvation.


In fact, covenant theologians believe in 'dispensations' as well -- but not the 'seven' or 'twelve' or 'thirty-two' dispensations that some dispensationalists hold to.

And Dispensationalists believe that there are covenants in the Bible -- in fact they emphasize the explicit covenants rather than the two allegedly implicit ones of Covenant Theology -- so the point is, what?

Both sides have their strong points and fault. E.g. Dispensationalists John Whitcomb and Henry Morris revived the biblical creation view, and this has been ably defended by Covenant Theologians James Jordan and Kenneth Gentry. But the Dispensationalist Scofield popularised the gap theory nonsense, invented by the Covenant Theologian Thomas Chalmers, and now many Covenant Theologians led by Meredith Kline promote the Framework eiesegesis.

[bar Jonah]

It should also be noted that some of us Dispies have no desire to be linked to other dispies such as Scofield (even if he is probably related to me).

And I'm sure the same is true of Covies as well. So just because you see something wrong (such as Scofield's eisogetical gap theory junk) or even heretical... don't go imputing that on all dispensationals or all covenentals.

A couple months ago, I actually considered starting a thread asking people which side had the worst skeletons in its closet -- Dispies with their KJVO fringe, or the Covies with their Word-Faithers and replacement theology.

I thought better of it, as you can see. :lol:

[Glenn P]

Today @ 12:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322581#post322581)
Socrates:

Then you need to keep certain anti-dispensationalists in line. Jaltus accused dispensationalists of denying inerrancy www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=145915#post145915 , Rushdoony accused them of being anti-nominian and even that their stand on Israel was works-based salvation, Gerstner accused them of believing in more than one way of salvation.


Maybe you need to keep Rightidea in line? He has stated that people before Christ were justified by works. Does he misrepresent dispensationalism?

[bar Jonah]

How one can mistake the words, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only," is beyond me.

[Glenn P]

I'm not debating you here on whether your soteriology is sound. I only posted the comment because Socrates indicated that the claim was a misrepresentation of dispensationalism. But you are living evidence to the contrary.

[Glenn P]

May fav book on the topic is Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology.

This excellent books is available free in electronic format here: http://www.freebooks.com/pagetwo.htm

[bar Jonah]

Theonomy:
I'm not debating you here on whether your soteriology is sound. I only posted the comment because Socrates indicated that the claim was a misrepresentation of dispensationalism. But you are living evidence to the contrary.
Incorrect, go back and read again. He said dispensationalists are accused of preaching works-based salvation. We do not. The only work that saves us is the work of Christ on the cross.

If you don't understand the most basic, fundamental issues involved in this particular facet of the Covenental/Dispensational dichotomy, read up on it (both sides) before you spout off as if the words "salvation" and "justification" mean the same thing.

[Glenn P]

Today @ 05:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322820#post322820)
RightIdea:


Incorrect, go back and read again. He said dispensationalists are accused of preaching works-based salvation. We do not. The only work that saves us is the work of Christ on the cross.

If you don't understand the most basic, fundamental issues involved in this particular facet of the Covenental/Dispensational dichotomy, read up on it (both sides) before you spout off as if the words "salvation" and "justification" mean the same thing.

The fact that you wrongly divorce them doesn't impute an error to me.

[bar Jonah]

I don't divorce them at all. They are directly related.

You, on the other hand, treated them as meaning exactly the same thing. Socrates said we are falsely accused of preaching works-based salvation. You said that I prove this false, based my statement that believers saved under Israel's covenant were justified by works (for which I quoted directly from scripture).

Do you or do you not believe that justification means the exact same thing as salvation, that the two words are synonymous?

[Glenn P]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322828#post322828)
RightIdea:

I don't divorce them at all. They are directly related.

You, on the other hand, treated them as meaning exactly the same thing. Socrates said we are falsely accused of preaching works-based salvation. You said that I prove this false, based my statement that believers saved under Israel's covenant were justified by works (for which I quoted directly from scripture).

Do you or do you not believe that justification means the exact same thing as salvation, that the two words are synonymous?

