Originally posted by Straylight

It's not eschatology that I'm condemning per se. I really don't concern myself with eschatology as much as it would seem. What I'm condemning is the theological framework behind certain brands of futurism -- Dispensationalism being the biggest dog. It has zero (Yes, "zero") regard for the Covenant of Christ, and deserves to be shot down much worse than what I typed above.

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome? What do you mean by "Covenant of Christ" and how do you think futurism disregards it? (Just trying to follow you here....)

Originally posted by pereynol

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome?

Other than that it's rejects the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church)? Other than that it rejects the idea that Christ extinguished the distinction between Jew and Gentile for all time, and created a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood through his blood?

Hmm...

Or are you not aware of the completely irreconcilable differences between the covenantal (i.e. historic) view of Christ and his Church and the dispensational one?

Originally posted by pereynol

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome? What do you mean by "Covenant of Christ" and how do you think futurism disregards it? (Just trying to follow you here....)

Pey - just making sure we are being precise. He didn't say futurism disregards it, he says dispensationalism does. While all dispensationalists are futurists, the converse is not true.

Originally posted by Straylight

Other than that it's rejects the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church)?

How so? In what way does it reject this relationship?

Other than that it rejects the idea that Christ extinguished the distinction between Jew and Gentile for all time...

What do you mean?

...and created a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood through his blood?

Dispensationalists don't reject this, do they?

Hmm...

(?)

Or are you not aware of the completely irreconcilable differences between the covenantal (i.e. historic) view of Christ and his Church and the dispensational one?

We see differences among various theological views all the time, but the mere presence of a difference of viewpoint alone might not merit the severity of your language. What I'm asking you to do is to explain how you see the differences between these views such that I can understand the severity of your denunciation, as well as the nature of it.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Pey - just making sure we are being precise. He didn't say futurism disregards it, he says dispensationalism does. While all dispensationalists are futurists, the converse is not true.

He said that the theological framework behind certain brands of futurism disregards it, naming dispensationalism as the "biggest dog." I'm interested in his contentions about this "theological framework" of some brands of futurism (apparently ungirding dispensationalism as well as other brands of futurism---which have yet to be disclosed). I want to know what this "framework" is and precisely why he finds it so objectionable.

Originally posted by Straylight

Other than that it's rejects the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church)?

Survey SAYS....

Other than that it rejects the idea that Christ extinguished the distinction between Jew and Gentile for all time,

Scripture Verse:

Romans 11
25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

So what do ya make of Paul's distinction and explanation that Israel will again be treated as a nation because God's calling them is irrevocable?

and created a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood through his blood?

Yes, we do in fact support this fully.

Or are you not aware of the completely irreconcilable differences between the covenantal (i.e. historic) view of Christ and his Church and the dispensational one?

Nice qualifier. It is true that covenental and dispensational views are almost totally different, but to say that covenental is the historic view is incorrect. See the quote from Romans above to show that things will be 'a changing again.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

[/verse]

So what do ya make of Paul's distinction and explanation that Israel will again be treated as a nation because God's calling them is irrevocable?

I fail to see in the above passage where it says they'll "again be treated as a nation".

There is only one holy nation, for Jew or Gentile.

Secondly, it says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. In what way does that mean that they have a seperate, valid covenant outside of Christ? How exactly does one reach that conclusion? Everyone has the same covenant in Christ, and the passage above means that God won't give up on those who he first promised this covenant to. Not that they're under some other valid plan in the here and now.

Originally posted by Straylight

I fail to see in the above passage where it says they'll "again be treated as a nation".

by calling them out specifically. What other nation does God do that for? Does He say that all the Ninevites will be saved? No. When God calls out a specific nation, as He did in romans 11, that, my friend, is dispensationalism.

There is only one holy nation, for Jew or Gentile.

So why doesn't God say that all Egypt will be saved? It's dealing with Israel as a distinct entity. Not a separate covenant, mind you, but a different way of dealing with them.

Secondly, it says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. In what way does that mean that they have a seperate, valid covenant outside of Christ?

Here fishy fishy... Never said they did. God will be dealing with Israel as a whole nation specifically, and no other nation gets that privilege. Dispyism anyone??

How exactly does one reach that conclusion? Everyone has the same covenant in Christ, and the passage above means that God won't give up on those who he first promised this covenant to. Not that they're under some other valid plan in the here and now.

Never said they were. Please try to understand Dispensationalism a bit better before you toss the ol' fish around...

Guys I am going to have to ask that this particular discussion be the subject of a new thread please. This is kind of a light-hearted poll for very informal research.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Guys I am going to have to ask that this particular discussion be the subject of a new thread please. This is kind of a light-hearted poll for very informal research.

cool, I'll report it and have it split into eschatology

Apologies for derailing the other thread, but I've pretty much said my piece already. If someone else wants to engage dispensationalism on all the fine details, then be my guest.....

Originally posted by pereynol

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome? What do you mean by "Covenant of Christ" and how do you think futurism disregards it? (Just trying to follow you here....)

Hmmmm maybe the imaginary nature of the 'Dispensations'?

Originally posted by Hitch

Hmmmm maybe the imaginary nature of the 'Dispensations'?

