# Four systems compared Questions.....



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 19, 2004)

Hello PastorWay 

Got a few questions.

You write:

19. Salvation of OT Saints 

DISP - [b:b231775cd5]Some saved by works[/b:b231775cd5] 
PD - Same as CT 
CT - All who are saved are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone 
NCT - Same as CT 

Where do you get this from ? I hear this charge often and have went to current dispensationalist writers to see if the charge is true.

It is NOT. Ryrie deals directly with this charge in his revised edition of [i:b231775cd5]Dispensationalism[/i:b231775cd5] in Chapter 6, starting at page 105. On pages 106 and 107, he writes the following:

Undoubtedly, the charge persists because dispensationalists have made unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today's debate. Antidispensationalist are never quick to allow for refinement in the statements of dispensationalism, particularly if it dulls their attack. Scofield did write, &quot;The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvaiton, but acceptance or rejection of Christ.&quot; (SRB, 1909, p. 1115 n. 2) But Scofield also wrote some other things, and what would he write today if he were alive and answering present-day critics of dispensationalism ? The [i:b231775cd5]New Scofield Bible[/i:b231775cd5] clarified the note:

[quote:b231775cd5]Under the former dispensation, the law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal. 2:21-22). Prior to the cross man's salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3), being grounded on Chrit's atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by God...; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are reiceved by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior.&quot; (NSRB, 1124, f. 2). [/quote:b231775cd5]

Not so incidentally, nondispensationalists have made a few unguarded statements themselves about salvation under the Mosaic Law. Oswald Allis wrote, &quot;The Law is a declaration of the will of God for man's salvation.&quot; (Propecy and the Church, p. 39) Louis Berkhof wrote in one place, &quot;Grace offers escape from the law as a condition of salvation,&quot; and in another place, &quot;From the law...both as a means of obtaining etrnal life and as a condemning power believers are set free in Christ.&quot; (Systematic, Banner of Truth edition, pp. 291 and 614) If, as these covenant theologians [i:b231775cd5]clearly[/i:b231775cd5] state, the law was a means of salvation and of obtaining eternal life, then covenant theologians must teach two ways of salvation - one by law and one through Christ!

However, though these unguarded statements by covenant writers indicate two ways of salvation, we know full well that covenant theology insists on a single way of salvation , [i:b231775cd5]and it would be unfair to insist or imply otherwise.[/i:b231775cd5] Similarly, antidispensationalists who seize one one unguarded statement of Scofield's out to have the same consideration and not leave people with the wrong impression. Dispensationalism does [i:b231775cd5]not[/i:b231775cd5] teach two ways of salvation, and there have been sufficient statements by dispensationalists to prove this fact. Let the opponents be fair and present the entire picture.

The positive teaching of dispensational writers is that salvation is always through God's grace. Chafer asserted this position clearly:
[quote:b231775cd5]
Are thre two ways by which one may be saved ? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific charachter is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. [b:b231775cd5]This is to assert that God never saved anyone one person or group of persons on any other round than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is, therefore, but ONE WAY to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ.&quot;[/b:b231775cd5] (Chafer, &quot;Inventing Heretics Through Misunderstanding&quot;, BibSac 102, January 1945, p. 1, emphasis mine)[/quote:b231775cd5]
Ryrie, Dispensationalism (1994 Edition), pp. 106-108



That's question #1.

Question #2 - 

28. Millennial Reign 

DISP - Literal thousand years on earth - pre-mil 
PD - Same as DISP 
CT - Millennial reign is figurative for the current age - amil, some post-mil, a few historic pre-mil 
NCT - Same as CT 

You forgot to mention that there are some Covenant theologians such as G.E. Ladd and Spurgeon who held to a literal millennium. The author of http://www.messiahskingdom.com is a former PCA elder who is also historic premill (futurist). 

Also in relation to question # 20 - what do you mean by 'sin-bearer' ?

