Quote:
Originally Posted by dull bot Covenantalism creates two or three "covenants" which are central to their system. (Their view is not called Covenantalism because of their understanding of the Scriptural covenants, but rather due to their invention of these two or three hypothetical covenants by which they attempt to understand the whole of Scriptural history.) These hypothetical covenants of Covenantalism are never anywhere mentioned or taught at all in the whole Bible. Neither were they taught or held by any of the earliest Church. Dispensationalists don't invent covenants out of thin air, and thus we reject these alleged "covenants" of Covenant Theology. They don't exist. They are purely hypothetical in nature, and unnecessary to a proper understanding of Scriptural history. -Tim Now, where, in Scripture, or early Church history, is there the slightest bit of information concerning the oh so utterly important Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, and Covenant of Redemption? Where? They are purely hypothetical. And they are not rooted in Scriptural exposition. And they have no roots whatever in the early Church writings. There is no good reason to believe they even exist. Quote: Originally Posted by dull bot Yes I did. I showed you that all solid students of Scripture recognize different dispensations in Scriptural history, |
Recognizing different dispensations is not the same thing as being a dispensationalist. We all believe many things that are not stated literally in the Bible, as in the Trinity. Quote: Originally Posted by dull bot Now, why have you not tried to answer the fact that your pseudo-covenants are not to be found, in the slightest bit whatever, in ANY of Scripture, and are NOWHERE to be found in ANY of the earliest Christian writings? |
I can say exactly the same thing about your pretribulation rapture and again, show me where Scriputre teaches or anybody before 150 years ago said anything about a Dispensation of innocence or a Dispensation of conscience or a Dispensation of human government or a Dispensation of promise or a Dispensation of law or a Dispensation of grace or a Dispensation of the kingdom. Bill -Tim funny thing about all this... Educated Covenantalists readily admit to dispensations in Scriptural history. Educated Dispensationalists outright reject the invented "covenants" of Covenantalism. Ever wonder why that is so, Wild Willy? -Tim Quote: Originally Posted by dull bot These hypothetical covenants of Covenantalism are never anywhere mentioned or taught at all in the whole Bible. |
I'm sure you can point me to where these dispensationall things are taught in Scripture: 1. Dispensation of innocence. (Before the fall of man) 2. Dispensation of conscience. (From the fall to Noah) 3. Dispensation of human government. ( Noah to Abraham) 4. Dispensation of promise. ( Abraham to Moses) 5. Dispensation of law. ( Moses to Jesus) 6. Dispensation of grace. (The present church age) 7. Dispensation of the kingdom. ( 1000 year millennium period) plus the pretribulation rapture Bill
keep babbling saying other dispees are just wrong.
This link is exactly dispensationalism whether you say so or not.
You demand a LITERAL verse that states anything about any dispensation yet as will told you, You don't have one yourself to prove about any dispensation.
Convenant is not based on a VERSE that says "there is a dispensation of law" and one of "grace". It relies on a sound logic that NO ONE CAN BE SAVED BY THE LAW. Something alot of dispees like yourself give lip service to by saying "yes we do".
So how shall the OT saints be saved? law or grace?
if your answer is grace then when did the age of grace begin and if it is pentecose then why are OT saints saved by it.
All your "we've" got it nailed smack means nothing.
it's hardly a debate to say "we've got scripture"
Show me in scripture where pork is clean and not detestable to God in the OT. you won't. Yet you will call the pharisees blind for having literal scripture to back up their position? LOL
Aug | | |
|
In my opinion, both dispensation and covenants are taught in Bible and both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology have summarised something that do not have direct biblical VERSE supporting. Therefore, what two parties have argued about is who's summarization is biblically correct or more biblically standing firmly.
Hence, what is core difference? Are you guys aware of the progressive dispensationism and the new covenant theology? The difference are greatly narrowed down between the newly two.
I am learning divine covenant and have understood that it goes through from cover to cover of Bible. The direct usage of covenant verbally, based on NASB, is about 300 times. Indirect usage, such as God says "I will..." and like phrases is much more. Keep in mind, whenever God's word comes out from His mouth, it is the equivelence to the done deal.
In my mind, we everyone agrees God is faithful. How has He revealed to us His faithfulness? By covenant, which is life and death engagement, even in surrounding countries at the Bible time.
We can ignore covenant theology or dispensationism, but we cannot look over the divine covenant, through which, God has revealed His attributes and will; regulated the relationship between God and man; and communicated His commands and unavoidable consequence of good or bad performance of covenant obligations: reward and punishment.
If I can make a proposal, we'd rather focus our attention on understanding the divine covenants, than pay too much time and effort on the difference between two schools of thoughts, which is highly possibly created by people who see the same things in different angles.
