Terms and labels are best made by those who propose them (but not always i.e. Progressive Dispensationalism). Some labels are confusing or misleading. A good label should convey the true meaning of the system. Dispensationalism does this, except not many know what a dispensation really is (an economy or arrangement). So it weakens the label. Covenant Theology is about theological covenants not Biblical covenants, so it is somewhat misleading too.

No...but that is the part that I think should change. I grew up w/ Dispensational teachings w/o knowing the terms (like Dispensationalism). I get to Bible college gaining a whole new vocabulary. It is my opinion that what is being taught in the Bible college level should be taught in the churches. There is no deep theological lesson that I learned in college that could not be explained, taught, and understood in the average church. I think the dumbing down of America is similar to the dumbing down to the American churches. There is no deep thinking or challenges in the average church. I know of some Brazilian churches where the people in the church are actively engaged in learning the doctrines of the BIble and even the opposing views. America needs that Biblical literacy and Biblical interest again.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:50 PM by Greektim.

If I can get those who listen to me just to learn to walk with Jesus, to learn to fear God, to learn that they can read the Scriptures for themselves without someone with a degree having to explain it to them, then I will be glad to give them a copy of Systematic Theology Made Simple, Vols 1-5, by Dr. Timothy Decker, ThD. for them to get the rest of the story. (that is assuming that he has learned to quote from the KJB by then.)

Just for clarification, I will probably pursue a PhD (either w/ a NT conentration which means Greek or Systematic Theology) . I don't think a work on my systematics are in my future though I have toyed with such an idea. But I do see a writing future, if God wills it, probably on Strict/Refined Dispensationalism among other things (my dissertation will be about refining the Normative Dispo view of the Kingdom while refuting the Progressive Dispo view of the Kingdom; I think the title will need some more work).

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:07 PM by Greektim.

OK. All the $10.00 words may be impressive, but, what about us new Christians who don't speek Greek or Hebrew. Does this mean we have no hope of understanding scriptural doctrine? Do we really need to know all this?

I just know the Lord is coming to get me some day, do I need more then that?

Thanks
"T"

You don't want to be satisfied with milk do you? YOu want to eat the meat of the Word. Don't stop with "I just know" but go on to learning the deep truths of the BIble. Understanding who God is, there is no revelation which He did not intend for you to know, understand, learn, and apply. Now this doesn't happen over night, but it is a life-long pursuit with the ultimate goal of being changed more into the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). You would be surprised how practical and important the issue is between Dispensational & Covenant theology.

As a new Christian, I hope you have a desire to learn doctrine. After all, that is what the Scripture is most profitable for (2 Tim. 3:16). If I may, I would like to recommend a book to you. It is a short book about the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures. It is easy to read and understand. It is by Charles C. Ryrie called A Survey of Bible Doctrine. It is under $12 on Amazon.com. Check it out. You won't be disappointed.

Glad to have you with us, Ted. I am looking forward to seeing God work in your life as you "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18 ).

This post was last modified: Sun May 11, 2008 08:48 AM by Greektim.

Ted, welcome!

I would modify GreekTim's advice to you about growing.

Certainly, every believer should want to grow in knowledge and wisdom. The change I would make is that you need to read and re-read the Scriptures with prayer and meditation on the words that you have read until you are familiar with the whole structure of truth that God has given you in His Word. The Scriptures promise that the Holy Ghost will lead you into all truth by bringing His Words to your remembrance. Do not immediately go to a book that is supposed to tell you what the Bible is all about. Do not use any person's words or writings as a easy and quick replacement to God's Spirit within you. There is no instant knowledge. The wisdom of God must be desired and sought with your whole heart for it to become clear to you.

Have a good Bible to read (KJB with no study notes). Be in a good church (fellowship with like-minded believers with whom you can share your thoughts). Be committed to spending significant time reading the Scriptures (start with the Gospel of John). Speed is not the goal!

As you develop the knowledge of the Scriptures, then reading the writing of faithful men is a worthy activity. You will have the spiritual eyesight to be able to discern when the words in a book don't match the Words of God.

P.S. I'm not against Ryrie. I have not read his works.

This post was last modified: Sun May 11, 2008 09:55 AM by Brother Tim.