#25 and 26 disturb me, especially since as a former normative dispensationalist (my old pastor sat under Ryrie), I was taught a threefold division of the law - Civic, ceremonial and moral. Civic law was specific to Israel and their direct situations (i.e.- the eye for an eye, destruction of property laws, stoning laws) and as such, have no bearing on the church today, though they can be applied to modern analagous situations, ceremonial laws were the temple laws which were all fulfilled in Christ at His sacrifice - [i:b231775cd5]perfectly[/i:b231775cd5] so that they no longer need to be repeated and the moral laws (i.e.- death penalty, prohibitions on homosexuality) are still applicable to the believer today.

As far back as I can remember, I've never seen anything in Dispensational literature which stated that if a law isn't repeated in the NT, it's not binding on the believer (though I [b:b231775cd5]have[/b:b231775cd5] heard that argument from a covenant person).

Looking for clarification, brother.:bs2:

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by OS_X]

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by OS_X]


----------



## raderag (Apr 19, 2004)

Have you ever read Scofields description of the 'seven dispensations'? How about his commentary to exodus?

He clearly states that OT faith is obedience to the law.

[Edited on 4-19-2004 by raderag]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:26a307361d][i:26a307361d]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:26a307361d]
Hello PastorWay 

Got a few questions.

You write:

19. Salvation of OT Saints 

DISP - [b:26a307361d]Some saved by works[/b:26a307361d] 
PD - Same as CT 
CT - All who are saved are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone 
NCT - Same as CT 

Where do you get this from ? I hear this charge often and have went to current dispensationalist writers to see if the charge is true.[/quote:26a307361d]

I did get this from reading Scofield. Especially his work on Exodus.

You even noted: &quot;Scofield did write, &quot;The point of testing is no longer [u:26a307361d]legal obedience as the condition of salvaiton[/u:26a307361d], but acceptance or rejection of Christ.&quot; (SRB, 1909, p. 1115 n. 2) 

[quote:26a307361d]
Question #2 - 

28. Millennial Reign 

DISP - Literal thousand years on earth - pre-mil 
PD - Same as DISP 
CT - Millennial reign is figurative for the current age - amil, some post-mil, [b:26a307361d]a few historic pre-mil[/b:26a307361d] 
NCT - Same as CT 

You forgot to mention that there are some Covenant theologians such as G.E. Ladd and Spurgeon who held to a literal millennium. The author of http://www.messiahskingdom.com is a former PCA elder who is also historic premill (futurist). [/quote:26a307361d]

See the [b:26a307361d]BOLD[/b:26a307361d] section above under CT!

[quote:26a307361d]Also in relation to question # 20 - what do you mean by 'sin-bearer' ?[/quote:26a307361d]

That Christ would have to bear our sins to redeem us. Isaiah especially is full of this imagery of the Messiah. 

[quote:26a307361d]
As far back as I can remember, I've never seen anything in Dispensational literature which stated that if a law isn't repeated in the NT, it's not binding on the believer (though I [b:26a307361d]have[/b:26a307361d] heard that argument from a covenant person).[/quote:26a307361d]

This is the standard Dispensational understanding of the relation of the NT to the Law. I was taught this all my life growing up in a dispie church and even taught it until I left dispensationalism years ago.

Hope that helps.
Phillip

[Edited on 4-19-04 by pastorway]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 20, 2004)

Thanks for writing back so quick. 

So hold up.... why do you then put the emphasis on Scofield's apparent teaching of two ways of salvation ? I know his Exodus stuff was kinda loopy, even though at other times he contradicted that and claimed only ONE way of salvation (gotta go digging for a Scofield). 

And every dispensationalist I've ever known of believes that Isaiah 53 paints Christ as the sin bearer. Where do you get that dispensationalism does not teach this ?

On the OT law issue, where's your documentation on the teaching that NT believers don't have to keep any OT law that is not repeated in the NT ?

I'm mainly asking (again) because I was taught something different and read something different in my coming up (and I was a regular dispensationalist from 88 pretty much until last year when I started challenging some things).


----------



## pastorway (Apr 20, 2004)

[quote:4408651a85][i:4408651a85]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:4408651a85]
Thanks for writing back so quick. 