What I would say is that we are saved on the basis of our justification. God saves us because he counts us as righteous (because of Jesus' atoning work). thus, if justification is by works (as you say) ...... then you've got no way to escape the charge of believing in "works-salvation."

[bar Jonah]

Are you saying, then, that Noah could have chosen not to build the Ark and still would have been saved? :huh:

If God expects you to demonstrate your faith based on specific requirements set forth as part of your relationship with Him, then if you don't meet those requirements, you won't be justified. If you do meet those requirements, you won't have earned salvation... but you will be justified according to the specific dispensation of His grace to you.

Moses didn't have to build a temple. Abraham didn't have to follow the 10 commandments. Noah didn't have to be circumcized. Adam didn't have to do any of that; he had different expectations to fulfill. Today's Body of Christ doesn't have Israel's covenant or Law as part of our relationship with God, therefore there are no works of the Law that are part of our justification in His sight. We are justified by faith, apart from works, as Paul explicitly states.

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322794#post322794)
Theonomy:

Maybe you need to keep Rightidea in line? He has stated that people before Christ were justified by works. Does he misrepresent dispensationalism?

The classical dispensationalists such as Ryrie and Fruchtenbaum affirm salvation by grace through faith in all dispensations; just the content of the faith was different. I likewise affirm Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, Solo Christo, Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, as well as:

It is faith alone that justifies, but faith that justifies can never be alone. John Calvin

RI seems to be what they would call "ultra-dispensationalist", but is totally sound on creation, and he has said he rejects works-based salvation :thumb:

[Glenn P]

Today @ 07:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322891#post322891)
RightIdea:

Are you saying, then, that Noah could have chosen not to build the Ark and still would have been saved? :huh:

If God expects you to demonstrate your faith based on specific requirements set forth as part of your relationship with Him, then if you don't meet those requirements, you won't be justified. If you do meet those requirements, you won't have earned salvation... but you will be justified according to the specific dispensation of His grace to you.
Clearly you do not accept the relationship between salvation and justification that I posted, so we're speaking differnt languages to each other now.


Moses didn't have to build a temple.
And nor was anyone else JUSTIFIED (i.e. counted as righteous in God's eyes and granted eternal life) by building a temple either.


Abraham didn't have to follow the 10 commandments.
And nor was anyone else JUSTIFIED (i.e. counted as righteous in God's eyes and granted eternal life) by following the 10 commandments either.


Noah didn't have to be circumcized. Adam didn't have to do any of that; he had different expectations to fulfill.
etc etc etc


Today's Body of Christ doesn't have Israel's covenant or Law as part of our relationship with God, therefore there are no works of the Law that are part of our justification in His sight. We are justified by faith, apart from works, as Paul explicitly states.
You're imporing into that statement the assumption that those who lived during the Mosaic covenant WERE justified by keeping the law. Since that's not true, I'll ignore the first part of that statement. We are justified by faith, yes - you're preaching to the converted there! And this same Paul taught that we are justified in exactly the same way as Israel was - through faith! And this is taught and the law and the prohets. Have a good look at Romans 3:21-31 some time.

[bar Jonah]

Theonomy, thank you for not answering my series of points.

You responded... but you didn't answer.

[adam.naranjo]

Are you saying, then, that Noah could have chosen not to build the Ark and still would have been saved?

If God expects you to demonstrate your faith based on specific requirements set forth as part of your relationship with Him, then if you don't meet those requirements, you won't be justified. If you do meet those requirements, you won't have earned salvation... but you will be justified according to the specific dispensation of His grace to you.

Moses didn't have to build a temple. Abraham didn't have to follow the 10 commandments. Noah didn't have to be circumcized. Adam didn't have to do any of that; he had different expectations to fulfill. Today's Body of Christ doesn't have Israel's covenant or Law as part of our relationship with God, therefore there are no works of the Law that are part of our justification in His sight. We are justified by faith, apart from works, as Paul explicitly states.

Where does the Bible talk about Noah being saved (apart from being "saved from the flood")?


If God expects you to demonstrate your faith based on specific requirements set forth as part of your relationship with Him, then if you don't meet those requirements, you won't be justified.... you will be justified according to the specific dispensation of His grace to you.

Ok then, based on this logic, let see how many dispensations there are in Pauls letters alone.

