I love talking to Amill's. I was trying to think of a good place to begin to hash out the differences between Covenant Amillennialism & Normative Dispensationalism (I refer to myself as a Refined/Strict Dispo). I can't place my finger on any one issue in particular. I guess in the end, it all comes back to hermeneutics. So, out of curiosity I would like to know how you define your method of interpretation.

I am also interested in knowing the denomination of the church you attend. I am assuming it is of the reformed persuasion, but this will help to know how reformed. Another good "assessment" question would be which form of Amillennialism you hold to? Which theologian has presented a work that is most consistent with your beliefs or which systematic theology do you like the most? If this is too personal, then you can say so and ignore me. I don't mind. I am looking forward to having some instructional discussions with my brothers of the Amill camp.

I'll begin by posting my post from another thread:

Are Covenant Theology & Dispensational Theology necessarily in opposition?

Basically, a Covenant is a unilateral declaration of protection by a superior, on condition of obedience of the inferior. Often a shared meal or sacrifice ratifies the covenant.

Covenants between peoples are recorded, but we are concerned with God's covenants. See Gen. 21:22ff, Josh. 9 (league is the same word as covenant.)

While there are many covenants in Scripture, many are typical of the overarching New or Everlasting Covenant by which we are saved.

The covenant with Adam was conditional on his obedience. He disobeyed & fell into sin, taking all his posterity with him. Imediately God gave a promise of redemption, actually spoken to the Serpent. (Gen. 3:15)

The Noahic or Rainbow Covenant was an undertaking by God to preserve the earth, with fruitful seasons, while it remained. No conditions were stated.

The land covenant of Gen. 15 was that the descendants of Abraham would return & possess the land after 400 years. No conditions are given, & there is no promise of perpetuity.

The Circumcision Covenant of Gen. 17 is an everlasting covenant; it includes the land, but also includes a condition for breach of covenant. (Failure to circumcise.) The covenant included all his household including Ishmael.

The Sinai Covenant was on the condition of obedience. Ex. 24.
Exd 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Leviticus 26 states aspects of that covenant, with blessings, curses and a promise of reinstatement. It includes the wonderful & oft-repeated covenant promise that is fully realised in the New Heaven & New Earth (Rev. 21):

Lev 26:11 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant, that was fully ratified by the cross, and declared to be the Everlasting Covenant. (Heb. 13)

The various covenants are typical of the New & Everlasting Covenant, for everyone saved from Adam onwards was saved by the blood of Jesus & faith in him.

Every covenant involving man was broken. We deserve only death for our disobedience.

Jesus Christ came as our surety under the Covenant & kept every detail to perfection. As man he took the sins of his people on himself, so that he suffered death for our breach of covenant. We are no longer considered guilty for breach of covenant - we are saved by Jesus' death & resurrection. He was obedient under the Old Covenant, and his New Covenant gives us every spiritual blessing in him.

Our baptism into Christ applies the symbolised shed blood to our consciences, & ratifies the New Covenant to us, as the sprinkled blood of Ex. 24 did to the Israelites. (See Heb. 9)

Hbr 13:20 ¶ Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Belief in dispensationalism does not stop you fully accepting Covenant Theology.

This post was last modified: Tue Jun 03, 2008 04:41 AM by Ebenezer.

Again, I am just not sure which one thing is the best place to begin. There were so many things that I disagree with, but in the end, these disagreements all come back to hermeneutics. So I guess I am wondering more about your hermeneutic that allows you to come to such conclusion. You started to explain it through the NT use of the OT, but you might have to give some examples to explain your view.

Curiosity again, do you hold to the theological covenants that make you a covenant theologian - i.e. covenant of works, covenant of grace, & possibly covenant of redemption? Your first covenant, "the covenant with Adam," would be the first place I disagree. One of the major elements to a Biblical covenant is 1) a promise & 2) the word "covenant." I have a hard time reading into the text in Gen.1-3 some covenant of works. Especially when even many covenant Amill's admit there is no such statement in regards to a covenant of works. This is presuppositional hermeneutics in my opinion. It is eisogesis and not exegesis.

I also thought it was interesting how you split up the Abrahamic Covenant. Why did you stop in chps. 15 & 17? Why not seperate chpts. 12:1-3, 13:14-18, 17:19-21, 26:3-5, 28:13-15, & 35:10-12 from each other and make them each a seperate covenant? Probably because they ALL deal with one covenant - even in chpts. 15 & 17. I don't see how you can divide these covenants when the rest of Scripture refers to just one covenant made between God and Abe.

What do you think of Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology? Are your views similar?

This post was last modified: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:15 AM by Ebenezer.

So in your opinion does the NT correct the obvious plain meaning in the OT?

Another question, do you give priority to the NT over the OT?

Just to clarify you last statement about Covenant Theology & Dispensational Theology not being "essentially in opposition" to one another is disagreeable. The essentials of Dispensationalism is 1) a consistent, literal/plain/normal/simple hermeneutic; 2) a clear distinction between the Church & Israel; & 3) a doxological purpose in Scripture pervading everything. That is exactly opposite from your system, at least from what I can tell. Your hermeneutic has to be allegorical at times to come to the conclusions you make. I am sure you don't distinguish the Body of Christ, the Church, from Israel. And though you might claim to hold to a doxological purpose, Covenant THeology tends to lean towards a soteriological purpose or maybe in your case a covenant purpose. So, I would say essentially that the 2 sytems are in direct contradistinction to one another.