So hold up.... why do you then put the emphasis on Scofield's apparent teaching of two ways of salvation ? I know his Exodus stuff was kinda loopy, even though at other times he contradicted that and claimed only ONE way of salvation (gotta go digging for a Scofield). [/quote:4408651a85]

You need to undestand that this chart is not all-inclusive but helps give a snap shot of the different systems of theology. I gleaned parts of this chart from the internet and added to it several new aspects and the whole section on Progressive Dispensationalism. So not everyone in a given system will agree with everything in the chart. 

Early, classic dospensationalism did teach that OT saints were saved by obedience to the Law. They could not have been saved by grace, for they were not in the dospensation of grace, but law.

[quote:4408651a85]And every dispensationalist I've ever known of believes that Isaiah 53 paints Christ as the sin bearer. Where do you get that dispensationalism does not teach this ?[/quote:4408651a85]

Some do, some do not.

[quote:4408651a85]On the OT law issue, where's your documentation on the teaching that NT believers don't have to keep any OT law that is not repeated in the NT ?[/quote:4408651a85] 

Again, I was taught this. And John MacArthur teaches it in the notes in his study Bible. Swindoll teaches it. DTS teaches it. I have never heard a Dispensational not hold to this, so your experience is new to me! (I was a Dispensational until about 7 years ago.....)

Phillip


----------



## cupotea (Apr 20, 2004)

Pastorway, I have an additional question or two. Is this thread available for all questions regarding the four systems, or would you like for me to initiate a new thread?

Thanks.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 20, 2004)

Ask a Way.......


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 20, 2004)

[img:ec8651f0e5]http://theologicallycorrect.com/expressions/hah.gif[/img:ec8651f0e5] @ 'Ask A Way'

Which notes in MacArthur's study Bible ? I have my copy here.

In some aspects, I still have a softspot for my dispensational brethren, and I don't like to see the system misrepresented. I find a lot of that in some CT material and it bothers me. And the majority of the time, it's the same re-hashed arguments against [b:ec8651f0e5]classic[/b:ec8651f0e5] dispensationalism that are repeated, versus the [b:ec8651f0e5]modified[/b:ec8651f0e5] period (1950-2000, which includes Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost and others) where some of the mistakes in the classic period were corrected. So to say 'dispensationalism teaches blah blah blah' isn't a fully accurate statement.

And while we make it our aim to study (for example) Rome's view in order to refute their best arguments, I don't see the same treatment given to dispensationalism. I can cite three books against dispensationalism that barely cite anything beyond Ryrie's 1960's era book on the subject and some of them were written in the late 90's - after Ryrie had already revised his older edition.

You understand where I'm comin' from ?


----------



## pastorway (Apr 20, 2004)

I hear ya! I initially put the chart together to offer a fair view of the systems because so much of what I was seeing out there was not fair in their presentation of opposing views. 

Overall, I think from my own background, that this is a fair view of dispenationalism. 

As to MacArthur, check out his notes on the Sabbath on Acts 20:7 where he writes that one of the reasons for Christians not keeping the Sabbath in that &quot;2) there is no NT command to keep the Sabbath.&quot; In his note on Exodus 20:8 he writes, &quot;Significantly the command for the Sabbath is not repeated in the New Testament, whereas the other 9 are. In fact, it is nullified (Col 2:16-17).&quot;

Note: I agree with MacArthur that the believer is not bound to observe the Sabbath by keeping one day in seven, but I do not agree with all the reasons he gives to get to this understanding. I agree with him when he goes on to show that Rom 14 and Col 2:16-17 give us a new fulfillment of the law, but I disagree that the law itself has been repealed or &quot;nullified&quot;. I believe the command is still in force and we keep the command by resting in Christ from the works of the flesh.

But his reasoning is that since it is not repeated in the NT (like the other 9 are) then it is not binding.

I am not positive the reference, but I believe he goes into some detail on this in his commentary series about how we are only required to keep the OT laws that are repeated in the NT. I think it is in his commentaires on Matthew, Galatians, and Colossians.