"And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things."

1. If you want to be 'saved', you must NOT practice such things. There's a "dispensation of God's grace" whereby God, through Paul, has commanded these men to obtain salvation through omission from the practice of certain acts. Are you saying that this is a dipsensation of Grace to the Romans? A dispensation where a requirment has been layed before them, upon which they will be judged?

"Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

2. Again, Paul very clearly teaches that works are an aspect of ones ordo solutus. Is this a specific dispensation of God's grace-requirment to the Romans? Or as I believe, is this what scripture through out teaches? That is that men are always saved by God's grace, which not only gives them forgiveness but also power unto good works which vindicate them.

"Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off."

3. One must continue in God's kindness, otherwise they lose there place in the covenant, they are cutt off. Is this another dispensation of God's grace-requirement?

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."

4. Another dispensation of Grace-requirement?

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men"

5. Only the one who SOWS to the Spirit will reap eternal life. The context is undoubtedly of ethical considerations. Is this another dispensation of grace-requirement for the Galation church?

I could go on. However, I have a few questions for you.
1- Are you saying that every time God asks us to do something that this is a new dispensation? (I know you probably don't, but your statment above sounds like it)
2- This next question will take a little explaining. Keep in mind that building the ark, and other commands in the O.T. that are said to justify or "save" individuals, were not conditional commands. In other words, God did not say, "build the ark or I will send you to hell". Or, "sacrifice your son or I will send you to hell". Rather, when God said ANYTHING it was considered a command to be followed. Furthermore, it was a command to be followed as a condition for continuing in relationship with God. (relationship can be re-instituted by repentance, because of God's grace) ALL of God's commands were just that, commands, not suggestions. Ok, now to the question. You have already said that these commands, which were not commanded in its language conditionaly, were conditions for salvation. If these "dispensations of Grace-requiremnt" were, as you have already said, not given in conditional statments, but yet were conditional for salvation, why is it that the New Testament commands, which were also not always given as conditional, are not conditional for salvation - or "dispensations of grace-requirements"? In other words, why is it not that every command that Paul gave to the Galations, or the Ephesians, also a new dispensation of grace-requirement? Get my question? My point is that all of God's torah, or teaching, is to be followed, and thus -- even in your logic -- are conditions for salvation. How can you distinguish between God's command to build an ark, and God's command to remain sexualy pure? Both are commands, and both are GRACE-REQUIREMENTS -- they are conditional for our relationship with God. If we break covenant with God through sexual impurity, we must repent, and thus are brought back into perfect covenantal relationship by the blood of Christ. (this is the teching of both the Old and New Testament)

I view every command as a command of condition. Our relationship with God is always conditioned on our lifestyle. HOWEVER, we know that meta-salvifically it is by God's pre-determined Grace that we are able to persever. However, God's grace in this sense is not open to our eyes. We don't see God's plans. All that we have is the covenant. We have what God requires of us, which starts in the O.T. Law with grace, faithfullness, repentence, and continues in grace, faithfullness and repentence. Praise God that he gives a sacrifice that covers ALL SIN, and thereby we are saved by God's grace. This sacrifice is applied to us by a work that we do, repentance and faith/faithfullness. Of course, I believe that meta-salvifically it is GOD who has, by his Grace, planned to redeem us, and has perserved us.
(please don't bother responding to all of this, it is simply a side bar I wanted to bring up...to give an idea of how I see it.)

3 - It sounds like your proposing a salvation by faith that is accompanied by works? Is this right? Do you see this as the process of salvation for everyone, or only Israel?


Moses didn't have to build a temple. Abraham didn't have to follow the 10 commandments. Noah didn't have to be circumcized. Adam didn't have to do any of that; he had different expectations to fulfill. Today's Body of Christ doesn't have Israel's covenant or Law as part of our relationship with God, therefore there are no works of the Law that are part of our justification in His sight. We are justified by faith, apart from works, as Paul explicitly states.