It seems srtaylight had something else in mind---an alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism as well as "other (unspecified) brands of futurism" which he said "disregards the Covenant of Christ." He also intimated that his concern was not really eschatological in nature. My initial question to him concerned these allegations (and others), which were presented in rather severe, condemnatory lanuage.

Bill began to engage him, but then he withdrew.

What you, hitch, call the "imaginary nature of the dispensations" is another matter. But I'd say that God does in fact dispense his revelation in a way that has historically entailed human stewardship, and that human responsibility toward what God has revealed has changed throughout Biblical history. As revelation unfolded, human responsibility toward new truth which God revealed progressed accordingly. And though there are, and have been, all kinds of debates surrounding covenant and dispensation, law and gospel, antinomianism, neonomianism, and theonomy, I don't suppose we'll be able to know exactly what straylight meant---unless he decides to tell us.

I just wanted to know what straylight meant by this alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," as well as what these "other brands of futurism" were....

Originally posted by pereynol

I just wanted to know what straylight meant by this alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," as well as what these "other brands of futurism" were....

Dispensationalism is not an "alleged" theology. It espouses a theology first and foremost, then an eschatological view second.

And I told you what I condemned already. I'm not sure why you don't understand: Anything and everything other than Covenantalism. And Dispensationalism is not Covenantalism. It's the complete antithesis of it.

If you aren't acquainted with the sharp opposition that covenantal and dispensational theologies have between each other, then I encourage you to look up the terms. I shouldn't have to explain "why" they disagree -- That's the job of dictionaries.

As for other brands of futurism, I'm merely talking about the madness associated with people who read their newspapers too much, but not their bibles. However, there are covenantally minded futurists, and I have no problem with them (Like I said, it's not eschatology that I care about necessarily. It's the theology and beliefs behind certain views that I care about.).

OK, now I've said my piece. I hope.

And btw, I'm not "pulling out", as you think -- I just see no point in a "debate". All I have to say is that I'm Covenantal -- And that's that. There's no reason to talk about every little point or theory that dispensationalists hold -- I only have to disagree with them on their central one in order to write it off completely.

I should also mention that when I say "covenant theology", I'm not just referring to the Reformed view, but more in a generic sense. I would also include the New Perspective's brand of covenantalism and eschatology as well.

Originally posted by Straylight

Dispensationalism is not an "alleged" theology. It espouses a theology first and foremost, then an eschatological view second.

I meant, by the word "alleged," the allegations you made about dispensationalism ; I never meant to suggest that dispensationalism was an "alleged theology." You alleged that there was a "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism" which "disregarded the Covenant of Christ." That, specifically, is what you "alleged," and I simply asked you to tell me about it and describe exactly how it did so. What are the features of this "theological framework" and how do you think it "disregards the Covenant of Christ?"

And I told you what I condemned already. I'm not sure why you don't understand: Anything and everything other than Covenantalism. And Dispensationalism is not Covenantalism. It's the complete antithesis of it.

I understand what you've told me, but what you've told me sidestepped my actual question. You haven't described this supposed "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," and you haven't explained just why this undescribed "theological framework" is said by you to "disregard the covenant of Christ." To merely say things like, "Dispensationalism is not Covenantalism," or "Go read a dictionary," or "It's people who read their newspapers too much" with a foul attitude isn't a proper reply. I'm not angry. I'm not out to get you. And I'm not ignorant of covenant thought or dispensationalism. I just asked you to explain further your views, and that's not an unreasonable thing to ask. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and appear either unable or unwilling to cash it in.

If you aren't acquainted with the sharp opposition that covenantal and dispensational theologies have between each other, then I encourage you to look up the terms. I shouldn't have to explain "why" they disagree -- That's the job of dictionaries.

It's of course entirely up to you whether or not you want to explain anything at all. But a dictionary won't miraculously open your mind to me or anyone else about what this mysterious "theological framework" of yours is. Are you now telling me that the "framework" you alluded to earlier is simply dispensationalism itself and that you think it worthy of hellish obliteration merely because it doesn't espouse covenant as the driving concept of its theology? You don't, as you say, have to explain why you think as you do---but then, if that's your sentiment, then why make any assertions here in the first place???

As for other brands of futurism, I'm merely talking about the madness associated with people who read their newspapers too much, but not their bibles. However, there are covenantally minded futurists, and I have no problem with them (Like I said, it's not eschatology that I care about necessarily. It's the theology and beliefs behind certain views that I care about.).

So the "other brands of futurism" are, specifically, those whose adherents read their newspapers too much? While I'm sure that no covenant theologians or eschatologians "read their newspapers too much," this isn't an answer as to what the theological framework of such avid newshounds might be....

OK, now I've said my piece. I hope.

I think you've just done a bit of vacuous ranting....

And btw, I'm not "pulling out", as you think -- I just see no point in a "debate". All I have to say is that I'm Covenantal -- And that's that. There's no reason to talk about every little point or theory that dispensationalists hold -- I only have to disagree with them on their central one in order to write it off completely.

Oakey-doakey. But in your case, you've not really explained anything; rather, you've just made some unfounded assertions with a condemnatory edge. I wasn't asking for a debate---merely a little elucidation. And while it's true that, subjectively speaking, you can "write off completely" whatever you want, if you make public assertions in a debate forum, one could at least be justified in thinking you'd want to discuss them....