Phillip


----------



## Len (Apr 20, 2004)

Hey OS-X - I knew that avatar was familiar. I've been to Mrs. Staples' forum (as a lurker) and I finally put the dots together.

I'm curious - have you read Vern Poythress' book [i:8f77d77a3c]Understanding Dispensationalists[/i:8f77d77a3c]? If you have I'd love to hear your opinion, because I know he mentions some of the issues you've raised as far as consistency within the dispensational camp. It's certainly a difficult system to pin down because it's hardly monolithic.

Kudos on the chart, Pastor Way. :thumbup:


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

I second the kudos on the work you did, pastorway.

My question involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Realizing that your chart cannot be all-inclusive of every nuance of the different systems, I was still quite surprised by your information under Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Raised Dispensationalist and TRYING to come to an understanding of Covenant Theology :help: I was taught to believe that in the OT the Holy Spirit would &quot;come upon&quot; and indwell prophets, and then when the job was done, so to speak, He would leave. It was only after Pentecost that the Holy Spirit comes upon and indwells forever.

Have I been taught improperly?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Newly,
One of the ideas to consider are, are men saved differently in the NT than they were in the OT? If not, what are the characteristics of salvation? Does it include, being filled w/ Gods Spirit? The idea of different dispensations opens up a large can of worms. 

This verse speaks volumes:
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 

Implying that Gods Spirit indeed &quot;strived&quot; with men (even) in the OT.

&quot;So Pharaoh asked them, &quot;Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is The Spirit of God?&quot; Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, &quot;Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one so discerning and wise as you.&quot; (Genesis 41:38-39)

&quot;The Lord said to Moses, &quot;Bring Me seventy of Israel's elders who are known to you as leaders and officials among the people. Have them come to The Tent Of Meeting, that they may stand there with you. I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of The Spirit that is on you and put The Spirit on them. They will help you carry the burden of the people so you will not have to carry it alone.&quot; (Numbers 11:16-17)

&quot;So The Lord said to Moses, &quot;Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is The Spirit, and lay your hand on him.&quot; (Numbers 27:18) 

&quot;The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of The Almighty gives me life.&quot; (Job 33:4)

&quot;When you send Your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.&quot; (Psalm 104:30)

&quot;Surely your God is The God of gods and The Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery ... I know that The Spirit of The Holy God is in you.&quot; (Daniel 2:47, 4:9) 

Num 24:2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. 

Jdg 3:9 And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. 
Jdg 3:10 And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim. 

1Sa 10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man. 


Exo 31:2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 
Exo 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 


David writes:
&quot;Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. &quot;


Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him? 


Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 


Hope this helps.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 21, 2004)

We discussed this in some detail in an earlier thread found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=933 

Phillip


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

My apologies. I am, as my username indicates, relatively new to the Doctrines of Grace and most especially to Covenant Theology, having been staunchly dispie until the last year.

That said, pastorway, I read that thread. And unless my reading comprehension skills have flagged in the last few days, doulousChristou seems to be describing what I asked in a way that agreed with me.

Did I misread?

[quote:bf437e78e9]&quot;Old Testament saints were regenerated, justified and in the kingdom of God before Calvary. Yet, it is clear that they never experienced the full realization of the indwelling and putting within them of the Spirit of God (see Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 36:26-27.). The fulfillment of such Old Testament prophesies awaited the new and better covenant which Jesus established (see Heb. 7:22; 8:7-13). The &quot;new&quot; or &quot;something better&quot; about the New Covenant pertains not only to Christ's advent, but also to the Holy Spirit's coming at Pentecost. What is the difference between the experience of the Old and New Covenant believer? It is corporate, spiritual union with the resurrected, exalted Christ by virtue of the initiatory act of baptism with the Holy Spirit into Christ's body, the church. If Spirit baptism did not occur until the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost and if no one can belong to Christ under the New Covenant administration of the Spirit without the Spirit of God permanently indwelling him, how could the Old Covenant believer have been saved? ANSWER: They were regenerated individually and had received the benefits of the New Covenant promisorily, that is, based upon the promise but not yet upon historical fulfillment. They had not received the benefit of Spirit baptism, including permanent Spirit indwelling and sealing, as a result of Christ's accomplished redemption, but they had received the benefit by promise. The experiential fulfillment awaited the accomplishment of the crosswalk of Christ and the historical inauguration of the New Covenant.&quot; (p.338) [Gary D. Long, Context! (Charleston, SC: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2001).] [/quote:bf437e78e9]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:e71bef2e04][i:e71bef2e04]Originally posted by Newly Reformed[/i:e71bef2e04]
I second the kudos on the work you did, pastorway.