Your understanding of Justification is in left field - Not in that it is by Grace (with that I agree), but that Justification is not "being saved". Not only did Jews not think this way, but Paul didn't think this way. Justification is NOT "being saved", "getting your ticket to heaven", etc. Justification is the vindication of covenant (or Church) members as being truly, and faithfully in the covenant community. Justification is about how men view how other men stand before God within the covenant. Paul was not arguing aginst merited salvation - he was vindicating the Gentile members of the Church against the Judaizer who wanted them to enter the new covenant through the old covenant first. The idea that Paul was arguing against meriting salvation doesn't make sense, because most Jews NEVER believed in merited salvation. This wasn't an issue in that day that Paul would have been arguing against. Jews, however, DID believe that in order to be justified as a faithfull covenant member, one had to be circumcised, keep the food laws, and the sabbath laws -- especially regarding seperation for Gentiles. THe Jewish believers (judaizers) were teaching the Gentile converts that they needed to seperate themselves from the rest of the Gentiles, by being circumcized, obey the food laws, and the sabbath laws -- the Law that outwardly seperated Jews from Gentiles. In essense they wanted the Gentiles to enter the New Covenant through the Old Covenant. THis is why the context of Galations deals with circumcision and sabbath laws. And why Paul brings up the story of Peter eating with the gentiles, and then leaving them - and by doing so causing the Gentiles to feel left out of the covenant community and thus prompting them to be circumcized in order to justify there covenant membership before the judaizers.

IF you study the history the evidence is overwhelming. If you study the exegesis of N.T. Write and many others you'll see that it makes much more sense, and is far more consistant than the modern interpretations of Paul.

A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Summary.html)

Confronting Legalism or Exclusivism? Reconsidering Key Pauline Passages by Mark M. Mattison. An exegetical study of key texts in light of the new perspective. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Passages.html)

The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate by Edward L. Hamilton. The new perspective presents unique challenges to both Protestant and Catholic approaches to justification. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Debate.html)

The "Righteousness" of Romans and Galatians, and the Gospel of Christ by Edward L. Hamilton. The new perspective can help to account for the difference of emphasis and terminology between the Gospels and Paul. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Righteousness.html)

The Shape of Justification by N.T. Wright (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/Shape.html)

What Is the New Perspective on Paul? by Edward L. Hamilton. A brief summary. (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/What.html)

The Paul Page (http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/paulpage/index.html#Articles)

The History of the Interpretation of the Apostle Paul - Dr. Peter M. Head (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Lent_07_Handout.htm)

I suggest you read some N.T. Write. Both of you.

Finally, check out: The Soteriology page at Theologia (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/cat_soteriology.htm)


---
Adam.

Pleading with everyone to open their minds and think a little harder than the average theologian.

[Glenn P]

Today @ 04:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323116#post323116)
RightIdea:

Theonomy, thank you for not answering my series of points.

You responded... but you didn't answer.

That was really disingenuous.

I explained in a logical manner how you are bound to a works-salvation view of Israel by explaining the relationship between justification and salvation. You never responded at all to that.

Then when I specifically comment on each of your points you just blow it off as a non response.

I accept your concession gladly.

[Glenn P]

Adam

Generally speaking, I agree with Tom Wright.

However, it needs to be said that when most of us talk about justification in the traditional theological meaning, we're not talking about the same thing Wright is talking about when he uses that term. We're talking about how a person is counted as righteous before God, the basis of that person's salvation. As far as I know, Wright does believe in such a thing, it's just not what he means by the term "justification." Maybe his use of "justification" is semantically more biblical, but the CONCEPT that the Reformers were talking abot when they use the word is still a biblical one.

[adam.naranjo]

