Sorry, I meant know offense, but was just kidding around. That’s why I labeled my comments there as “tongue-in-cheek”. But I do apologize, and I’ll keep my comments more serious in the future.

Nathan

Oh, come on! You know you’d love to burn me at the stake! :^O Well, respectively, we have to part ways here as well. I’d have to strongly disagree that Covenantalism is consistent in its hermeneutic, nor is it doxological; Ryrie and others have substantial arguments on this. I won’t digress here, lest the argument gets unnecessarily rancorous, but I think your last comments were rather gratuitous (“At any rate, whether you come to the light in this lifetime or not”– your statement). I could be as equally as discourteous, but fail to see the point in pursuing an emotionally charged diatribe, nor would this be honoring to Christ as well.

Ryrie’s charge that CT relies solely on soteriology for the display of God’s glory is a tired old argument that has never been substantiated, and is belied by the writings of any good, responsible Covenant Theologian. To wrest your words from their context, “this was an old charge that has been answered years ago” .

Really, of Ryrie’s 3 “sine qua non,” the only one that I think is legitimately a distinctive of Dispensationalism is a separation of Church and true Israel. And I believe that a literal hermeneutic argues forcefully against this one sine qua non.

By the way, I have read both Ryrie’s and Showers’ books, and remain unconvinced. At any rate, whether you come to the light in this lifetime or not (I hope you know I’m somewhat tongue-in-cheek here), I appreciate many of your comments/observations, and I hope we can disagree with burning each other at the stake .

In Christ,
Nathan

I found the citation given in Ryrie’s 3rd edition (2007) on pp. 46-47. Here Ryrie is demonstrating one of the three ’sine qua non’(s) of Dispensationalists, namely this one being a separate distinction between God’s program for Israel and God’s program for the Church. There were additional comments by Chafer cited here, so it’s possible that you may have read him wrong here, but they don’t seem relevant. Here I would not see a problem of a dualism in Dispensationalism (previously, I was thinking that your charge of dualism in dispensationalism was referring to the gaffe that Scofield made about two ways of salvation that was charged against dispensationalism in years past– this was an old charge that has been answered years ago) as dispensationalism is doxological, rather than soteriological as I would see CT as being. This is very important, IMHO, as I think that you should read Ryrie (pp. 47 & 48) on the doxological aspects of dispensationalism and its focus on understanding God’s purpose in expressing His glory is not just the salvation of men through Christ. This seems reductive as it seems that CT relies on one aspect (salvation of men) as being the purpose of the whole glory of God.

You are right that I need to read those books sometime. It would be beneficial, in understanding dispensationalists more.

As far as the quotation is concerned, it was cited in Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today (1965 edition), pg. 45. He gets the quote from Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Dispensationalism (Dallas: Seminary Press, 1936), pg. 107. Ryrie’s quote starts with the section I quoted, then after some ellipses, it adds another paragraph or so. Nothing in the context as quoted in Ryrie indicates this is wrested from the context.

In fact, Ryrie quotes it under his discussion of the threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism. The first being a separation of Israel and the church. He quotes Daniel Fuller (his doctoral dissertation: “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism”, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957: pg. 25)on that point as follows, “the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity”. Then a few sentences later he gives the Chafer quote. This is the essence of dispensationalism he claims (along with literal or plain hermeneutics and then the assertion that God’s single purpose in everything is His Glory not Salvation). That last point is very egregiously wrong in my book. If you read CT people they are the ones championing God’s Glory. How is the salvation of a redeemed people from all races antithetical to God’s Glory? But I won’t get into that here.

Oh, and forgive me for not having finished your paper that you did on this recently. I started it, and want to give it my full attention, so I put it off, and then forgot about it. I will pick it up soon.

Waiting for that “konk” on the head!!

Bob

Well, keep in mind that Progressive Dispensationalists have their weaknesses in their arguments as well (from a ‘classical dispensationalist’ view) where their arguments rest on the idea of a ‘kingdom now’ where Christ is supposedly reigning in heaven currently. Classical dispensationalists assert that Christ’s role in heaven now is His preistly role, not his kingdom role. Despite this difference between progressive vs. classical, progressives do still hold a premillennial view and reject covenantalism. This seems to be emphasized among classical dispensationalists, although I’m not sure that the progressive views are gaining any further momentum in the last decade. Fred Zaspel’s “New Covenant Theology” seems to be gaining some adherents, and surprisingly it holds to a premillennial viewpoint while making itself to be somewhat Covenantalist. I believe that Fred is a ‘mid-tribulationist’ as far as the rapture is concerned, similar to Rosenthal’s view. I would have expected NCT to be more premillennial, but rejecting the view that the ‘rapture’ would occur.

As far as the ‘dualist’ view that dispensationalists assert (you cited Chafer) is concerned, I believe that Ryrie had addressed this in his 2nd edition, if my memory serves me right (I’ll look it up in Ryrie’s book). I’m not sure if you are actually quoting Chafer, or summarizing, but I’d be interested to see the context in which he makes this statement. I think that would be important since I think you might better understand that this ‘dualistic’ view isn’t as inconsistent as it seems on the surface.

As far as what you had learned when you were once a ‘dispensationalist’, I can understand the need to further your studies about dispensationalism. While in seminary, I did read books and articles by covenantalists (usually the Amillennialists or Covenantal Premillennialists) such as Poythress, Sproul, and Marlowe (and others). I’d urge you to consider reading the two books that I had mentioned above. As well, I will see to it to obtain Robertson’s book as well (although it is not an extensive theological handbook of Covenant Theology).

As far as arguing the quick and dirty points of dispensationalism versus covenantalism, I’m not one who is much engaged in the debate. It just doesn’t stir me as much as the cessationist vs. continuationist debate or the KJV-only debate. I can only say that when we are caught up in the rapture (if the Lord tarries), I’ll guarantee that I’ll konk you on the back of your newly created eternal body’s head and tell you “I TOLD YOU SO!”……