My question involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Realizing that your chart cannot be all-inclusive of every nuance of the different systems, I was still quite surprised by your information under Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Raised Dispensationalist and TRYING to come to an understanding of Covenant Theology :help: I was taught to believe that in the OT the Holy Spirit would &quot;come upon&quot; and indwell prophets, and then when the job was done, so to speak, He would leave. It was only after Pentecost that the Holy Spirit comes upon and indwells forever.

Have I been taught improperly? [/quote:e71bef2e04]

Thank you for bringing this up, Suzanne. I have a quote from Paul Enns (Moody Handbook of Theology - dispensationalist). *I* was taught and still believe (as he does and as I believe the scriptures teach) that in the OT, the Spirit of God came upon men for the purpose of SERVICE and (as you have said), when done, the Spirit departed. 

I think what SOME dispensationalists have done is taken the departure of the Spirit to mean that in the OT, man never had the Spirit indwelling on a permanent basis at all. Enns rightly points out (and I can post the quote when I get home) that folks were regenerated in the OT the same as the NT (and I believe Ezekiel 11 and 36 bear this out, as well as Jesus' comments in John 3). As far as [i:e71bef2e04]service[/i:e71bef2e04], the Spirit of God did not rest upon believers in the OT permanently. As far as salvation, the Spirit does and did dwell with believers permanently (otherwise, salvation would be impossible).


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

Thank you very much, Kerry. That's a much better explanation. I am curious, however, as to your system of belief at this time. Are you still Dispensationalist or now Covenant?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Kerry,
You write:
&quot;As far as service, the Spirit of God did not rest upon believers in the OT permanently. As far as salvation, the Spirit does and did dwell with believers permanently (otherwise, salvation would be impossible).&quot;

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, [color=Red:5015c83b04]the gospel of your salvation[/color:5015c83b04]: in whom also after that ye believed, [color=Blue:5015c83b04]ye were sealed with that holy Spirit [/color:5015c83b04]of promise, 

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, [color=Red:5015c83b04]preached before the gospel [/color:5015c83b04]unto [color=Blue:5015c83b04]Abraham[/color:5015c83b04], saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed

See Hebrews ch 11 as support for the premise that salvation has come to men in 1 way, whether old or new, and in fact the elements and characteristics have never changed.

You add:
&quot;As far as service, the Spirit of God did not rest upon believers in the OT permanently.&quot;

How is this supported? Did you look at the passages I posed.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

*Quick thread hijack*

Scott, you emailed me the password for the Ladies Forum, but it didn't work. Did you get my return email in re that?

*thread hijack off*


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Look up!
U2U Suzanne!

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:733e42652a]How is this supported? Did you look at the passages I posed. [/quote:733e42652a]

Hi Scott, I think I know where OS X is coming from, although I certainly won't speak for him. 

My question arose from scriptures that indicate the &quot;coming upon&quot; of the Spirit of God when prophets would prophesy, and I believe that OS X was speaking of that when he indicated &quot;service&quot;. 

Ahhh, thanks, I see it. I'll do as you suggested.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Suzanne,
What scripture?


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

Zounds! I knew you were going to ask me that.