I know that a lot of what I'm saying may come across in an undersirable way. But I want you to know that this is because I'm not thinking in the post-enlightenment catagories that most of you are thinking in. With regard to the covenant, works, ordo solutis/historia solutis and other topics invovled in soterioglogy, there are those of us who are attempting to think Biblically rather than "Modernly" -- by that I don't mean that you are not trying to understand the Bible, but that you are not trying to think in the ancient paradigm in which scripture was given. Modern catagories of thought have caused us to think in ways that are not anything like the people to whom the Scripture was written -- particularly our questions are individualist, existential, and philosophically modern. Like, "are you saved"? Instead of, "are you being faithfull". In both the Old and New Testament to be saved was to be in the covenant upon whose members the blood of Christ is appropriated -- not to simply be a 'lone believer'; salvation was communal. The heberws thought in terms of community versus the individualistic existentialism that controls the theology of the church today. The Hebrews never read scripture the way the church does today - and for good reason. The Historia Solutis was the focus of Hebrew thinking. This is also the way Paul thought and wrote. To understand him outside of the context of HIS hebraic thinking is to misunderstand him -- as the church has in many cases. Particularly, the Lutheran and, more recently, the dispensational interpretations have impose enlightenment catagories of thinknig on Pauls text, and because of this have had huge problems in interpreting him, leading to hyper-dispensationalism and huge discontinuity between the theology of Paul and that of Christ. Luther interpreted Paul in the light of His personal plight with sin and assurance. While the early church and, more recently, the calvinist Reformers, theonomists, "high-covenantalists, and N.T. Wright (and many others) have had little problem seeing how Paul, and Jesus, and the rest of scirpture are in total agreement. It all comes down to thinking like the Jews, that is Biblically, or like the philosophers of the last few hundred years.

===
Adam

[adam.naranjo]

Theonomy

I'm glad to hear that you agree with Wright to a certain extant.

Wright views Paul's Justification as the vindication of a person as a true member of the covenant people -- apart from going through the Old Covenant cerimonies, and typological laws, first.
Through a year of study, I have come to agree with Wright and others on this.


I believe that Justification does speak of salvation in the sense that ANYONE who is part of the covenant community will be Justified before God on the 'last day'. (obviously I believe in an objective covenant -- the "Auburn Ave four" - doug wilson et al...etc.)
note the communal aspect there.
---
take care.

[adam.naranjo]

I have to take off, but later I'll come back and clarify myself.

[Socrates]

Today @ 06:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323435#post323435)
adam.naranjo:

Theonomy

I'm glad to hear that you agree with Wright to a certain extant.

Wright is suspect on the way he handles Paul, as Australian historian and theologian Dr Noel Weeks has pointed out. To interpret Paul, Wright relies more on Sanders' views on Judaism than the rest of the New Testament. So he reinterprets Paul away from substitutionary atonement, explained even more clearly in other parts of the NT. e.g. compare Romans 3:25 with 1 John 2:2.

[bar Jonah]

Theonomy:
That was really disingenuous.

I explained in a logical manner how you are bound to a works-salvation view of Israel by explaining the relationship between justification and salvation. You never responded at all to that.

Then when I specifically comment on each of your points you just blow it off as a non response.

I accept your concession gladly.
Yet again, you knowingly confuse the terms "justification" and "salvation." :doh:

[adam.naranjo]

Socrates

Sorry, I don't remember reading or hearing Wright say anything opposed to substitutionary atonement. In fact I believe the opposite is true. I think he talks about it in this lecture: http://www.calvinseminary.edu/calendar/lectureCalendar.php?archive=1 . I have read and listened to Wright many times. I have heard him discuss the atonement of Christ as a substitute, and our partaking of Christ's righteousness by virture of our being in Christ. I am familiar with the argument that Wright supposedly doesn't view Christ's death as an atonement. However, this is yet another case of people saying something about Wright that he himself doesn't say, based on an argument from silence. They say, "Wright doesn't say such and such, therefore he doesn't believe it". For example one teacher writes,

"Wright does say that Christ's death was a sacrifice, {see ibid. pp.604-605; cf.p.599} yet he makes reference to Christ as a martyr. {See ibid. pp.595-596, 608,610; cf. p.588-591.} So the question is, what kind of sacrifice was Christ?"

Do you notice that this guy doesn't really have an argument? He's essentially taking the fact that wright didn't talk about Christ's death as an atonement, and using that as an argument to prove that Wright doesn't believe in the substitutionary atonement. But Wright didn't talk about substitution because he's point and emphasis was on something else in the context.

So I don't know where your coming from exactly, but I know that Wright agrees that the death of Christ was a substitutionary atonement and that those of us who are in Christ are in His blood.