I am also curious why you are not a paedobaptist. I truly believe that reformed theology is a package deal. One tenet seems to lead to another - i.e. the concept that the NT way to confirm the covenant of grace is infant baptism whereas in the OT it was circumcission. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I don't know that I have ever met or heard of a Covenant Amill who is not a peadobaptist.

This post was last modified: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:35 AM by Greektim.

Just shows how wrong you can be. I also attend a FIEC church which adheres to reformed teaching. I guess that most members who hold an opinion would be dispensantionists. Our previous pastor and previous and current moderators are amil after the Hendrickson school. None are pædobaptists. I have some friends who were raised in the Brethren who are dispensationists and are pædobaptists So where is your point?

Ebenezer said: (which disturbs me)

In our church, when a family chooses to do so, we bring the infant and its parents before the church and have a prayer of dedication. (No water involved!) This is for the parents, because the child obviously is unaware of the event. It is a commitment on the part of the parents to train up this child in the fear of the LORD. The church is also committed to encourage and assist the parents in carrying out their commitment. I believe that this would be a better approach to accomplishing what Ebenezer is attempting to do. Baptizing a baby causes great confusion in meaning and purpose.

Ebenezer, I am going to respond to your last post, but I want to give other the chance to speak up if they want to.

Davo, I often am wrong so it doesn't surprise me. And don't get me wrong, I am glad that you aren't sprinkling infants. It is just rare, at least here in the states for Amill's. My point, however, was that I believe Reformed Theology usually comes in a package deal - Covenant Theology, hyper-Calvinism, allegorical hermeneutic, preterism, and paedobaptism. Eventually, if allowed to run its course, it leads to the entire system including paedobaptism. Personally, I think the concept of a Reformed Baptist church or the likes is a contradiction (half tongue & cheek). Any form of replacement theology, displacement theology, realized eschatology, and the likes seems most likely to take what was in the OT (circumcission) and transfer it to the NT (baptism). That is the primary arguement for most Amill's & all Covenantalist who hold to paedobaptism. Again, I am glad you folks have got that one right . If only you could apply the same hermeneutical principles that you employed to your view of baptism to the rest of Scriptures, you would be a Dispo in no time (gotta have a little fun w/ ya )!

This post was last modified: Tue Jun 03, 2008 06:44 PM by Greektim.

I think if you find some of my previous posts you will find that I am not a-mil.

I am a historicist and pre mil (tending towards 7th mil)

Here most Evangelical Churches in the FIEC, I would think, are baptist and reformed. Grace Baptist Churches (Formerly known as Strict Baptists) are reformed in theology.

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, is a confession of a reformed faith. http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html See paticularly chapters 9 and 10. I would say that most conservative Baptist Churches would be reformed and most liberal ones would not be.

In this area most reformed baptists would be attched to the Grace Baptist Association. A stricter group would be the Gospel Standard Churches.

Our Church supports a number of Churches in the Philippines, all of which are Baptist and Reformed. See for instance http://www.cubaorbc.org/
http://www.calvary.org.ph/index.html We also support Aries Liboro who is Pastor of a small church in a poor area of Manila. Aries will be at our church this Saturday Evening, June 7 and Lordsday morning June 8. Matt Gamston who is a member of Cubao RBC will be here in July, and Gilbert McAdam, later in the year, God willing. We support these mainly through Grace Baptist Mission http://www.gbm.org.uk/ although some we support directly.

This post was last modified: Tue Jun 03, 2008 08:14 PM by Davo.

Sorry for the error, Davo. I wouldn't want to be known as an Amill either (can Ebenezer take a joke?). I am not saying that there are no reformed baptist. I am just saying that to me it seems contradictory to be baptist and hold to reformed theology. I would think one would leave the baptist distinctive of immersion and begin paedobaptism (I have met a few by the way).

Question, what did you mean "tending toward the 7th mil"? I haven't heard that one before.

That the history of man echoes the creation week. There will be 6 milleniums followed by a sabbath.

Ok, I have heard this theory before.

Question, are these "milleniums" literal 1,000 years or just a reference to an unspecific amount of time. In other words, after creation, since there were 6 days that must mean there is only 6,000 years until the 7th mil. Is that what you mean? Being a Premill, even a Covenant Premill, do you still recognize the future 1,000 MK? Is that the Sabbath or is it eternity?

We have the same practice with children. Why did you exclude from your quote: "I would still expect to baptise them as believers."

My point is that there is the danger that if they are not baptised, children could be claimed by their relatives as still e.g. Moslems, and be removed from their parents. It is not that I approve paedobaptism, but that baptism is recognised by other religions as the rite that makes a family "Christian."

At such a household or family baptism, we would of course make it clear that baptism in no way makes a person a Christian. Baptism as a believer would still be practised.

As yet, we haven't had to deal with this situation.

This post was last modified: Fri Jun 06, 2008 05:22 AM by Ebenezer.