[quote:e008edf121]1Sa 19:20 And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing [as] appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.[/quote:e008edf121]

[quote:e008edf121]2Ch 15:1 And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded:[/quote:e008edf121]

[quote:e008edf121]2Ch 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.[/quote:e008edf121]

Oh, and your suggestion worked! Thanks so much!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Suzanne,
There is a thing that occured in the OT which does not occur any longer; Theocratic anointings. This is not to say that in every example that you find in the OT where the scriptures say, &quot;and the Spirit of God came upon/was with/filled, whomever&quot; was necessarily a theocratic anointing in every event, as seen in the many passages I provided, the Spirit was assuredly amongst Gods people. But, in the cases where it was theocratic, and God was filling an individual, i.e. David, Ezekiel etc, these were anointings of a special kind. They were used to establish certain things in Israels history, in Gods economy, an economy that has essentially been completed.

This passage from Hebrews speaks volumes:

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 

We now have the scriptures; there is no need for God to speak audibly or annoint someone with any messages.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 

Implying that Gods Spirit indeed &quot;strived&quot; with men (even) in the OT.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:3d1dfde930][i:3d1dfde930]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:3d1dfde930]
Not so incidentally, nondispensationalists have made a few unguarded statements themselves about salvation under the Mosaic Law. Oswald Allis wrote, &quot;The Law is a declaration of the will of God for man's salvation.&quot; (Propecy and the Church, p. 39) Louis Berkhof wrote in one place, &quot;Grace offers escape from the law as a condition of salvation,&quot; and in another place, &quot;From the law...both as a means of obtaining etrnal life and as a condemning power believers are set free in Christ.&quot; (Systematic, Banner of Truth edition, pp. 291 and 614) If, as these covenant theologians [i:3d1dfde930]clearly[/i:3d1dfde930] state, the law was a means of salvation and of obtaining eternal life, then covenant theologians must teach two ways of salvation - one by law and one through Christ!

However, though these unguarded statements by covenant writers indicate two ways of salvation, we know full well that covenant theology insists on a single way of salvation , [i:3d1dfde930]and it would be unfair to insist or imply otherwise.[/i:3d1dfde930] 
[/quote:3d1dfde930]

I think this needs some clarification. These statements aren't ungaurded at all. They are true. There are two ways to inherit eternal life. The Cov. of Works (or law) and the Cov. of Grace. That is what Cov. Theology is all about. Adam failed to inherit eternal life for us in the Cov. of Works thereby shutting the door to that way. Instead Christ fulfill the Cov. of Works (both the righteous requirements of the law and the curse of the law) for his people and serves as the mediator of the Cov. of Grace. Perfect righteousness or obedience to the law is required for salvation. The issue is, are you trying to earn it yourself (Cov. of works)? Or recieve it freely and completely in Christ (Cov. of grace)?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## JWJ (Apr 23, 2004)

[/quote]

&quot;There are two ways to inherit eternal life. The Cov. of Works (or law) and the Cov. of Grace.&quot; [/quote]

Question for all: Yes this is a loaded and tricky question: Was the intent or design of the COW for man to inherit eternal life?


Let's spice things up now by adding a qualifier--- Was the intent or design of the COW for man (i.e., the first man, Adam) to inherit eternal life?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2004)

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 


No. Adam had eternal life. The garden was not temporary. Sin caused death.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:ad6b3f18e1][i:ad6b3f18e1]Originally posted by JWJ[/i:ad6b3f18e1]
[/quote:ad6b3f18e1]

&quot;There are two ways to inherit eternal life. The Cov. of Works (or law) and the Cov. of Grace.&quot; [/quote]

Question for all: Yes this is a loaded and tricky question: Was the intent or design of the COW for man to inherit eternal life?


Let's spice things up now by adding a qualifier--- Was the intent or design of the COW for man (i.e., the first man, Adam) to inherit eternal life? [/quote]
Here's a tricky answer. Yes and No 
Adam was obligated to obey because of his covenant obligations, and would be rewarded because God condescended to make that covenant with him and make the conditions and promises. But the intent in light of God's soveriegnty was to provide the structure for redemption through Christ, which would allow God to be just and the justifier of those who believe. The Cov. of works allows the work of a substitute.


----------



## JWJ (Apr 23, 2004)

Scott,

I guess I never heard one say Adam had eternal life. Obviously the way you use eternal life for Adam pre Fall is not the same as the eternal life we have and will have in Christ?