I urge you to read the following articles:

God's Righteousnes and Our Justification - Mark Horne (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/gods_righteousness_and_our_justification.htm)

A SHORT NOTE ON N. T. WRIGHT AND HIS REFORMED CRITICS (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/a_short_note_on_n_t_wright_his_reformed_critics.htm)


Take car
---
Adam

http://www.hornes.org/theologia

[Glenn P]

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323772#post323772)
RightIdea:


Yet again, you knowingly confuse the terms "justification" and "salvation." :doh:

"Knowingly"? Now you're directly accusing me of sinning. I demand an apology.

I have explained to you in very clear language how I see the difference between the two (post #31), and I have stuck consistently with that definition. You are unfair then, to say I am confusing them even ACCIDENTALLY, let alone knowingly (I still can't believe you would say such an uncharitable thing!) You have never responded to that, or explained how, given that definition, you avoid the charge of teaching that Old Testament Jews were saved by works.

[bar Jonah]

Theonomy:
"Knowingly"? Now you're directly accusing me of sinning. I demand an apology.

I have explained to you in very clear language how I see the difference between the two (post #31), and I have stuck consistently with that definition. You are unfair then, to say I am confusing them even ACCIDENTALLY, let alone knowingly (I still can't believe you would say such an uncharitable thing!) You have never responded to that, or explained how, given that definition, you avoid the charge of teaching that Old Testament Jews were saved by works.
Are you contending, then, that you just accidentally keep transposing those two words? You accidentally said "salvation" instead of "justification" over and over and over? If so, if you just keep typing the wrong thing... then I apologize.

You tell me.

[Glenn P]

Yesterday @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323793#post323793)
RightIdea:


Are you contending, then, that you just accidentally keep transposing those two words? You accidentally said "salvation" instead of "justification" over and over and over? If so, if you just keep typing the wrong thing... then I apologize.

You tell me.

No. I defined the relationship between justification and salvation in clear English. I have remained utterly faithful to my understanding of that relationship, and you have never challenged my post where I explained the relationship.

If you believe that I have defined them wrongly, you have yet to explain how. Yet you say that I "knowingly" confuse the two. You accuse me of treating the two as the same when I KNOW they are not. In other words, you call me a dishonest.

You might have a personal belief that I am using the words in the wrong way, and by all means feel free to challenge the way I've defined their relationship. But to say that I KNOW that I am using them in the wrong way and yet I do it anyway? Come on, you know the decent thing to do.

[gooner]

[i]12-02-2003 @ 12:58 AM [


And Dispensationalists believe that there are covenants in the Bible -- in fact they emphasize the explicit covenants rather than the two allegedly implicit ones of Covenant Theology -- so the point is, what?

Both sides have their strong points and fault. E.g. Dispensationalists John Whitcomb and Henry Morris revived the biblical creation view, and this has been ably defended by Covenant Theologians James Jordan and Kenneth Gentry. But the Dispensationalist Scofield popularised the gap theory nonsense, invented by the Covenant Theologian Thomas Chalmers, and now many Covenant Theologians led by Meredith Kline promote the Framework eiesegesis.

does anyone else have info on the origins of the gap theory.....needed for debate elsewhere?I am I to understand that this is NOT a dispensationalist invention?

[Glenn P]

Today @ 12:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=338032#post338032)
gooner:

does anyone else have info on the origins of the gap theory.....needed for debate elsewhere?I am I to understand that this is NOT a dispensationalist invention?

The idea traces back as far as the obscure Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), which is the earliest source I am aware of in connection with it. Since dispensationalism had not been invented yet, I guess it can't have been a dispensationalist invention.

[gooner]

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=338051#post338051)
Theonomy:



The idea traces back as far as the obscure Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), which is the earliest source I am aware of in connection with it. Since dispensationalism had not been invented yet, I guess it can't have been a dispensationalist invention.

thanks Theo.....is it true to say that Scofield is responsible for it's popularization or are there other big names that have held to it?

[Glenn P]

Yesterday @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=338588#post338588)
gooner:

thanks Theo.....is it true to say that Scofield is responsible for it's popularization or are there other big names that have held to it?

The impression that I get is that Scofield has been the main promoter of the idea. The only people I have met who support the gap theory are dispensaionalists.