Ted,

No.

You just study your bible in faith, find like-minded brethren to fellowship with and discuss scripture with, and let the Lord do your growing.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Brother Tim, thank you for clarifying. I did not mean to imply that reading human authors should supersede the Bible. You are completely right. Read the BIble, Ted. Form your opinions based solely on the text. And as you grow, seek other wise counsel who have dedicated their life in learning and teaching the Word.

That is exactly correct Brother Ted. You will find that as you read and study your Bible and then meditate on what you have read the Holy Spirit of God will open things up to you. God provided the revelation, Jesus Christ provides the inspiration and the Holy Spirit provides the illumination.

It is quite amazing to me that as I go to reach for my Bible to start reading the Holy Spirit will tell me to read in a certain area. Each time that particular area is something I really need to read. I struggled with the book of Hebrews for quite some time. I just could not make sense out of it. One Saturday as I was starting to read the Holy Spirit said to read Hebrews. I said I am going to read Romans. The next day the Spirit once again told me to read Hebrews. I did and it was opened to me as it had not been done previously.

Brother Tim's suggestion of starting with the Gospel of John is a very good one. I suggest that after John you start in on Romans.

In Christ,
George

Back to the matter at hand:

I asked GreekTim to comment on this chart (through email) and I would like to get the view of others. GT may want to post his response as well.

http://www.fellowshipbibleannarbor.org/B...nChart.pdf

It is unfortunate that we are moving past the major tenets of both Covenant THeology and Dispensationalism and looking at a minor thing.

This chart is a good representation of the old/classical Dispensationalism of the days of Dallas Theological Seminary from Chafer, Scofield, Ryrie, Walvoord, & etc. Those were the days before they moved to Progressive Dispensationalism (very unfortunate).

I think Scofield's 7 dispensation scheme is good, but it does not account for the Tribulation very well nor the end of the Church dispensation. Again, this is a minor issue within Dispensationalism, but it is very minor compared to the major differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.

If I read you correctly, GreekTim, then this chart is useful for understanding the Dispensational view of the Bible from a neophyte's level. It is a starting point where I, a visually-oriented person, can see how the pieces fit together. Correct? Are there modifications that would make it more complete?

A couple of questions when looking at the chart.

1. Are people saved during the millennium? Can these or any others die? If they can die, doesn't that make an additional resurrection?

2. What is the purpose of the new earth in the period after the seventh dispensation, called "Eternal State" in the chart? (not a dispensation itself?)

3. Just for kicks, is it "a new heaven" (KJB) or "new heavens" (GNT?)? (remember kingdom of the heavens?)

I'm soo confoosed!

This post was last modified: Tue May 13, 2008 03:57 PM by Brother Tim.

Yes there are people saved in the Millennium. As to death in the Kingdom, it is probably just the unsaved that die. As to the resurrection of the MK saints, that is something that is not specified in Scripture. Not everything is revealed. Some think it happens the same time as the resurrection of the unsaved to the GWT. But for whatever it is worth, these are deep questions of eschatology that have been wrestled with for a long time. I have not given in depth answer because there is much to say, much to observe in Scriptures, and much speculation in these categories.

I am not quite sure what you are asking. The common idea is that in eternity we will all be in the 3rd heaven. But Rev. 21-22 speak of the New Jerusalem where we will live in eternity. This New Jerusalem is a lot like the concept of heaven on earth. I am actually reading a book that deals with this right now. Once I have studied it out more, I can give a clearer answer.

Ha ha ha. 2 snares and a cymbal on that one. Actually the GNT is not "new heavens" but "ουρανον καινον." Literally, that is "a new heaven." That is a singular of the word for heaven. That is very different from the phrase in Matthew "the Kingdom of the heavens." Good try though .

As to question #2, Rev 22 says that there will be a new heaven (heaven #2-firmament-sky-outer space) and a new earth. If we will all be in heaven #3 (the throne of God-capital "H" heaven-the New Jerusalem), then what is the purpose of their existence?

The Scriptures do not waste words, so there is a definite purpose. My personal OPINION is that this is where we will actually spend eternity, living in the way that God had designed the Garden of Eden to be, without sin or even the possibility of sin, in pure innocence, with no Tree of Knowledge.