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2004)

Exactly. As I posted, I considered qualifying the statement.
Eternal life, but not in the heavenly sense that we will experience.


----------



## JWJ (Apr 23, 2004)

Puritansailor,

I agree. Though in one sense one could say that the intent of COW was not for the first Adam (man) to inherit eternal life but rather the second Adam (the God-man, Jesus Christ).

JWJ


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 23, 2004)

&lt;warning&gt;mild sarcasm in the form of a real question approaching&lt;/warning&gt;

[quote:91ae48805e][i:91ae48805e]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:91ae48805e]These statements aren't ungaurded at all. They are true. There are two ways to inherit eternal life. The Cov. of Works (or law) and the Cov. of Grace. [/quote:91ae48805e]


So Covenant theology teaches two ways of salvation ?

And where is this 'covenant of works' in scripture ?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by OS_X]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 23, 2004)

Matt 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, &quot;Good[5] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?&quot; 
17So He said to him, &quot;Why do you call Me good?[6] No one is good but One, that is, God.[7] [b:38c754fbd2]But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.&quot; [/b:38c754fbd2]
18He said to Him, &quot;Which ones?&quot; 
Jesus said, &quot;&quot;You shall not murder,' &quot;You shall not commit adultery,' &quot;You shall not steal,' &quot;You shall not bear false witness,' 19&quot;Honor your father and your mother,'[8] and, &quot;You shall love your neighbor as yourself.&quot;'[9] 
20The young man said to Him, &quot;All these things I have kept from my youth.[10] What do I still lack?&quot; 
21Jesus said to him, &quot;If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.&quot; 
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2004)

Kerry,
I think you have misunderstood Patrick. Under CT, there is only one way men are saved. However, the scripture reference for the C.o W. is :

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. i.e. Do this and live.

Read :
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/WitsiusDecalogueCovenant.htm

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:8fd647489f][i:8fd647489f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:8fd647489f]
Suzanne,
There is a thing that occured in the OT which does not occur any longer; Theocratic anointings. This is not to say that in every example that you find in the OT where the scriptures say, &quot;and the Spirit of God came upon/was with/filled, whomever&quot; was necessarily a theocratic anointing in every event, as seen in the many passages I provided, the Spirit was assuredly amongst Gods people. But, in the cases where it was theocratic, and God was filling an individual, i.e. David, Ezekiel etc, these were anointings of a special kind. They were used to establish certain things in Israels history, in Gods economy, an economy that has essentially been completed.

This passage from Hebrews speaks volumes:

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 

We now have the scriptures; there is no need for God to speak audibly or annoint someone with any messages.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 

Implying that Gods Spirit indeed &quot;strived&quot; with men (even) in the OT.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:8fd647489f]


Scott, I think you're confusing two different categories of work by the Spirit here. The work of the Spirit in REGENERATION is different from the work of the Spirit in EMPOWERING for service (whether it be prophesying, proclamation of the Word, etc....). You are confusing the two categories. They are NOT synonymous.

I would agree that these fillings were of a special kind, but not so 'special' that they were [i:8fd647489f]extremely[/i:8fd647489f] rare occurences. We know that at the time of Jesus, two people (Simeon and Anna - Luke 2:25-38) were spoken of as having the Spirit of God come rest upon them for a specific purpose, just like in the OT when the Spirit rested upon Saul [b:8fd647489f]for a time[/b:8fd647489f] and then [i:8fd647489f]departed[/i:8fd647489f] (1 Sam. 16:14). 

Suzanne, I officially peg myself as a little past progressive dispensational and close to covenant. 

http://theologicallycorrect.com/doctrinal.shtml

This is why David would pray in (for example, Ps. 51) that God [i:8fd647489f]not[/i:8fd647489f] take His Spirit from him. The NT promise is that the Spirit would rest with all believers - forever.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2004)

Kerry,
Show me. Present the scriptures. What you pose is dispensational to the core.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:1b45b0f97c][i:1b45b0f97c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:1b45b0f97c]
Kerry,
I think you have misunderstood Patrick. Under CT, there is only one way men are saved. However, the scripture reference for the C.o W. is :

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. i.e. Do this and live. [/quote:1b45b0f97c]


What is a 'covenant' ? That would be the first thing to establish before calling this any type of 'covenant' in the first place (whether CoW or Edenic).

And I don't think I misunderstood Patrick. His own follow-up post actually confirms the question I partially tongue-in-cheek asked earlier. I think this is one of those 'ungaurded statements' that Ryrie was talking about.

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by OS_X]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:fc51f566fb][i:fc51f566fb]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:fc51f566fb]
Kerry,
Show me. Present the scriptures. What you pose is dispensational to the core. [/quote:fc51f566fb]


Uhhhh.... look up. I cited the references. 

As a side note, what things do you think are RIGHT in dispensationalism ?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by OS_X]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2004)

Kerry,
Here is the passage:
&quot;Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 
Luk 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 
Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 
Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 
Luk 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 
Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 
Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 
Luk 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. 
Luk 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 
Luk 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 
Luk 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.&quot;

How do you see this as anything different from what occured after the cross? 

How are the scriptures previously posed (and this one) any different from what is given to the NT saint?

You ask:
&quot;As a side note, what things do you think are RIGHT in dispensationalism?&quot;

I disagree with most dispensationalism. I do agree with the central Christian ideas. 


You also mention 1 Sam 16:14......
The question remains, was Saul even saved. The passages in Romans ch 1 sure look like they could be qualified here in this case. Otherwise, you will hard pressed to find another supportive example.



[Edited on 4-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:c1d124b6de][i:c1d124b6de]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:c1d124b6de]
[quote:c1d124b6de][i:c1d124b6de]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:c1d124b6de]
Kerry,
I think you have misunderstood Patrick. Under CT, there is only one way men are saved. However, the scripture reference for the C.o W. is :

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. i.e. Do this and live. [/quote:c1d124b6de]


What is a 'covenant' ? That would be the first thing to establish before calling this any type of 'covenant' in the first place (whether CoW or Edenic).

And I don't think I misunderstood Patrick. His own follow-up post actually confirms the question I partially tongue-in-cheek asked earlier. I think this is one of those 'ungaurded statements' that Ryrie was talking about.

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by OS_X] [/quote:c1d124b6de]
You did misread. There are two ways described in Scripture, but I said in my first post that this way was shut to us due to Adam's failure to keep the covenant of works. But the question the rich man asked was not &quot;how do I receive eternal life&quot; but &quot;what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?&quot; Christ answered his question according to the standard the man was trying to obtain eternal life, through works. The rich man had to follow the law perfectly, which no man can do any longer. Adam and Christ were the only two who could do it, and Christ is the only one who did do it. We are saved by works, just not by our works. We are saved by the work of Christ. Christ showed him the absolute standard required to earn eternal life, 1) to show him that he couldn't do it at all, 2) to show him he must look to another to fulfill those perfect requirements for him.


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:80a373ef28]
And I don't think I misunderstood Patrick. His own follow-up post actually confirms the question I partially tongue-in-cheek asked earlier. I think this is one of those 'ungaurded statements' that Ryrie was talking about. 
[/quote:80a373ef28]

There is nothing &quot;unguarded&quot; about Patrick's statement nor in Berkhof's. This is truth, as says the scriptures: &quot;[i:80a373ef28]if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[/i:80a373ef28]&quot; Not only is there no salvation apart from works, but those works must be absolutely flawless, for a violation of one of the commandments makes guilty of the whole law, as says the scriptures: &quot;for whosever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.[/i]&quot;

It is because of this truth that I am so thankful for the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ! He has obeyed perfectly. His perfect obedience is accounted to the elect for righteousness. His people are saved by His works.

In the words of Augustus Toplady,
&quot;_The terrors of law and of God
with me can have nothing to do;
my Saviour's obedience and blood
hide all my transgressions from view.&quot;

[Edited on 4-24-2004 by Dan....]_


----------



## cupotea (Apr 23, 2004)

I am so struggling with Covenant theology. This is really making me think.

Thanks to you all.


----------

